Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4

message: I would like to automate the listing of GARs on this page in a similar manner to the listing of Peer reviews on the PR page. I would also like to automate the archives. For that I propose that reviews be placed on subpages of the form Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ARTICLE NAME/N (where N=1,2,3,...) and are transcluded onto this page automatically using a category listing bot. A talk page template will be used to set up this GAR subpage. With this system, a GAR can be archived by changing a template on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ARTICLE NAME/N at the same time as providing the closing comments: the GAR will then be automatically removed from the GAR page and automatically listed instead on an archive page. This will remove one of the more annoying steps from the archiving process.
The appearance of this page will be unchanged. Any views or comments? Geometry guy 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good proposal. Let's be sure to include specific, easy-to-understand instructions on how to list an article at GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the plan would be that the nominator would only need to substitute a template on the talk page. This would then provide both the talk page comment that a GAR has been started, and also a link to create the GAR subpage. So it would be simpler than the current process for nominators too. I agree entirely it needs to be clearly explained. Geometry guy 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on board with this proposal. Simplicity is a Good Thing. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The automation of this page is now done, but I haven't yet automated the archives. Please test the listing procedure (substituting the  template on a talk page) and give suggestions for improving the instructions. The idea for archiving is to add the result to the template , which will automatically remove the reassessment from the GAR page and add it to the current archive. Geometry guy 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The final automation of the archives is not yet done, but the process has been set up. I spent the afternoon in template substitition hell, but finally emerged with a solution. The template on current GARs is . To archive a GAR, simply replace this by  ~~~~, where you can substitute your reasoning in place of result. I hope this proves to be easier, once we get used to it. Geometry guy 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is fully automated now, and the backlog is too: it will show up when there are old articles, and will list them. The automation has been well tested in the last week, and appears to work okay. I've been trying to improve the documentation today, but there are some adjustments which I will make tomorrow. Geometry guy 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies: automation of the backlog interfered with editing individual sections. I think this is fixed now. As I mentioned above... teething problems! Geometry guy 16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automation of this page 

message: There was a discussion for Greg Skrepenak which looked headed toward relist late last month or early this month, but it is no longer here and not at Talk:Greg Skrepenak.  Shouldn't it be there by now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See this.  Consensus was that no action would be taken at WP:GAR, with a recommendation to renominate at WP:GAN. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 34 contains the full discussion, along with a rational for archiving the discussion.  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greg Skrepenak 

message: Can't locate the discussions for delisting of Grameen Bank and Banglapedia. Can someone, please, lead me to the discussions? Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, someone respond. I don't see any of the processes described in the project page followed when delisting these two articles. I am sure the process isn't just a wall-flower, and is followed by editors. I also am assuming that it was followed in these two instances. Why is it so difficult to dig it up? If it's removed then at least a diff should exist. Right? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GA is intentionally designed to not be overly bureaucratic. An editor, in good faith, can de-list an article that they feel doesn't conform to GA standards without going through the process of WP:GAR. I would recommend following up with the editors who delisted the articles   to get their input. If you feel that delisting is not warranted and that the article does conform to GA standards you are welcomed to open up a discussion on this page. AgneCheese/Wine 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is not necessary to use GAR for delisting articles, so I'm afraid the diffs  and  are all you have in the way of discussion. I agree with you that the two reviewers did not completely follow the guidelines described in the section "If you believe an article should be delisted". However, these are only guidelines, and it is quite common for reviewers to delist articles more quickly than these guidelines suggest when the case is clear-cut.  I think this is a pity, but the real issue is whether the articles meet the good article criteria. The reviewers have given reasons why they do not, and, at a glance, their reasons seem to me to be valid. If you are still unhappy, you can, as Agne indicates, list either or both of the articles at GAR for others to review the delisting decision(s). Geometry guy 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There does not need to be a discussion in order to delist the articles.  However, if you feel that the articles SHOULD NOT have been delisted, and would like to that decision overturned, you are free to start your own discussion on the main WP:GAR page.  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that delistings need not be discussed here. But the reassesment process outlined on this project page asks to leave a message on the article talk page detailing any remaining problems and Allow time for other editors to respond. If the article still does not meet the requirement only then it can be delisted. However, in both these cases this process flow was ignored and the articles were delisted without allowing anyone any reasonable time to address the concerns. This may not be a policy violation, but this certainly is not an appreciable activity either. Request the concerned editor (i.e. Nishkid64) to refrain from such hasty actions in future. Arman (Talk) 11:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting discussion 

message: The automation appears to be working well now, and, in my experience so far, archiving is easier. Let me summarize the new set-up.
# Articles are added to GAR by adding  to the article talk page. Saving this provide a link (using ) which sets up the article's GAR page (using ).
# Archiving a review involves replacing  by  ~~~~, and editing the talk page (e.g. by substituting the  template).
I'm not mentioning several points here, but I'd like to know if this is workable. So far I've done most of the archiving:  was also a great help. Please try it out and comment. Geometry guy 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One feature of the new system is that you can watch an individual GAR without watching others. But there is also the disadvantage that watching the whole page no longer informs you of all changes. If you want to keep up to date about new GARs, the page to watch is User:VeblenBot/C/GAR. Geometry guy 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some temporary difficulties because of the new preprocessor introduced on Saturday, and because the toolserver is down. There was also a delay setting up archive 35, but this is now done. The GAR template has been fixed to work with the new preprocessor, and the automatic listing is now independent of the toolserver. So all should be working smoothly again: please report any problems here. Geometry guy 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automation status 

message: I'm wanting to flip through the current good articles doing quick checks to see if any ought to be reassessed.  Is there any system set up for this?  For example, anyway of telling other GA editors which articles I've double checked and when, so we're not all covering the same ground?
--jwandersTalk 06:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the sweeps project and ask Ohana if you can join in the fun! Geometry guy 11:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment system? 

