- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: Delist I am closing this discussion as an uninvolved editor (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment). This discussion has run its course, with no-one suggesting that the article is kept on the GA list whilst the present instability continues. When the article has stabilized it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel that, following the renaming of the article in March and the subsequent merge of the Taiwan (island) article into it, this article no longer meets all of the GA criteria. The current version of this article differs significantly from the version that passed a GA review:
- Information introduced from the island article is probably not of GA quality and some of it is still unsourced (although many of it was brought up to a good quality). The patching of sections together may have affected the quality of the article and some of the references may be dead links.
- The article is very unstable following the merge and arguments over the use of "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" are spilling over from the talk page into the article, especially in the politics section.
- For the reason above, the article may not be entirely Neutral now that focus has shifted from the ROC to Taiwan in general. A debate over whether Taiwan-culture is uniquely "Taiwanese" or "Chinese" keeps reappearing.
- As said, the article is very different and has been expanded significantly with Geography and History sections, so the GA-status doesn't reflect these sections.
I hope that a reviewer can look over the article and reassess its quality. Thanks. -- Peter Talk page 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that delisting for now is the best course of action for this article. The main issue is its current instability in light of the recent ROC->Taiwan move and merging of information from other articles. I don't believe a full reassessment is necessarily in order until the article stabilises again, but I don't believe it should retain its GA status in light of recent events there either. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there another process to remove the GA status without a full reassessment? Or will a reviewer simply remove it soon? -- Peter Talk page 00:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really familiar with the GA process, I assume the reviewer will handle it as they see fit. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as a 'speedy delist' in the GA process. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are two ways to delist an article; individual or community reassessment. There is no such thing as a speedy delist, but the closest is the individual re-assessment. There one editor judges it against the criteria, informs the relevant people/projects and allows a short time (week?) for their concerns to be addressed. If they are not then that individual can delist the article. Community re-assessment is different in that any editor can comment on whether an article meets the WP:GACR and then someone assesses the consensus of the discussion and based on that decides what status the article should be. So in short an individual re-assessment has one reviewer and is usually faster, while a community re-assessment can have multiple reviewers and is best for controversial delists or when two or more editors disagree about an articles status. By posting this re-assesment here you have initiated a community reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delist on the grounds of instability. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.