Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Good article review)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed on this page for discussion and are closed according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, and community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a previous delisting or fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.

Before attempting to have any article de-listed through reassessment, take these steps:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix, if the templates will help reviewers find the problems. For example, it may be helpful to add a {{Verify credibility}} tag after a source you think is dubious. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing.
  4. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.edit guidelines

Individual reassessment

When to use this process
  • Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria.
  • Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
  • If you have delisted the same article before, are a major contributor, or delisting could be seen as controversial consider requesting a community reassessment.
  • Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself.
How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page.
  2. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page.
  3. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number.
  4. Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script), relevant WikiProjects for the article and, if recently GA reviewed, the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. (replace ArticleName with "the article name" and n with "1" for community reassessment, or with "2" for individual reassessment)
  5. If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at Wikipedia:Good articles, remove {{Good article}} from the article, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page (see example). Also change any project assessments on the talk page.
  6. If you decide the article has improved enough to now meet the criteria you can keep it as a Good article. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page.

Community reassessment

When to use this process

If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, first consider trying to reassess the article yourself (through an individual reassessment). However use a community reassessment if

  • you are not confident in your ability to assess the article or believe that delisting the article will be seen as controversial.
  • you disagree with a delisting by another editor.
  • you disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. However, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate.

Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.

How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
  2. Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
  3. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer, major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script) and relevant WikiProjects for the article. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} on talk pages. (replace ArticleName with "the article name" and n with "1" for community reassessment, or with "2" for individual reassessment)

← (All archives) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 60) →

Articles needing review and possible reassessment[edit]

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

British Bangladeshi[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Unfortunately, this article has not been consistently updated since being listed as a GA. As a result, much of the data in the article is out-of-date, relying on the 2001 rather than the 2011 census, for example. There are also unsourced statements in the article and numerous grammatical errors. I have tried to find editors who will work with me to update the article, but no one has responded to my comments on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above, the article is now subject to some edit warring over the article title and the selection of images of notable people included in the infobox. I have suggested that the edit warriors could better direct their efforts towards improving the article content. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I intend to close this as no consensus next week. If you want a different ruling, see if you can get other participants. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
With no offence intended to you, DragonZero, it would kind of suck for this to be closed without anyone even offering a view, especially when there are clear issues with the article. Do you have any suggestions for where I could get other participants from? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried the parent projects. And it's been months, who else is going to come? As far as I know, I'm the only one closing community GARs for the past year or so. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just posted reminders about this at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for Bangladesh-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Hopefully that will attract some participants. Sorry to hear that you've been the only one dealing with these cases, DragonZero - it's not really fair for it all to fall on one person. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Boeing 787 Dreamliner[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The short review for this article which was done by AlanZhu314159265358979 (who has made just 28 mainspace edits) misses a number of errors, including some dead links, and as noted here by BlueMoonset, a number of prose errors. The article deserves a much more thorough review. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from BlueMoonset[edit]

It's clear that a great deal of work has gone into this article, and it deserved its B-class rating. The GA requirements are quite specific, however, and at the moment it does not meet some of these requirements, and therefore should not have been promoted.

I do not have time to do a thorough review, but there are clear issues with the first GA criterion, "Well-written". In particular, I've found a number of places where the "prose is clear and concise" and "spelling and grammar are correct" requirements are not met, and some significant departures from the manual of style with regard to the lead section.

1a. prose and grammar[edit]

Some examples of problematic sentences or phrases:

  • Manufacturing and suppliers subsection: "The 787 project became less lucrative than expected for some subcontractors. Finmeccanica had a total loss of €750 million on the project by 2013." This does not accurately reflect the source, which talks about Finmeccanica taking a writedown of that much, but does not specify when the writedown occurred, nor talk about any previous losses or whether profits had been booked earlier.
  • Pre-flight ground testing subsection: "As a result, some airlines reportedly delayed deliveries of 787s in order to take later planes that may be closer to the original estimates."
  • Flight text program subsection, end of sixth paragraph: "Following this incident, Boeing suspended flight testing on November 10, 2010, ground testing continued." Missing word(s) and/or punctuation problem.
  • Service entry and early operations subsection, paragraph 5: "Early operators discovered that if the APS5000 APU was shut down with the inlet door closed, heat continued to build up in the tail compartment and cause the rotor shaft to bow. It could take up to 2 hours for the shaft to straighten again. This was particularly acute on short haul flights as there was insufficient time to allow the unit to cool before a restart was needed." There is no explanation of what an "APU" is in the article, "cause" has grammatical problems, and "particularly acute" could have be referring to the heat, the shaft bowing, the shaft straightening out, or the time this last would take. The entire paragraph could be more clear.
  • Operational problems section: "After these incidents, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board subsequently opened a safety probe." Using both "After" and "subsequently" is redundant, and I think the "Later" starting the next sentence probably is as well. Also, a couple of paragraphs later, there's a tense issue with "Japan's transport ministry has also launched an investigation." This was in January 2013; "has also launched" is only correct if the investigation is still ongoing 27 months later. Is it?
  • Battery problems section, final sentence: "The NTSB has criticized FAA, Boeing and battery manufacturer for the faults, as well as the flight data recorder." They criticized the flight data recorder for the battery problems? This sentence is very unclear, and "Boeing and battery manufacturer" is also problematic.
  • There are also a number of places where the full date does not have a comma or other punctuation after the year; these should all be fixed, starting with "July 8, 2007" in the second paragraph of the intro.
1b. lead section[edit]