message: The order in which GARs are listed has been reversed recently, so that the oldest nominations appear first. This actually happened by accident, but it occurs to me that it might be better to list GARs in this order. For one thing, it is more consistent with WP:GAN. For another it may help draw attention to old reviews in need of further comments or archiving. Any views? Geometry guy 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no preference. Consistency with GAN is a plus. Majoreditor (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: I've asked a couple of editors to try out the archiving and I'm not convinced that the system is ideal yet. Archiving still takes too long, in my view, and I think the  template is badly designed and not very easy to use.
I would therefore like to propose a fairly bold change, that we make GAR more like GAN (and peer review) by using a talk page template which is placed at the top of the article talk page. There would be a template for a current discussion, and a template for a closed one (which could be used instead of article history). This would mean, in principle, that closing a GAR would involve only one talk page edit, at the top of the page, to sort out all the banners, although reviewers could also add some explanation to the talk page discussion if they wish. However, in my view, a link, together with explanation in the GAR discussion should be sufficient.
Does this idea work for others? Geometry guy 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea. The GAN and PR templates work reasonably well. Majoreditor (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my feeling. Other views welcome... Geometry guy 11:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I would prefer that way instead of the current system as the notice would be where editors would expect it to be. It would also be better than having  or  at the top while the article is at GA Review. Tarret talk 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will implement this soon, probably tomorrow evening UTC. Geometry guy 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done yet, but still high on my agenda! Geometry guy 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now, finally, done. I hope that the revised system proves to be easier to use. Please comment or report any problems/issues here. Geometry guy 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving update 

message: I note that Talk:José Martí claims that the article is a "Good Article," but I can't see any evidence that it has passed WP:GAN.  What's more, if it was once up to scratch, it isn't any more and should be reassessed.  
(In case anyone's wondering, yes I am planning next semester's syllabus, hehe.)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not listed at WP:GA.  From the talk page history, it seems that one user updated the WikiProjects to GA status in one fell swoop without any kind of review or notice back in June.  I'd say it's definitely not a GA; just the result of an inexperienced user. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the talk page doesn't claim (directly) that the article is a "Good Article", only that it is GA-Class in the WikiProject ratings. However, these WikiProjects (like every other I know) only permit GA-Class for Good Articles, so I've changed them all to B-Class. Geometry guy 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant.  The user updated the WikiProject assessments to GA without an apparent GAN.  Thanks for re-assessing them to their proper class. María (habla conmigo) 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, grand, many thanks for this.  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[José Martí]]?? 

message: A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. 02:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA symbol on article page 

message: Why isn't Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Madonna (entertainer)/2 appearing at WP:GAR?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Give VeblenBot another 2 minutes, I estimate :-) Geometry guy 19:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Madonna (entertainer)/2 

message: Talk:Blood donation/GA1 discussion has been completed. Some edits (more than just formating for clarity) have been added after the GAR result was given. Do these late edits need to be removed? Can only administrators close the discussion putting a box around it? Snowman (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this is actually the wrong place to ask: WT:GAN is the main forum for nominations related issues. This page is for reassessment and resolving disputes. Anyway, the late edits don't need to be removed, but it is probably a good idea to move them to article talk, and I have done this with the last one. An archive box is unnecessary and inappropropriate. However, in this case the reviewer did not make it very clear that the review had been completed, so I've added a message to the review page, which hopefully will discourage further edits. If there are any issues with my edits, please ping me on my talk page. Geometry guy 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that has sorted it out. Snowman (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  After a GA attempt 

message: Someone just did something to the GAR page. An entire article, Platinum Underground, is now plastered on the bottom of the GAR page and at least one of the GARs isn't transcluding anymore. Can anyone fix it? Majoreditor (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. near as I can tell, you were the one who did it. ;-) Did you have two browsers open at the same time, or something? Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 06:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, LG. That is bizzare. I haven't viewed, much less edited, the article on Platinum Underground. I don't see how it got comingled with my edit of the Google GAR. I only had one browser session open. I have no idea how my edit to the Google GAR could have spewed material from an article I've never seen into the GAR. If anyone has any ideas on what could have caused this, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other notable explanations include: 1) sitting at a bank of public computers and going for a pee, and 2) Your Little Brother Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 06:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember some time in 2007 a bug came about where all edits made, instead of being made where intended, instead were made to Wikipedia:Wikipedians or something like that. It was very weird... maybe this is a reincarnation of that? I dunno. —Giggy 06:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's that sort of ghost in the machine. There's been no Rudget-esque incident on my end as there's just one computer in my house and I've been at it the entire time. Very strange. Majoreditor (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This might be related in some way to the new problems appearing at WP:VPT recently; perhaps related to the recent server issues. Gary King (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page just blew up 

message: There were too many errors for me to sort at Talk:Max Mosley; can someone who knows the history there, and who knows how to correctly build  please do so?  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA articlehistory errors 

message: The following copy/pasted from WP:GAR:
"If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, do not close. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions."
Erm. This wording is more than a little too strong. Things need to be moved along. GARs are sitting around unclosed with no new comments for 3 weeks.
Suggest rewording to make it easier to close. Something like:
:If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, leave notice that you intend to close the discussion, and wait 3 days for further comments before closing. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions."
* Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably should get more experienced people to close GARs, instead of just commenting on them. But don't make any designated people to close. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that GAR involves dispute resolution, it could use the assistance of mediators, or at least of people who know the difference between consensus and majority rule, and how to achieve the former.  --Una Smith (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  move along, nothing to see here: wording is more than a little too strong 

message: Can I suggest amending part 4 of the reassessment process; "Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects." to also include notifying the initial Good Article reviewer? Surely it's common courtesy for the reviewer to be involved in the process? Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Majoreditor (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most recent reviewer is usually the relevant one. Geometry guy 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of initial reviewer 

message: I have been perfoming individual GARs as part of the GA sweeps project. The first couple of reassessments were great, as they led to substantial improvements. I'm having a hard time making up my mind on Great Pyramid of Giza. I'm not convinced that there is sufficient breadth of coverage (the construction theories section says that there are several theories but doesn't discuss them, and aside from the three main rooms, much of the inside of the pyramid isn't discussed). There is a separate article for construction theories, though. The reassessment is here. I've tried contacting all of the relevant projects twice, as well as major contributors, but I'm not getting anywhere. Another set of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Procedural question.  If this is a reassessment, shouldn't it be Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA2, leaving Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1 for the original review?  There could have been more than one prior review, though... --Una Smith (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion on an individual GAR 

message: Could GA articles be nominated for review just like other articles?  That would leave GAR for disputes about the appropriateness of reviews.  --Una Smith (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That exists, in a sense: it is called individual reassessment. See the instructions on this page. Geometry guy 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual function of GAR 

message: I've had a GAR open for Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show) for nearly a month now and nobody's commented. Did I leave a step out? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but you opened an individual reassessment, meaning that you intend to reassess and make the final decision yourself. If you would like input from the reviewing community, and a community decision on whether to list or delist, let me know, and I will help you restart it on that basis. Geometry guy 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoned GAR? 

message: I found this article through the Main Page and was quite surprised to see it listed as GA. It seems far from comprehensive, with scant references to substantial sources and weak prose. I haven't got the time, but could someone consider re-assessing? the skomorokh 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone take a look at [[Jackie Robinson Day]]? 

