Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

; Archives
	2006 ; ; 2007: January - May; 2007: May - December; 2008: January -;

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 reassessment/archive4

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.

Flatworm

I listed Flatworm several days ago and it still is not listed on this page. In the meantime, the nominator is getting pissed and is continuing to nominate it for WP:GAN, but I strongly feel that this should be looked at by more than one person. The article is in the category for GAR nominees, but it's still not listed at WP:GAR. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The article has been relisted at GAN instead. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is that you accidentally started an individual reassessment instead of a community reassessment. Only the latter are listed here. Geometry guy 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible problem - help needed

Several hours ago, I created the community reassessment request, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/DeviantArt/1. It has yet to show up on this page, even though the instructions say it should automatically appear within an hour. Since I've never done this before, I'm concerned that I may have missed something. Help! Aleta ^Sing 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me - see WP:PURGE. Geometry guy 09:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Aleta ^Sing 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

need a reassessment

I would like to request a reassessment of Slut Night for reasons I just explained on the talk page. I don't think I can actually request one through this process as I don't have an account. Can anyone create the reassessment page for me? I am a very occasional editor to Wikipedia and even if I did have an account, I don't understand the process. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the process. There is now a big template at the top of Talk:Slut Night. Without an account, "individual reassessment" is not permitted, but you can use "community reassessment". Just click on the "Follow this link" for community reassessment. This will present you with an edit box. Explain your concerns about the article in the edit box and save. That's it. Geometry guy 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THank you so much, but to actually create the community reassessment page you need an account (I just tried and it wouldn't let me). I can make an account for this purpose but I don't want to seem like I'm abusing multiple accounts, since I started this debate under my IP identity. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the community reassessment page for you to edit. Geometry guy 05:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --74.138.229.88 (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delisting

Hey there. I have just nominated Veronica Mars (season 3) at FLC, although it is currently a GA. Is there anyways this could be delisted without going through the regular process? I nominated the article at GAN myself, so there is no problem with the nominator. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want it to be delisted? Because it's a list? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here is the FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to go out now. If it hasn't been delisted by the time I get back I'll do it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central Intelligence Agency

Would the good folks here pls figure out how to best deal with this GA? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Intelligence Agency/archive1 Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't want to read the FAC, there has been a long-term sock problem which has tainted the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then it probably fails the stability criteria. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't remove GA status just because someone who edits the article has been blocked for sockpuppetry, as RLevse suggests!

The article can be reassessed at any time by any editor starting an individual or community reassessment. The reassessment should be based purely on whether the article meets the good article criteria. It might be useful to do this, as the original GAN review was almost non-existent. Geometry guy 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a question of procedure, since an article is no longer a GA once it becomes an FA (as I understand it), would the correct procedure be a reassessment of GA status or a GAN if it fails FAR? If no one is interested in the article and willing to follow it and address any problems, neither process seems worth the effort. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the main CIA article (or any other that I have edited over the course of the past two years) has been "tainted" by sockpuppetry is a specious argument. Yes, I crossed a line in the FAC discussion on the main CIA article by nominating it and then casting two votes in support of the nomination, but no edit to content that I have ever made to any Wikipedia article has been made with either the intent or effect of biasing the factual content of that article. Plus, the Wikipedia checkuser program seems to be techincally flawed - the page at this address (as edited by RLevse):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_No_barometer_of_intelligence

... says that these contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Misleadingsource

... are "definitely" made by the same person. Flat out not true. My guess is they were made on an IP address associated with a shared computer system at a public library. Is it customary to "out" experienced editors who use multiple accounts to protect their anonymity and delicate personal interests in such a public way? The set of Wikipedia articles in question aren't exactly as trivial as say, those about Pokemon characters. I fully expect this log-in to now be blocked as well and added to the aforementioned page[1], but please, remove the outright false allegations when you do so. First draft of history (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Mattisse, failed WP:FARs are a grey area. If the article had GA status prior to becoming an FA then that status could in principle be restored after an FAR fail if there were no objections, but I'm not aware of this happening in practice: the article usually has to be renominated at GAN to recover its GA status.

For FAC, however, the issue is clearcut: an FAC fail has no impact on GA status unless someone initiates a GA reassessment. Geometry guy 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First draft of history (talk · contribs), thanks for admitting you're another sock of No barometer of intelligence (talk · contribs), this time a block-evading sock. GAR editors-I didn't say delist it, just take a look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thanks, Rlevse (talk · contribs), but once again ask that you (or some other admin who has access to the imperfect Wikipedia checkuser tool) remove Misleadingsource (talk · contribs) from the page linked to as confirmed sockpuppets of No barometer of intelligence (talk · contribs). It's just not true. And while you're at it, check the dates each disputed account (included the one I am using right now) was created on. Technically, they are all sockpuppets of An unattributed source (talk · contribs). Be sure to check the discussion page for that original account while you and the other admins are poring over this. Then look at case number three at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Segregation_and_security

At least get your facts right. And then add then add Apparent public relationship (talk · contribs) to the newly created page, "Sock puppets of An unattributed source." Apparent public relationship (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Geometry guy has said the following: if you want GAR/GAN editors to "take a look at it", you must nominate it for GAR or GAN, just as you would for FAR or FAC if you wanted those editors to look at it. If there are sockpuppets involved, then the article would probably fail the stability criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what alleged sockpuppetry has to do with an article's stability. If anyone wants to make a case that the article no longer meets the good article criteria, which do not include any restrictions on which kinds of editors are allowed to edit an article, then they should open a GA Reassessment. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]