A number of non-trivial facts in the intro are nowhere to be found in the article, which is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. These include:

  • First paragraph: "most fuel-efficient"; "world's first major airliner to use composite materials as the primary material in the construction of its airframe"; "a four-panel windshield"; "a smoother nose contour"; and the entire "common type rating" sentence.
  • Second paragraph: the entire third and fourth sentences, from "At this time there were 677 aircraft on order" to the end of the paragraph.

All of these "Well-written" issues need to be addressed. If they aren't in a reasonable time period, probably the best thing to do would be to delist it; it can be renominated for GA once they have been—I'd recommend asking GOCE to check it, and maybe even request a peer review—and with any luck will get a thorough and competent review. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The "At this time" sentence follows a sentence with a date. This should be clear if read together. The extensive use of composites is stated and cited in the "Design phase" sub section and implied in the Design section later. I'll try to clarify and cite these better. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Fnlayson, I'm glad that someone's willing to take this on. Thanks. The point about "At this time" is that these are facts in the intro that are not in the rest of the article, a clear violation of WP:LEAD; Good Articles must adhere to the lead section guidelines. The problem is not what that time was—this is not a clarity issue, but a GA requirement issue. Thanks for the impending composites clarification; the key here is the " use composite materials as the primary material" statement, which would need sourcing to back up the "first" part as well as the "primary" part, though I seem to recall that "primary" was covered already. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand the Lead & cite issues. I was trying to address the well-written issues you mentioned above and in earlier sections of this review. But I see your point now and will work on it... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Jevons paradox[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article has more than half of it dedicated to the dispute of the potentially incorrect application of Jevons Paradox to energy efficiency (specifically fuel consumption), as though one or more individuals did not like what the paradox entails, and therefore dedicated more than half of the article to debunking/criticizing the application of the Jevons Paradox. The article subsequently gives substantial undue weight towards this argument, and also violates the NPOV guidelines. It is for these reasons why I do not believe Jevons Paradox can be listed as a good article, at least until these problems are addressed and corrected.

Temeku (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I think lot of problems have crept into this article since it was last reviewed. The position and placement of images seems quite messy now. The prose is also not clear. Sections such as Gunasthanas and Reception are not explained clearly. Also, there is undue weight given to the "Indus valley civilization" theory, which I do not think is a consensus among historians. I would like community opinion and review on whether this article still meets the Good Article criteria? Rahul (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the prose not being as clear, especially in later sections. I tried to clean up the Gunasthanas section and re-arranged some of the images to fit better with the text. The positive and negative criticism headings on the Reception section help. doctorrads (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (EST)

Jessica Alba[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Going through the article, I had removed 12 unreliable sources, most of them were from IMDb. Ref #14 isn't even a complete reference and there are 3 dead links. In the references, some names are wikilinked and others aren't, not consistent and some references are just the url and since this is a GA, all references need to be filled in completely. Some publishers are italicized when they shouldn't be and works aren't italicized when they should be. And the lead needs serious work, I don't consider that up to GA standards. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist per above, and how the article has no commentary from critics on her roles or quotes from Alba herself. It could also help to have director's commentary on films (see Mila Kunis as a good example). Some references like "Buzzsugar" and "Starpulse" aren't even reliable while dead links need to be checked. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Rape during the Rwandan Genocide[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This was passed as GA in mid-2014, with reviewers giving particular emphasis to what they thought was "very good" sourcing. However, I recently found no fewer than four quite serious issues of source misrepresentation in the article (explained in several sections on talk [1]), all of which were already present when the article was promoted. As these evidently slipped through the previous review, I believe the entire article is in need of systematic scrutiny. The most pressing need is, I believe, to check for remaining issues of overly WP:close paraphrasing, which from a cursory check appears to be pervasive. Fut.Perf. 09:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

In the references, there are 10 dead links and "work" and "publisher" should be uniform. Example: The Hollywood Reporter should be italicized, some are and some aren't. Some are linked when they shouldn't be and not even the first one is linked. Also, there are a few references that aren't filled in and as a GA, all references need to be completely filled in. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • 8 dead links
  • Unreliable references: IMDb, Daily Mail
  • Ref #28 isn't complete
  • Ref #36 isn't complete
  • Works and print publications should be italicized, publishers should not
  • Works and publishers should only be wikilinked once

LADY LOTUSTALK 11:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)