message: What is going on with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 40?  Approximately, the last ten days have not been archived.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault, but I fixed it early today. Try purging your cache. Geometry guy 08:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 40]] problems 

message: Given that Talk:Homosexual_transsexual/GA1 seems to be requesting a group reassessment, is it possible for a system to be implemented that allows an individual reassessment to be easily converted into a group assessment? -Malkinann (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this one, but I can't think of an easy way to do this in general. Fortunately, it is fairly rare. Geometry guy 10:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it may become more common in the future: "I wish to have this article placed for community assessment unless you're willing to assist in repairing what you believe the faults to be." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuk. GAR shouldn't be used as a fix-up shop. Majoreditor (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we shouldn't form our guidelines around threats like this! Geometry guy 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GA Sweeps is a really good learning experience; I'd recommend it to anyone who has a rose-tinted view of this project. Doesn't matter what you do, you're in the wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My initiation to the GA project came, essentially, on the other side of an earlier GA sweeps process. It is an extremely hard thing to do well, and you are going to meet conflict eventually no matter what you do. Much credit to Malleus for sweeping so well on so many articles. I would like to sweep the medicine articles that TimVickers tagged, but I am not sure that I have the dedication, the time or the thick skin required! Geometry guy 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bloody sure that I don't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The distinguishing feature of an individual GAR is that the reviewer who opens it makes the final decision. We cannot do anything about threats except call them. If the reviewer is unwilling  or unsuitable to be the judge and jury, then a community GAR should be used instead. However, such misapplications are rare. More common are cases in which an individual reassessment is initiated (indeed often concluded) and challenged. In these cases, the natural thing to do is to close and record the disputed individual reassessment and start a community GAR: moving the individual reassessment would, in most cases, create a mess and prejudice the case. Geometry guy 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As this specific article in whose review the threat was made stands right now, I would delist it. So I will wait to see whether other editors offer any input before deciding whether or not to close the individual review and initiate a group review, or simply to delist the article. My only point in raising this here was that it seemed like a curious concidence to have happened twice in a few days, when it has previously been such a rare occurrence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual reassessments to group reassessments? 

message: I'm sure there must be a good and obvious reason why the GAR requested at Talk:Edward the Martyr isn't showing up here, but it's not obvious to me. Can someone have a look? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual reassessment at Talk:Edward the Martyr/GA1 is still open. Nobody has requested a community GAR that I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so long as it's nothing to worry about that's good. Ta, Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward the Martyr GAR? 

message: Facts not right. According to the the New York Times the dates do not match up.
[]
I am very new to this so bare with me.
Cleo
Athalia77 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please link to the article concerned. We are not omniscient here. Geometry guy 23:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs updating: heading Yale controversy 

message: There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal#Introducing_GA_to_main_page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding [[WP:GA|Good Articles]] to the main page 

message: I nominated Tila Tequila for reassessment over a week ago and has yet to appear on the project page. I followed the procedure completely, but nothing turns up here. Did I make a mistake somewhere? DiverseMentality 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing happened to me today. It didn't show up until I went and edited it the thing. All of a sudden, it showed up. Deavenger (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PURGE. Geometry guy 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not showing up because you opened an individual reassessment, not a group one. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a better answer. You are the boss, DiverseMentality: it is up to you to decide whether to delist the article in your reassessment. If you want help, it can be converted into a community reassessment. If it is disputed, likewise. Geometry guy 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR not showing up 

message: A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerenetalk 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA community input requested 

message: A GA of mine was recently put through the GAR process and demoted - no problems there, I agree on the assessment and currently not in a position to readily fix it.  So I'm not expecting that to change, just an observation on the process.
However, the only way I discovered it was demoted was when my watchlist showed its article history being updated.  Sure, in the history the GAR notice was added to the article, which I likely missed (particularly as it occurred on Jan 1) on my watchlist.  The nominator didn't drop anything to my talk page on this, which the current instructions don't require and as it was an older article prior to the new GA process for having review transclusions, determining the major editor(s) would have taken some work. 
Given that the new process to pass GAs do allow for easy identification of the original GA nominator, I would think that notification of this user should be mandatory (as it is done in the FAR process); other users can be recommended.  Of course, for the older GAs, determining the user may be more difficult but it is possible.  --MASEM 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathise with your point. User notifications are to be strongly encouraged. However, a major issue is that nobody reads the instructions, and so if we require notification, it adds to the bureaucracy without necessarily achieving anything positive. Indeed, less reasonable editors than yourself are likely to come along screaming "process wasn't followed". (This happened only last October and caused a major headache for many editors.) What might be helpful, however, is adding a reminder to the templates that create the reassessment page. Editors are not usually trying to pull a fast one when they open a reassessment: more likely they simply forgot about the courtesy of notification. Geometry guy 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, what GG said. Keep it as "recommended" OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I, for one, have absolutely no intention of tracking back through archived talk pages in an attempt to locate an original nominator no matter what the instructions are changed to say. If an article seems salvageable within a reasonable time frame then it's reasonable to expect any relevant projects to be notified I think, but for the older GARs even article history often doesn't help much, as the major contributors are frequently inactive. There are limits as to what it's reasonable to expect of reviewers. The pay sucks, conditions are Dickensian, and everybody hates you. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving "recommended" notificaiton of editor to "required?" 

message: Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) - The GAR header was added back in September, and the last comment on the GAR was also in September. D.M.N. (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA reassement that was never finished 

message: I have been trying to follow the instructions in these reassessment guidelines, in order to correctly end my individual GA review (of the article Culture, but they do not cover:
*what to do about the separate GAR discussion page itself (do I need to archive it, and how? What if people keep on adding comments to it?), nor 
*what to do about the copy of that page which is reproduced via inclusion of a sort of template near the bottom of the ordinary Talk page of the article (should I remove the template near the bottom of the page that causes the image of the GAR page to appear? Otherwise, what is to stop more discussion going into the shared page, even though my review is completed?), nor
*why the GAlist template line that has to be edited at the top of the Talk page, replacing the date with five tildes, and while it had |page=1|GARpage=1| it now has to be edited to insert a "replacement page" number, but what is the "replacement page" that n has to equal, nor
*what happens to the next bit on that line being edited, ie GARpage=1?  It looks like I have to remove that bit as it is not included on the sample line given in the guideline, nor
*what to do if the article fails my review (as it has) and so is being delisted (done), but there is no GA template on the Talk page to remove (which the assessment guidelines tell me to do), instead there are some wikiproject notice templates, each of which rate the article as a GA, and give it various importance ratings.  Do I edit the wikiproject notice template ratings?  What do I replace GA by?, nor
*whether I should give my reasons for delisting the article, and if so, where I should do so?
I hope someone can provide some help on these questions. This whole business of going through this review procedure is very time-consuming this first time round... and may deter me from instigating future article reviews. 
Please note: I am cross posting this enquiry on this talk page having mistakenly posted it a few hours ago on a "duplicate" talk page for another version of this page! I have raised the duplicate copies of page issue at the Village Pump technical forum.
--AlotToLearn (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fails to provide adequate guidance - how do I...? 

