Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

; Archives
	2006 ; ; 2007: January - May • June - Present;

This page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it.

Current Archive location: Wikipedia talk:Good article review/archive3

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Good article reassessment page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Acting too soon

I have noticed that many of these noms have been sent to the archives quickly. Unless it is a WP:SNOWBALL issue (articles egregiously out of line) we should probably assure that any articles appearing here spend at least a few days even if there is an overwhelming consensus to delist; hoping that someone will come along and fix the problems. Many articles here are not outrageously bad; I have seen much worse articles come back from the dead after long times and lots of work due specifically to WP:GA/R. (anyone remember Michael Jackson?) Just be certain that EVEN in the face of clear consensus, if it appears that the article can be fixed that we give the custodians of said article the time to do it... There is no rush, and a week is not too long to spend on this page. Again, unless the article is just plain bad, don't archive it until we are SURE no one is going to come along to fix them... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I had a different point of view. But I respect yours and will stop (or slow down, rather), as I'm the one that's been clearing the page. I looked at it as there was consensus, and the fewer listed on the page, the greater the chance that remaining articles would get further recommendations. I've posted GA/R adverts everywhere I can think of...... except the advert banner... I should make one! Anyway, yea, to get participation up at GA/R. I suppose I'm a little overzealous and used to the all or nothing participation from custodians. They're typically either here fighting to keep it with all they've got (either a desire to improve it, or a desire to prove all of us wrong), or they're totally no where to be found. But I'll wait on the archiving until it's been a few days since the last recommendation. Lara ♥Love 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would think to give it a week since it first appears at GA/R. That way, anyone who cares has a chance to fix any concerns. Again, snowball concerns should be delisted post-haste; but in cases where people at GA/R ask for fixes, we should, you know, give people a chance to fix stuff. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I shall curb my enthusiasm for keeping the list short. :p Lara ♥Love 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Fooled you. :) ^{This will make no sense whatsoever if you didn't see the edit summary that accompanied it.}[reply]

Saw the edit. Had a mild chuckle. Emphasis on the mild...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I try to lighten things up and bring a little laughter into it and you have to make comments like that... I'm hurt. No, really. I'm sobbing uncontrollably here... emphasis on sobbing. Lara ♥Love 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing uncontrollably. Emphasis on the "hing". --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. :/ Lara ♥Love 06:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron... I know that this issue has been resolved, but I was starting to think the same thing. I won't repeat what has already been said... but agree with Jayron... the reason why I like to wait a week is because some people can only log on once a week. It does no good if they log on after the issue has been closedBalloonman 18:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Balloonman... I don't need you on my back too. I'm skinny... I can't carry all this weight. ... You hear that? It's my fragile frame cracking. :P Lara ♥Love 18:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not a light wieght either... :) Balloonman 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal

Given the confusing name of this page, perhaps it should be renamed "Good Article Discussions" or "Good Article Disputes". The regular process of promoting or failing a GA candidate is also called reviewing, and that this page exists can be confusing. This proposal was made as such by LaraLove at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, and I thought it prudent to bring it here for wider discussion. Thoughts anyone? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'll go ahead and use this format. I had trouble sorting this out when I first got into GA, and it dampened my spirits a bit. Please change the name to avoid this happening in the future. Wrad 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good Article Disputes, per what I said in that other discussion. Homestarmy 02:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support itBalloonman 03:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It was noted in the other discussion that a possible name could be Disputed Good Articles. That would use the shortcut WP:DGA which, unlike WP:GAD, is not already occupied. Lara ♥Love 04:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that GAD is Good Article Delisting, which would be a subset of the Good Article Disputes process. GAR already lists the procedure for delisting an article, so by moving to GAD, we essentially subsume a redundant page... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. Lara ♥Love 05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original link to Good Article Disputes was WP:GA/D, it used to redirect to GAR. An admin could move it back over the redirect, I think that's more important than some historical thing. Homestarmy 15:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This definitely makes things less confusing. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support however maybe go with a name that suggests both purposes of this page, or separate the page into two sections for review. --linca ^linca 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? "Disputes" covers review and delistment, I think. And when you say "two sections for review", what do you mean? Lara ♥Love 14:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Corvus Toepoke 14:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification process

It has been noted in a current nomination that it would be helpful in some cases for Wikiprojects interested in a particular article to be notified. Many of them advertise their GA and FA articles on their project pages. They may be willing to make corrections to articles that would otherwise be ignored and delisted. Perhaps, when nominators go to the article talk page to post the notification, they can also post notes on the talk pages of those Wikiprojects for which there are banners. Lara ♥Love 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something like the way bots do it when they're challenging images without a fair use? Leave a note at the project, at the main editor's talk page (if any), and the article's talk page? (whew!) Wrad 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea I've been toying with. Possibly a barnstar award for editors who rescue a GA on the verge of delisting? Correct me if this already exists... Wrad 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like that idea. Barnstars are for people who go above and beyond. They are awarded by individuals for doing what the individual believes is superb or unexpected work. Saving a GA that one is invovled with is not, IMHO, barnstar worthy. If you care about the articles you are working on, then you should work to preserve the accolades your articles have garnered. I oppose any effort make receiving a barnstar a part of a process. We don't give barnstars for getting an article to FA or GA status, we shouldn't give one for preserving said status. (especially when it becomes, as is often the case, several editors working together to save an article.)Balloonman 16:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that it would only be or special cases, such as in the rare Rescue from Deletion Barnstar. Oh well. When all is said an done, though, barnstars can be given by anybody for just about anything. I've seen some pretty lame ones out there Wrad 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have too, but I don't think they should be given out in this manner. If you see somebody make tremendous work on a GA delist candidate, then you are free to give that person a barnstar.Balloonman 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides having every project template code handle it, what would it take such that if an article is up for GAR/GAD, to update that project's assessment template to change the "GA" to "GAR"/"GAD" and propagate that to the appropriate project pages? (Once possibility would be to have the project assessment template, when presented with a GA that's gone to GAR, to create an appropriate category "Such-and-such Project Good Articles up for Review"). Yes, this put an onus on the project templates, but that's effectively spreading the work around. The only problem that I see right now is that I don't think these assessment templates "fail" gracefully in that an unknown classed spelled out in the article would fall out as a "unclassed" article instead of being still noted as a GA within the project. (looking at the code for Template:cvgproj as a reference case). --Masem 17:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we already require that the notice be placed on the article talk page... If an article has NO ONE watching it for a week (the recommended minimum time to spend at GA/R) then I am not too sure that any additional notices will help... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just do it. We don't get that many noms belonging to Wikiprojects. Shouldn't take me more than 30 seconds per nom. If it ups the chances of the article being saved, I'm not bothered by it. Lara ♥Love 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible GAR

I was thinking about posting a review for Space Interferometry Mission, in light of recent discussion on the ~~talk~~ page. I came here first to discuss, and so it didn't seem pointy. I think it could go a long way toward determining consensus on GA and future events. IvoShandor 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]