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, although 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: 59) →

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]

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly[edit]

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

It appears the article might have been passed accidentally. There is no actual review, and the edit summaries of the original GA review just state "is this how it's done?" I think there was some accidents made. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The promotion to GA-class was performed by me, and the review was not accidental. I just wasn't sure if I had done the review correctly. If anyone can provide me with advice on how to put up a proper review, please do, because, for the most part, the GBU article is of good quality. However, one area that does need improvement is the plot summary. Some people have been putting details that are somewhat excessive, but I feel that if I edit the plot summary further, I'll be dumbing it down and making it incohesive. Is anyone willing to take the job of editing the plot summary down? PatTheMoron (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pat, no big deal about the review, it just looks like there's no content there and to an average reviewer, no review! And the plot is pretty large as this is such a long film, but we could use a second or third pair of eyes on this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It's redeemable. I'd make sure the plot is 400–700 words long and add inline citations for the following:
  • Characters and descriptions
  • "A scene deleted by Leone after the Rome premiere was also re-inserted:..... After being betrayed by Blondie, surviving the desert on his way to civilization and assembling a good revolver from the parts of worn-out guns being sold at a general store, Tuco meets with members of his gang in a distant cave, where he conspires with them to hunt and kill Blondie."
  • "Lost footage of the missing Socorro Sequence where Tuco continues his search for Blondie in a Texican pueblo while Blondie is in a hotel room with a Mexican woman (Silvana Bacci) is reconstructed with photos and unfinished snippets from the French trailer. Also, in the documentary 'Reconstructing The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly', what looks to be footage of Tuco lighting cannons before the Ecstasy of Gold sequence appears briefly. None of these scenes or sequences appear in the 2004 re-release, however, but are in the supplementary features."
Shouldn't be too much work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Onassis[edit]

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

I am submitting this article for GAR as suggested by User:SNUGGUMS on the article's talk page who conducted the original review. I amended/fixed the article based on their insightful suggestions. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Promote after a couple of minor fixes - The issues SNUGGUMS discussed were gone. Just a couple more I found. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 18:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps adding the |death_cause= and |resting_place= parameters in the infobox
    • There are a lot of sentences starting with "Onassis" in the lead that makes it just sound weird
    • Perhaps mention Thyssen in the lead
    • Note Onassis's place of birth in the lead, not too specific, just the city or the state.
    • Did he die on scene or in hospital?
I've further amended it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Mars (mythology)[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
  • Has everyone not have the time for this one? Please review. Adamdaley (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Result pending

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment let alone a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delist: Unfortunately I don't think that this article (in its current state) completely meets the "verifiable with no original research" criterion at the moment as there are a number of sentences/areas that appear to be unreferenced. If references could be added where the nominator has marked with "cn" tags, I'd be more than happy to change my mind. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Omar Khadr[edit]

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

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment while it may meet a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave Lombardo[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • The article is composed substantially of gross copyright violations, which are composed mostly of grossly unencyclopedic text. It's made of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR trivia. The article's original GAN discussion consists of people naming which articles around the Internet that they were planning on plagiarizing. I'm fairly sure that it was never in any way a legitimate Good article. I have no experience in these matters, but I can't let it stand, so I invite others to take over. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist - There's a ton of unsourced content in the article, most notably the "Early years" section. Other parts are long meandering lists rather than well written prose. This GAN comes from 2007, when the standards were much looser. Article seems more like a current day C-class. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sleep hygiene[edit]