message: Now that most individual reviews are on article talk subpages, they are easy to link and I've been increasingly adding links from community reassessments. However, there's no point in editors doing a job if it can be automated, so I've modified  to produce the links automatically. Please report any glitches. Geometry guy 17:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autolinking individual reviews 

message: I just de-listed Rocky. I think I did everything right to close out the GAR. Will a bot update the article history/milestones box or do I need to do that manually? Otto4711 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-listing and article history 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It looks fine to me - see WP:PURGE. Geometry guy 09:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Aleta Sing 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible problem - help needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've created the community reassessment page for you to edit. Geometry guy 05:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --74.138.229.88 (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  need a reassessment 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why do you want it to be delisted? Because it's a list? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, here is the FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  --Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy delisting 

message: I came across Social Security (United States) while sweeping the articles with broken references category and realised this isn't meeting the GA criteria on a number of fronts. Despite the fact that I've been busy with GA noms and reviews in the past, I've never done a delisting. Do others agree that this should be a speedy delist? The current controversies section is but one section which exemplifies the problems that this article has. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't agree with a speedy delist. Even though much of the article is uncited it's probably not controversial, and an interested editor might well be able to fix it up pdq. I'd recommend that you opened an individual WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Malleus. There's no such thing as a "speedy delist". If you are confident, open up an individual reassessment and conclude it as swiftly as you believe is appropriate according to the response from article editors; if instead you want others to make the final decision, use a community reassessment. Geometry guy 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting 

message: Currently there's the backlog template on this page, despite there only being seven articles here right now. Do you think we can just remove it? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It automatically lists reassessments more than 2 weeks old, and automatically removes itself when there are none. Geometry guy 08:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The backlog has now cleared. Geometry guy 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: AboutMovies put the article Betty Roberts up for an  individual reassessment when withdrawing it from the community reassessment in progress.  The article originally failed GAN (by me), and AboutMovies, the nominator, put it up for CR for that reason.  After questions and comments by 2 editors at  the CR, a sentence that was not in any source was brought to the nominator's attention and was removed by them. 
I think the individual reassessment is inapppropriate because (1) CR is the proper place to reassess a failed GA review, (2) the nominator did this because he was going to lose at CR and wants to have yet another, second, reassessment, and (3) the article was changed as a result of the unfinished CR in a way that removed a reason failing it (for OR) so it can't be properly reassessed again.  I am new to GAR, and an involved party of the original dispute, so I would like to ask others to decide and to take appropriate action.  Thanks!  Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was just a mistake with the templates. The nominator has withdrawn the request to have the article reassessed, and your GAN fail stands. Thanks for your hard work on the review. I've fixed the templates and do not see the need for further action. The article can be renominated at GAN when it is ready. Geometry guy 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  And thanks to you folks for taking the time to address the reassessment.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betty Roberts is up for individual reassessment? 

message: I just went to article alerts here and found three articles nominated for GAR since February, what happens now.  The Windler  talk  22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You comment here. Then things happen. I've fixed one of them: the other two are in the pipeline. Geometry guy 22:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens if a GAR has been open for 3+ months 

message: This seems to be proceeding very slowly, as the reassessment was initiated February 14, 2009.  See Talk:1918 flu pandemic/GA1. Is is possible to make it a community reassessment in order to get more eyes? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have to do is state that you are closing the individual GAR with "no action" (i.e., "keep" in the article history) and open a community GAR in the usual way. Geometry guy 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1918 flu pandemic]] 

message: Is it appropriate to nominate for reassessment a GA that is undergoing significant changes, i.e., as a result of an edit war? It seems to me that if the article is no longer stable, it no longer meets GA criterion five, and thus should be delisted. However, my nomination of this article for this very reason seems to have stirred up some controversy. What is the general consensus? Thanks, Vicenarian (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you had your answer, as you've closed the individual reassessment. Instability is best handled by community rather than individual GAR to get multiple input from uninvolved editors. However, community GAR is too slow to deal with most edit wars, so it is better to let them pan out. If the instability resolves itself (so that it is clear what the consensus version of the article is), then GAR is not needed. Geometry guy 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I was convinced that an individual reassessment was not warranted on that article. I guess I just wanted some feedback as to whether, in general, the existence of multiple competing versions, something that would warrant a failure to list in the first place, should be considered a valid reason to delist. Vicenarian (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I indicated at the nomination of Talk:Poker_Face_(Lady_Gaga_song)/GA2, I believe the "stabililty" criteria for GAN is specifically so that the reviwer has a constistant understanding of what they are to evaluate as GA. If significant changes are being made on a day to day basis during the GAN, the reviwer is not going to have an accurate representation of what is actually being proposed for promotion. However, after GA has been established, you have a foundation of verifiable information, in which case, any changes become a burden of proof for any editor wishing to change that information. That's my interpretation, though it may need to be specified at GAR that edit wars are not a part of the criteria for Delisting. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my interpretation too. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that stability has nothing to do with the article, but the editors. Edit wars are about the people editing it. An edit war can be quickly resolved with a 3RR block. Therefore, an article should not be stripped of its GA status simply because of the actions of those who edit it.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I see the consensus here, and I agree. My question now is whether we should add something to WP:GAR to specifically mention that an article should not be (or, at least, should not be outright) delisted because, as I said in my RfC question, "it is undergoing significant changes, i.e., as a result of an edit war." Perhaps a few lines in "Guidelines for reviewers"? This would alert future re-assessors to the consensus on this issue. Vicenarian (T · C) 06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not generally in favour of legislating against every opportunity, as nobody reads the instructions and consensus usually works well enough despite this. However, in this case, I think it is worth adding a clause to the community reassessment part of WP:Good article reassessment/guidelines to reflect this discussion and long-standing practice at GAR. Other tweaks to the guidelines here and at WP:RGA (and perhaps even criterion 5 and its footnote) could be considered. Geometry guy 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article 

message: A bot generated a listing for Good Articles in need of cleanup: Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing, Tom B (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup listing 

message: An IP comments: "That article should not be listed as a good history article. Only very ignorant people would not see how it is used as propaganda. It certainly has some people who try to balance it, but the bias is gross. That article ia dominated by the kind of people that we can all suppose. Kun."
It was last checked in August 2008 as part of GA Sweeps. See also Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_26#Nordic_theory. Geometry guy 11:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nordic race]] 

