Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

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

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]

Team Fortress 2[edit]

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

There's two or so different "maintenance" templates (expand section, etc) on this page. It doesn't read that well either, especially the plot and post release sections. I believe it doesn't meet the "well written" section of WP:WIAGA and 3b. Anarchyte 11:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I added a number of other templates to display several more issues with the article. As it stands, I would pull this from GA, but we can give the editors time to work on the issues. I am positive that they can be fixed quite swiftly. Another issue I found is: Under Final design it says when the game was not announced, but nowhere does it state, when and where is was eventually announced. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist The article has too many "citation needed" tags and cleanup tags to be in GA shape.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist Cleanup tags are pretty much a no-go on good articles, this should definitely be demoted. BlookerG talk 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Klaas-Jan Huntelaar[edit]

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

This was listed as GA incredibly long ago, and the prose since is erratic, some sections are too short, others (as is usual in football player articles) way too detailed with useless infos (scored a goal here, scored one there). Plese leave your comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Demote. Many issues, some listed below:
  • Some facts lack citations (against BLP policy).
  • One ref isn't defined.
  • Many dead links
  • "Schalc" section has too many short paragraphs
  • "Ajax" section is too detailed
  • Shouldn't his birth be put at the beginning of the article?
  • Demote - I certainly can't fix it by myself, to replace those dead Dutch refs and fill in two years of NOTHING in the Schalke section. Ajax section was fine, I just split it up. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger[edit]

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

This article is overly reliant on puffery and flowery language to try and sell a controversial individual. We should state the facts in as encyclopedic a manner as we can and leave the reader to make their own opinions. Chrononem  15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, you are busy with a campaign to make the article non-neutral. In the way you are reworking it, it will never be good enough for the status Good Article. The Banner talk 00:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not good enough now. It's violation after violation of the manual of style. Puffery, Unsupported attributions, Contentious labels, and Editorializing pervade the entire work, both critiquing and lauding the subject. I've tried to correct some of this but I've met with resistance from one very persistent editor. (At least when I've made changes to neutralize the puffery, removing items that attack the subject seems to be allowed.)
Regardless, It would be better if the community as a whole would recognize that the article needs work and move to correct it. Chrononem  02:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally haven't read the article yet, but at a glance I can tell the lead is too short. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


No Age[edit]

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

Passed GA seven years ago and material since then is here-and-there, without many citations. Lead section is what I would expect from a start-class article. Matters of broadness are also lacking, I get no idea of their style of music, their musical and vocal influences '''tAD''' (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Demote Last section is a mess. Too many small paragraphs. Practically no citations. Certainly not GA worthy and too much to do to simply give someone time to care of it swiftly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)