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

This is not Good Article level work in my view. See discussion Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Good_Articles_for_Grades. I started cleaning it up and SandyGeorgia did more. There are several places where writing still needs work (vague generalizations in lead); there are several sourcing issues; It is still new (can't call it stable yet. Please re-review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been working collaboratively with other wikipedia editors and reviewers for three weeks on this article, and will continue to be very responsive to feedback. I believe in providing readers with informative, broad, neutral, and well-researched coverage of any topic, and it is my priority to accomplish this with the current sleep hygiene article. I hope that we can work together to facilitate article improvement, instead of removing the good article status. Thank you. leslierrn (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, (1) I spent 8 hours today on the page responding to feedback. I did this to try to address reviewers concerns, although I did not realize that SandyGeorgia and Jytdog believed the GA status to be a fluke. I understand the situation, although I am of course disappointed by the way everything was dealt with. In defense of other PhD students, I think we are definitely capable of contributing meaningfully to wikipedia, and any messiness is not done out of carelessness. Constructive feedback can really help us improve our articles. If there is a way of salvaging content that took days to write, that would seem preferable to simply deleting sections. (2) There was also a lot of talk about my course's goal with this final project. To clarify, our grades were not at all dependent on achieving GA. I have been teaching sleep hygiene for years, so I thought that my content might be worth at least trying for GA - that's the reason I submitted. Also, our professor had great intentions with this final project. The point was to help translate scientific knowledge to a broader audience - I believe that getting students with expertise involved with Wikipedia is a great way to expand the available topics. I hope everyone can also see the value in that, even if they believe that the content it not perfect quality. I will let the wikipedia process take over from here. Leslierrn (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, Leslierrn. I have not had time in the last 24 hours to follow your edits, but I will do so as soon as possible (within one or two days). Your continued dedication to the article is admirable, and I'm sorry you were shortchanged on your earlier GA review. Please know that this process is slower, and it is unlikely that the article will lose GA status without a chance for continued improvement: you should get here at GAR the review that you should have gotten the first time around-- one which will allow you to improve as a Wikipedia editor, and hopefully encourage you to stay on board for the long-term! You've done a good job in here, but together we should be able to improve the article up to GA status. I will weigh in as soon as I can on article talk and your user talk. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, Thanks for clarifying the intended purposed of GAR. All of the talk boards seemed to indicate that the belief was that this article should never have been GA, and that we should be re-considering supporting student contributors. I would love for this to be a learning opportunity and get more feedback. Looking forward to seeing the article improve through this collaboration. Leslierrn (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Leslierrn, while the article may have been prematurely listed as a Good Article, that is not an uncommon occurrence in the World of Wikipedia. There is time in this deliberative phase to make sure the article meets GA standards, and you're headed in the right direction! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A few additional comments

  • Could use a consistent referencing style such as the one explained here WP:MEDHOW. Sometimes cite templates are used and sometimes not
  • Language should be adjusted per the advice provided here WP:MEDMOS

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, a consistent referencing style is not part of WP:WIAGA (it is a requirement for WP:WIAFA). For a GA-level article, IMO the citations are fine. Also, even at the FA-level, the requirement for consistent citations has to do with how the citation renders in the article (they all have to look the same), which is unrelated to the method used to generate the citations (it is possible to have partial citation templates and partial manual citations that "render" the same final result). I have a few nitpicks left on the talk page (the college student section could use better, secondary sourcing, as could the mention of instruments for measuring sleep hygiene, but other than that, I think we've worked through many of the issues.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jbmurray:, now that many of the issues have been worked out, I'm wondering if you might have a look vis-a-vis GA status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can do this later today. I have to say that I'm not really on top of sourcing policy for medical articles, but I can comment on other issues. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 19:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing per MEDRS is within striking range now. The paragraph on college students is sourced to a primary study, and could be better sourced, but I doubt any of that content is debateable. And on the Assessment section, a couple of those are primary sources, and it would be ideal to have secondary reviews attesting to the validity of those measurement instruments, but I likewise doubt those are controversial. So, I don't know how those caveats relate to the GA criteria ... will leave it to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team[edit]

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

Having previously brought 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, and 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team through the WP:GAN process, I am a bit surprised at the amount of difficulty I have had with the 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team nomination. The reviewer Biblioworm seems to be a novice reviewer or at least unfamiliar with reviews in this subject area. He initially failed the nomination, but after TheQ Editor prompted him to put the article on hold he did. After I addressed a long list of concerns, he added several more and stated that he sought a 2nd opinion. After 3 weeks of waiting for a 2nd opinion that never came, he failed the nomination. After his second decision to fail the article another editor (Ritchie333) chimed in that he should have been more patient in regards to the 2nd opinion. On December 8, Biblioworm mentioned that he would hunt down an experienced GAN reviewer, but he hasn't. Both outside editors (TheQ Editor and Ritchie333) gave unsolicited opinions that the fail was a bit rash. I have had hundreds of GA nominations pass and dozens fail. I have never had two unsolicited opinions that a failed nomination was rash. As a result, I am seeking a community assessment of whether the fail was a rash decision.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have asked for a second opinion from an experienced reviewer here. --Biblioworm 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have left a note there pointing here. P.S. I didn't mean that you hadn't tried to hunt down one, you just have not actually hunted one down yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)