message: I've added an experimental section to the GAR page. Please see WT:GA#Good articles which are found wanting at FAC for further information and discussion. Geometry guy 11:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea. My, how relations between FAN and GAR have evolved for the better! Majoreditor (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone tell me how this new section works.  Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics was just promoted about six weeks ago and is now on the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just an alert system to draw attention to articles which may need reviewers' attention. Uninvolved editors can remove articles from the list or open reassessments if they believe reassessment would be helpful. Geometry guy 00:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What causes an article to be in the alert system?  What is the flag that gets an article listed there?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  01:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably something like this. My question is how does an article get off the list? I mean, if no one comes along to determine if the article needs another review, how long will it stay on there? Indefinitely? (Morethan3words (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can use the alert system by adding a template (or the category) to the article talk page. Any uninvolved editor can remove the alert if they believe reassessment is unnecessary, or if they start an individual or community reassessment. For instance, I believe you two are not involved with the other's article, so you could check them (taking care to avoid any perception of quid-pro-quo). I intend to respond to alerts within a definite timeframe if noone else does. I would certainly be unhappy if alerts remained unattended for more than a month. Geometry guy 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: That does not answer my question.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  20:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag is the article talk page being in :Category:Good articles in need of review. Geometry guy 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had not noticed the tag you placed on the article.  It should be at the top with all the other banners when used, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  22:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a banner, but is more like an RFC. It could be placed at the top, I suppose, but FAC editors have preferred to add it as a talk page request. Geometry guy 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good articles in need of review 

message: There's currently no list (that I could see) of all of the archives. It appears you can only go one-by-one to find a particular review/date. In addition, the oldest archives are named Good article disputes, should these be renamed to GAR? If there are no problems with this, I'll move them and add an archive link indicating the dates the GARs in each archive range from. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll get to this when I conclude my GA Sweeps reviews within the next few weeks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A date range for each archive would be useful. It would also be useful to have an alpabetized list of all community GARs; does such a list exist? Majoreditor (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some categories that list them, but a full list can be developed through AWB. I'll try to work the date ranges in as well when I get around to it (unless somebody's eager to do it now, feel free). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I finished the list of all community GARs. I put it in a table so that it can be sorted by archive. Anybody got a good name to move it to from my user space? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. One question: how will the list be maintained? As for location, how about Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/List of community reassessments? Geometry guy 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to the suggested name. The list can be updated as each new archive is created. I, or somebody else, can do it whenever that occurs. Is there somewhere that a link can be provided from the GAR page for this list? Also, what do we want to do with the above archive list? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple of links and moved the above archive list to WP:Good article reassessment/List of archives. I expect it could be formatted more nicely. GAR archives are managed automatically by VeblenBot, and I'm normally the person who starts a new one. When I do so, I update Template:GARarchive, so if you watchlist this page, you will be alerted. At this point the previous archive should be stable and you can record its entries in the list, and add it to the list of archives. If the lists prove useful, but onerous for you to maintain by hand, we can look into automating them. Geometry guy 22:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If a bot could update it that'd be great, but if not, it won't be too much of a pain to update. I'll watchlist the template and keep up with it. It took several hours to format the past archives, but updating for each new archive should take only a few minutes. I was initially going through and updating the article history for the articles lacking mention of the GARs, but that ended up taking way too long and I dropped that quickly. With the list, editors can update any article histories as they see fit if they're currently missing from the history. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your hard work. To get archive contents, one convenient place to look might be (e.g. for the current, empty, archive) User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/45 (cf. User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/44, the most recently closed archive). Geometry guy 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Dear Wikipedia. Could editors of wikipedia please do Good Article Reassessment of Josip Broz Tito article. The article is embarrassing. The Eastern European Dictator is portrayed as some sort of pop star and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. Also considering he was responsible for war crimes,mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment makes Wikipedia look like ad for Eastern European Dictatorships. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this?Sir Floyd (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was delisted as a Good article in October 2008, so no reassessment is needed. The best option for addressing issues with the article is to consult with the main contributors on the article's talk page, related WikiProjects, or even consider a peer review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Reassessment NEEDED For An Article At lacks NPOV 

message: As the last 2 reassessments have both been contested based on the fact they are using summary style, i think we need to decide on the extent to which reviewers have to search for the citations in subarticles. Some articles, such as Jesus, were almost entirely summary style, and the subarticle also had summary sections, which could result in a sixth degree of separation linking to hundreds of articles. 
How deep does a reviewer have to go until they give up? Or should they just add a cite needed tag to points they consider needful to cite, without searching the subarticle? If a cite needed tag is added, but the cite is in a sub- (or sub-sub-) article, should the cite be copied across, or the tag simply removed, or hidden text be added (so later reviers know it was checked)?
As there is no way to force editors to only add to summaries if the claim is cited in the sub-article, and many older GAs seem less than cared for, there has to be some limit on what is expected of reviewers, or guidance as to what is the editors' responsibility.YobMod 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that sources need to be in the artcile itself, not a sub article.  However, I just went and checked out WP:Summary style#References, citations and external links, which suggests: There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. I agree that it could be burdensome to wade through several layers of articles - I haven't actually encountered anything like that yet. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view this is a weak point in WP:SCG, which is one of the reasons I believe it should be considered as secondary to 2b. Note that GA only absolutely insists on inline citations in very specific circumstances: . In these cases, citation is needed in the article, not just in summary style spinouts. However, more general sourcing requirements (2a) can be satisfied using summary style, in accordance with WP:SCG and WP:Summary style. Geometry guy 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the principle of not needing all cites in a summary (and i only added fact tags to information that was not cited in subarticles), but the citations are rarely in the subarticle either. Should we then search sub-sub articles, or can such claims be considered uncited even taking summary style into account? Summary style also allows multiple subarticles linked from a single section, so even going only one layer down can mean reading 4 full articles in searching for a cite. Considering the backlog of reviews, should it be the nominators job to show such citations exist on subarticles, or the reviewers? Oh, and are subarticle only those with "main2 and "see also" type links under section titles, or does it apply also to all inline linked articles?YobMod 10:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to summarize my view: if the cite is essential per 2b, it should be in the article. If the cite is not essential per 2b, but is desirable for verifiability, then the nominator should either add a cite, or convince the reviewer that the summary style spinouts can be used to verify the material (i.e., they source and cite the points of concern). In the case of disagreement, GAR is here. Geometry guy 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary style 

message: Why doesn't the text of the Munchausen item display what is actually in the "Edit" box? In particular, my support for a review (and my stalker's sniping). Noloop (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a cache issue. If you want to follow the review, I suggest watchlisting WP:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1, and following the discussion there. Geometry guy 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdness 

