Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brenda Song/1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:39, 22 October 2008

Brenda Song

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

The GA Review of this article (though it involved two reviewers) has caused some contention, and in this contention at least one editor has been blocked. Given this, and per request, a GAR would seem to be in order. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From SandyGeorgia

I preface my comments by saying I don't understand why this article is here. The instructions at WP:GAR say:

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.

I've examined the article and can't decipher any reasons for it to be denied GA status, yet when Gimmetrow tried to relist it at GA, he was reverted. So, I don't understand these processes or instructions, but here we are.

The first issue seems to have been some past edit wars from IPs and new accounts, which seem resolved.

Both GA reviews refer to issues which I can't detect. WP:OVERLINKing is not part of WP:WIAGA as far as I can tell, nor does GA have the same requirements for fully formatted and consistent citations as FA does, so several of the issues raised don't seem to apply to GA.

The reviews also refer to an allegedly "listy" Career section, which I don't see. Everything that was raised in the reviews appears to have either been addressed or not been there to begin with or is not part of WP:WIAGA.

In summary, looking over the issues raised in both reviews, either I don't see the issues there at all, or they are not items of WP:WIAGA. This looks like a GA to me, it looks like it was a candidate to be relisted at GAN, and yet someone ended up blocked for trying to bring a perfectly good article to good status. Sad, particularly since GAs inferior to this one regularly appear at FAC, so I'm more and more confused about just what a GA is, and if some reviewers are now applying FA standards at GA.

I believe this article is GA. If it's not, many GAs appearing at FAC daily aren't GAs either, and something needs to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 <!-- Please add the rationale for reassessment below this comment. Subsequent discussion should be added below, until the reassessment is closed.-->
 The GA Review of this article (though it involved two reviewers) has caused some contention, and in this contention at least one editor has been blocked.  Given this, and per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=246810484 request], a GAR would seem to be in order.  --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 05:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
+==== From SandyGeorgia ====
+I preface my comments by saying I don't understand why this article is here.  The instructions at [[WP:GAR]] say:
+{{quotation|If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
+It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it. }}
+I've examined the article and can't decipher any reasons for it to be denied GA status, yet when Gimmetrow tried to relist it at GA, he was reverted.  So, I don't understand these processes or instructions, but here we are.
+The first issue seems to have been some past edit wars from IPs and new accounts, which seem resolved.
+Both GA reviews refer to issues which I can't detect.  [[WP:OVERLINK]]ing is not part of [[WP:WIAGA]] as far as I can tell, nor does GA have the same requirements for fully formatted and consistent citations as FA does, so several of the issues raised don't seem to apply to GA.
+The reviews also refer to an allegedly "listy" Career section, which I don't see.  Everything that was raised in the reviews appears to have either been addressed or not been there to begin with or is not part of [[WP:WIAGA]].
+In summary, looking over the issues raised in both reviews, either I don't see the issues there at all, or they are not items of [[WP:WIAGA]].  This looks like a GA to me, it looks like it was a candidate to be relisted at GAN, and yet someone ended up blocked for trying to bring a perfectly good article to good status.  Sad, particularly since GAs inferior to this one regularly appear at FAC, so I'm more and more confused about just what a GA is, and if some reviewers are now applying FA standards at GA.
+I believe this article is GA.  If it's not, many GAs appearing at FAC daily aren't GAs either, and something needs to be done. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)