Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HIStory (Michael Jackson song)/1

HIStory/Ghosts

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

Result: Delist I am going to be slightly bold here and delist this. While splitting a section out of an article, due to size issues for example, will result in the parent article maintaining its GA status. This is a little different because their is no obvious parent article. A quick look at both articles suggests that neither is currently up to GA standards and would need some work to reach them. AIRcorn (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Note Article was moved from HIStory/Ghosts to HIStory (Michael Jackson song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The participants at article talk page agreed to split the article. Since there was not yet an opposition to the split proposal, the split will affect the article's status as GA. I could review it and then delist it, but I feared that I might displease some others who would want to preserve the article's status, especially after the split. Also, I have not reviewed and promoted an article to Good Article before. Maybe this discussion would help preserve the article's status, or maybe this would result in the article being delisted as GA, i.e. demoted into being former GA.

I would like to be bold and split the article right away. However, history logs of this article have been recorded. Maybe cut-and-paste portions about one song into Ghosts (Michael Jackson song), and move the page to "HIStory (Michael Jackson song)". Otherwise, maybe cut-and-paste other portions into HIStory (Michael Jackson song) and move the page to "Ghosts (Michael Jackson song)". First, I'd like to hear your thoughts please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, until the split proposal on the article's talk page is closed by an independent closer with a decision of "split", no action should be taken here, or indeed in splitting the article. There is no rush.

In general, it would be a bad idea to have a complicated situation like this be your first GA review. However, since you are to be involved in doing the splitting, you certainly are not eligible to do a GA review, since you will have been involved in creating the resulting new articles. Also, since this is a community reassessment, while you can add comments, it is not in your power here to delist it; this page will also need to be closed by an uninvolved editor/closer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I struck the reviewing part out, BlueMoonset. May I request a closure at WP:ANRFC then? Also, you want it this assessment closed, right? --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I did request a closure to seek uninvolved closer, but it was declined as too soon and obviously unanimous. --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: The split proposal is closed as "split unanimously supported", BlueMoonset. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If the article is ever split, the parent article (even if moved) retains GA status and can (and probably should) be reassessed at that time; the child (new) article does not inherit GA status and must start afresh. There's nothing to do here until the article is actually fully split. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll perform the split, BlueMoonset. May I? George Ho (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to me to decide, George Ho. The proposal closed back on July 10; at this point, anyone who is willing and capable of doing so can take a crack at it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Performed the split, though I duplicated some content. George Ho (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)