message: Right now i'm reviewing Book of Vile Darkness and as it stands now it appears to fail WP:BK. Should this be delisted until then or what? Doing a quick google check i didn't find any other obvious RSes that could be used to show notability.陣内Jinnai 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is only one source that really covers reception, and that is in very little depth, i would have delisted as failing broadness. Some reviewers are of the opinion that if there are no sources for reception, then GA is still possible for cases where there are other types of non-trivial sources, but i don't think that is the case here. If the book is itself not notable (and i agree that the sources seem to be minor mentions and this would be better merged somewhere), then it could be seen as failing the "too much detail" criterion (3b). I would delist for 3a and b concerns, and start an offical merge discussion.YobMod 07:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had this happen when I GAreviewed an obscure road.  I placed a notability banner, declared myself an involved editor, and withdrew from the review.  Another reviewer later took up the review, and failed it for having the unresolved banner.  The article was ultimately nominated for deletion and deleted.  I actually thought the article was pretty carefully put together and met most of the GA criteria: you might say I thought that it was "Good", but that it shouldn't be an "Article". :)  Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Book of Vile Deeds also had a few other issues with, most notability verifiability issue, especially with quotes.陣内Jinnai 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misindented my first comment.  I was replying to your original post.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles that fail notability 

message: I've delisted the above article, but I've messed up the article history. Could someone fix it, please? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nathaniel Hawthorne]] 

message: I am currently doing a GAR of Good Samaritan law Talk:Good Samaritan law/GA2.  The page does not deal with the issue on a global scale therefore in my opinion it does not fulfill GA requirements.  The main editor disagrees.  Further comments... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is still a problem, then I'd suggest that you close your individual review and open a community review instead. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the easiest way to do this? Just close it and start over? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a comment on the article review page. In my view it is helpful for the individual review to have an outcome. Then a community GAR can be opened if necessary. It may be that you can reach a compromise in which some additional global coverage is added, while treating the US law as the prototypical case. Or you could simply close the review as a delist, giving reasons, and start over with a community GAR. Geometry guy 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Will close as indeterminate at this point.  The main editor wishes further input.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR 

message: Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. When Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps update 

message: I've undertaken a GAR under the sweeps process, at Provisional Legislature of Oregon, which resulted in it passing. The steps in the process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps say "If the article passes review, in , add an entry and classify the action as GAR kept." In all my years here, i've never edited an articlehistory, and do not actually know how to do this. It is a semi-automated task at all? Can someone assist? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually handled by a bot, but the documentation is rather thorough. If you can't figure it out, drop a note here and I'll give it a stab. Regards,  Skomorokh  23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Skomorokh, when you say "it's usually handled by a bot", do you mean if I just leave the thing alone a bot will update it, or do you mean that in other circumstances a bot would do it, but in this case it will have to be done manually? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter is my (vague, unfounded) understanding; sorry for the lack of clarity. I know at FAC they will snort loudly at you for deigning to update manually, but at GAR we make do with scanter means :)  Skomorokh  00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: It's not automatic, and I've had a similar problem in the past, for which I got a mild wrist-slapping. I'll update the article history. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Slapped your wrist, eh? I'll bet that worked :-) Thanks Malleus. I'll look at what you do there, and then emulate it at two others i'm passing under the sweeps. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be fair Hamiltonstone, it takes a brave editor to even try and get near my wrist, lest they feel the wrath of the Great God Malleus. Well, in my dreams anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Malleus, on that update, you put it as "listed", but should it be "kept"? Aboutmovies (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds right, and i'm fixing that, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: It should have been kept, you're quite right. I'm obviously not as smart as I thnk I am. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweep review 

message: The conversation is transcluded from WP talk:GAN. I want the help of my fellow editors and reviewers here to stop this biased madness. Please help. 
Just yesterday I nominated the article "Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)" under music for GA. However, an editor who was involved in a previous dispute of the article, User:Piano non troppo suddenly chimed in and started reviewing the article. His main intention is to fail the article and hence is claiming in short that "the article is a pile load of shit". I request my fellow GA reviewrs here to request him to step down from his biased review and let a reviewer not associated with the article come and review it. He should be warned against actions like this. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed notes about this on the review page and the other editor's talk page and I am prepared to undertake the review if they step down.  Otherwise, it may be appropriate to take to WP:GAR if there is a dispute about the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Piano non troppo is vehemently being aggressive regarding this article and it totally shows from the comments on his talk page that he is reviewing the article with the intention of failing it. And whether the dispute was regarding the external links or not, he was involved in editing the aricle and he should not review it. As the nominater of the article I frankly refuse to accept a review by such a biased and aggressive editor who doesnot carry any good faith. I call for a community evaluation and will raise a request at GAR. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep biasness from an editor 

message: In summer 2009 I found the GA review for Megalon was faulty and raised a GAR, and LeGenD has a lot of work to improve the article. In late December 2009 I had an operation, and am not fit to continue as the reviewer. We'd both be grateful if an other reviewer could complete the review. --Philcha (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the intended referred article is Megalodon. Here is the talk page for details. This article has been vastly improved from its previous GA review state to resolve new issues pointed out by member Philcha. --LeGenD (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please complete [[Megalon]] GAR 

message: Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you guys have to be sick of seeing these updates by now. Again, when Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another GA Sweeps update 

message: I've made a proposal that notifications for good article reassessment be made mandatory here. Lambanog (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory notification 

message: I do not know how to do this but could someone nominate American civil war? That article has many problems as underlined on the talkpage. It is incomplete and doesn't show the full scope and impacts/causes of it, only major battles. 198.188.150.134 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that the article has "many problems" that compromise its GA listing then you have to make your case at WP:GAR, where you will find instructions on how to do it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the energy to nominate it myself but I believe it definitely needs to be reviewed. The article does not mention the aftermath of the war, which is by far the most important aspect of the civil war, nor the long term causes. Any reviewer should catch these errors, may i please ask that you file this report for me? 198.188.150.134 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a Victory and aftermath section, and I also see that this article passed a GA review a little over a year ago, and is rated A-class by the Military History project. I see little grounds for requesting a review, but if you do then why not raise the issue either on the article's talk page or with the Military History Project. They will have the interest and expertise to help you. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Instructions for requesting a milhist A-Class reappraisal can be found here. Normally we only accept such requests from a registered editor in good standing, but you are welcome to raise any issues you have on the milhist talk page here. EyeSerenetalk 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  help 

message: A proposal to promote this essay is underway.174.3.113.245 (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Quote]] 

message: The so-called GAR at HIV appears to have been a significant abuse of process, and I am simply going to revert the delisting that this particular individual has undertaken. I'm not going to spend x number of days wikilawyering around this sort of conduct. Just a note for those who watch this area. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, the article violates 4 and 5 in Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I notified top 5 editors      and gave it 5 days. Wheres the abuse of process? Phoenix of9 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the circumstances of the article (see article talk page) indicate an individual re-assessment is not appropriate, least of all by a heavily-involved editor such as Phoenix. Second, only one specific issue was raised by Phoenix when the review was opened: the risk table. This issue had already been under discussion on the talk page, with several experienced editors indicating that while there were legitimate areas for discussion, the table was not as much of a problem as that one editor claimed. Third, the only other editor who did comment at the GA review page contradicted the view of the reviewer. This highlights the fact that individual re-assessment was not going to be the right course of action, and the review should not have been closed as a delist just because the person who opened the review didn't like what the other editor said. Fourth, Phoenix's states that they notified top 5 editors - but they didn't notify the editors who disagreed with Phoenix on the talk page on this very same issue, which was not a fair way to proceed. I repeat my previous advice. Do not delist this article under an individual reassessment, and do not continue the individual reassessment. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Phoenix's actions here seem more like retaliation against the other editors at the page (for not allowing Phoenix to delete a large, heavily sourced table) than a good-faith review.  A delisting under these circumstances carries about as much respect as someone re-writing a policy in the middle of a dispute so that it "supports" the editor's side of the dispute.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:HIV/GA2]] 

message: Dear Sir/Madam, I observed that the articles on Christianiy, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy,
Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianiy,
Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as
its fork for criticism ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the
other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and
positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a
rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the criticism fork available in the main article for Christianiy, Islam and Hinduism also. Thanking you, Yours faithfully,
Dr.Vittal (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been pointed out on talk:homeopathy why this is not a good idea, and that the /criticism sub-page isn't a fork.  Please stop forum shopping.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy 

message: Does anyone here follow :Category:Good articles in need of review?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I take a look occasionally, I see that there is one article listed theer.  they also appear at WP:GAR. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of review 

message: I've recently submitted September_11_attacks for review (see review page) but got no replies. This is a very large article and I assume it would be too much work to review it and get it back to GA status, which is why I assume nobody answered. What should I do in that case? Should I delist the article myself? Laurent (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do next? 

message: B'Day has been tagged for reassessment since May 2010. Should it not have been 'seen' to by now? Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is a reassessment at the bottom of the talk page.  I have left a message on the reviewer's talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  B'Day 

message: Could you guys add the discussion here? Thx Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You opened this as an "individual reassessment" (which is okay, as you have not contributed significantly to the article). This means that *you* determine the outcome (whether to list the article or not) after allowing time for other editors to comment, just as you would for a good article nomination review. Individual reassessments are not listed here. If you would prefer a "community reassessment" (listed here, outcome determined by reviewer consensus here) let me know and I will move the page and fix the headers. Geometry guy 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please move it over here for "community reassessment". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at WP:Good article reassessment/Astronomy in medieval Islam/1 and will be listed on the GAR page shortly. Geometry guy 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Astronomy in medieval Islam/GA1 

message: I'd be grateful if a few members particated in a GAR of Warcraft II, so that it is not swamped by those who swamped Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1. I don't want to influence those who partipicated in a GAR, and would prefer honest comment as more help for myself. IMO Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 was a poor review because:
* The opening of was so poorly structured that I restructured it so I could understanding. None of the reviewers object to the result.
* IMO "This article is structure in a rather funky way that is, in a word, bad" has no information content and is just the opposite of WP:PEACOCK, whatever that is.
* "lots of irrelevant details and bad structuring that does not proceed logically" also tells me nothing.
* The complain that "Warcraft II is a real time strategy game (RTS),[1] in other words the contenders play at the same time and continuously, so that players have to move quickly" was, in the first reviewer opinion, "Bad, almost game-guide tone, how about just explaining what an RTS is instead of beating around the bush and giving us a really bad explanation before actually cutting to the chase". However, the article gives 2 citations for the explanation of RTS, IMO this is relevant, and hence trying to removed it would be WP:POV.
* IMO the Publication details have 2 functions. While most in most game articles Publication is about events before release, in Warcraft II it's most complex because it was additional platforms, the console versions added UI functions, but then Blizzard removed these when it released the Battle.net version.
* I'm interested in readers, and as an reader myself I want to know whether the game is good and whether it's one I'd like.
* The story, when present, is generally subordinate to the gameplay, for example:
** Total_Annihilation's story is a concise summary of the gameplay: "What began as a conflict over the transfer of consciousness from flesh to machines escalated into a war which has decimated a million worlds. The Core and the Arm have all but exhausted the resources of a galaxy in their struggle for domination. Both sides now crippled beyond repair, the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets, their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war. This is a fight to the death. For each side, the only acceptable outcome is the complete elimination of the other.
** The in-game stories of the Red Alert series simply explain why the western powers are fighting Stalin rather than Hitler.
** Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares has no story within the game and 1 page in the manual.
--Philcha (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Philcha, the idea that this review was a quick-fail is absurd and I urge you to retract it here and elsewhere. The overall review lasted for over 2 months, with detailed review comments from 5 reviewers. Even the last reviewer left indicative suggestions for improving the article. Reviewers are not obliged anywhere in the good article nomination process to put articles on hold: quick-failing refers only to failing for specific reasons where a detailed review would be unhelpful. If you believe there is a requirement that nominations should always be put on hold to fix problems, please point me to it. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've opened Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Warcraft_II/2. There was a PR but work on that ended a month ago so I've closed it. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was unnecessary, as Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Warcraft_II/1 remains open. Please take more care. I will merge the edit histories. Geometry guy 20:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for request GAR for GA review of Warcraft II 

message: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Warcraft_II/1 and the links from my contribs are OK. But when I try to link from Master_of_Orion_II to the GAR, I get an invalid link. Any idea why? --Philcha (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What has happened here is multiple character encoding: the colon in the link was encoded (correctly) as %3A. Unfortunately, in the second link, the percent sign % has been recognised as a symbol rather than a code, and encoded again as %25, resulting in %253A, which makes no sense. Geometry guy 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid link for GAR 

message: * :Category:Good articles in need of review  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment cat 

message: Can someone tell me why Hlín has been listed as potentially needing reassessment? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Simon Burchell, probably. Regards, Skomorokh 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hlín 

message: Would someone more experienced than me as to how the reassessment process works mind taking a look at 2006 Lebanon War? There's some kind of discussion there, but it looks pretty dormant; it's not resolved either way, and it's been sitting there for months. Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it does look like the re-assessment has been abandoned. It was opened by an editor on 30 May who hasn't commented since and one editor commented in July.  I closed it as keep, without prejudice to anyone else who wishes to open a proper re-assessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stagnant (lost?) request 

message: This article has had too many editors. Administrator fast and careless editing / reverting  has left this article with many points being repeated more than two or three times and yet not all points are demonstrated with each method. Interesting facts have been deleted by overzealous editors attempting to protect the article in their emotionally based style. Too many personal concepts have been added with no cites or basis. Again careless editing have left it fairly scrambled. Attempts at editing result in more reversion and confusion in the layout.
A complete reconstruct needs attention using the current supplied data. The article is also too long for the messages conveyed.--174.118.149.54 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the appropriate forum to complain about an edit-war, and there is no policy regarding the number of editors appropriate for an article. If you believe this article no longer meets the GA criteria located here: WP:WIAGA, and a discussion in the talk page does not resolve the disagreement, then you can nominate the article for a GA reassessment using the procedure discussed on this project page at WP:GAR, explaining exactly why the article does not meet the GA criteria. Incidentally, it is not required to register an account, but you may find that your experience here would improve as a registered user rather than as an anonymous editor. Aaron north (T/C) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long and Short Scales 

message: Would someone take a moment to respond to a question at Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol/GA1? An editor wants to know what to do about GA reassessment when another editor started one, but never finished it. --Pnm (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left it so that the editor can start a new reassessment page if s/he wishes. Otherwise, it might be better to add the abandoned reassessment to article history. Geometry guy 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll write the editor who was interested. Thanks a lot. --Pnm (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed at [[Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol/GA1]] 

message: ::While editors are paying attention to the quality of GAs, note that there are currently 6 articles at community reassessment. Comments on any of them would be most welcome.
There seems to be a lot of GAs with cleanup templates at the top of them... see Heinrich event, Air transport and the environment (United Kingdom), Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. Johnfos (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not fix them? Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's too many. Johnfos (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix one of them, and ask a friend to fix another (and ask a friend...) :) Geometry guy 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, my mistake, I thought you GA guys were interested in keeping up quality and that this might have been an issue that you would look into. Johnfos (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, hence the suggestion that you roll your sleeves up instead of complaining from the sidelines. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Editors may do so, in response to your post, but if you do not engage actively with the encyclopedia, you are not truly engaging at all. Geometry guy 00:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Consider reviewing the edit history stats and contacting the main editors noting that the page has a cleanup tag(s). Although it's helpful to improve articles ourselves, the original editors may have more background knowledge in addressing tags. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I've solved the "problem" at Heinrich event: It was apparently tagged by someone who doesn't know what an WP:Inline citation is. (Hint: <ref> tags are not the only way that Wikipedians provide inline citations.) Perhaps the tags at the other articles will be as easy to address as this one was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Moni3 has commented elsewhere that tagging is essentially an unproductive and lazy activity, and I tend to agree with her. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well either way, there would be a reason why the article's tagged. Every article that's either featured or were good articles that I reviewed had good reasons to be tagged. People should just Be Bold and do something about a tagged article. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There may well be reasons, but not always good reasons, as WhatamIdoing has pointed out above. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAs with tags 

message: I've de-listed Al-Kindi. Its had a POV tag on it for months on end. And also it isn't good William M. Connolley (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have nominated for community reassessment on your behalf. Please add a rationale at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1 Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Kindi 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raintheone here is a request for comment. The GAR in question and the conduct in question is my own. Apparently involved parties can comment too, seeing as the main dispute started on a GAR, this seems the appropiate place to notify. The GAR is here at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/1Rain the 1 BAM 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC
:I've redacted part of the notice here and a reply from another party. Rain, if you're going to notify anywhere else be more neutral. Jake, I appreciate what you tried to do, but it's best that someone else do it since you are the filer of the RfC/U. If anyone would like to see the redacted commentary, it's in the edit history. Otherwise, the RfC/U is the place to post if you're interested in the user conduct, or the GAR if your focus is the article content. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of RfC/U related to a Good Article Reassessment 

message: GAR on Chlorine was started, but it does not show up in the list here. I do not know enough about the process and the templates to find the problem, sorry. --Stone (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR on Chlorine 

message: Hi, I started a community reassessment of this article here following disagreement over concerns brought up on the talk page. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for community reassessment of Slayer home video 

message: Not sure if I followed the instructions correctly since my listing is not showing up .Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only community reassessment's that are listed here; you started an individual reassessment. Malleus Fatuorum 12:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Community reassessment's only done when there's disagreement about whether it should be listed, right? In any case, I'd appreciate some eyes on it just to confirm that it is indeed a copyvio before delist it and remove most of the content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm 

message: I came across Detroit Institute of Arts today, and noticed that it did not go through the nomination process and was upgraded straight from start-class to GA. Is it deserving? Chris857 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may or may not be deserving, but to be listed as a GA it has to be reviewed at GAN, which it wasn't. I've undone the "promotion". Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history it's clear that this was just a misunderstanding by somebody who did not know the GA rules, but I wonder if there would be a way of checking for other things of the same sort, for example by setting up a bot to scan GA articles to see whether there are any that lack GA reviews. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For that last few years, three to four, the review has been by means of a transcluded  page but before that the review was just one section on the article's talk page some of which might have been moved to an archive page. I don't know about bot writing, but it would have to check for three cases: a /GA1 with a "pass" verdict (it might have been failed, so a /GA2 or /GA3 might also be needed); a section on article's talk page (or perhaps more than one); a section in one of the archived pages (or perhaps more than one page in one or more archives). I see scope for plenty of "false alarms". Pyrotec (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detroit Institute of Arts 

message: I just did my first GA review, of Oliver Valentine.  It passed, and I added a GA template to the Talk page.  But I don't see the green + appearing immediately on the article page itself.  So either there is a time lag until some tool processes it, or else I screwed up.  Can someone let me know if I added the GA template correctly?  Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  The green + just showed up. --Noleander (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You usually need to purge the cache of your browser as it is storing a local copy of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The icon is added by the GA bot, which runs periodically -- in this case it was about 10 minutes between passing the article and having the bot process it.  Note that WT:GAN is a better page to bring up issues of this sort than this page. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on process 

message: Wikipedia:Good article criteria states that a GA must comply with the manual of style for lead sections. Four paragraphs is defined as the maximum length of a lead section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#The rest of the lead section. However, at WP:LEAD#Length, a pipe link to WP:Ignore all rules suggests that the four-paragraph limit can be exceeded if it "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia".
;Incomplete list of GA articles with more than four paragraphs in the lead section:
(Please expand list as needed, or strikethrough corrected entries.)
*1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson – 13
*2007 Texas Longhorns football team – 5
*Alcoholism – 5
*American Civil War – 5
*Annelid – 5
*Arthropod – 6
*Anne Boleyn – 6
*Brachiopod – 10
** Reverted Brachiopod lead to GA review Talk:Brachiopod/GA1 21:21, 9 April 2010  version, then consented 3 para. --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Request community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. In individual GAR, both ended with new objections, giving me no change to response. And in Master of Orion II the reviewer wrote, "...  indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews" - but Master of Orion II has many good citations, including several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 2 community reassessment 

message: There is consensus on Hurricane Ivan being demoted from good article status, and the reassessment needs to be closed. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Ivan 

message: I hope this isn't an inappropriate place to be asking this question, but is it acceptable to just remove the Good Article template (without listing it for reassessment) when the template was added without a GA nomination or discussion in the first place?
The page in question is Hotel Koresco, and the page creator (who has since been indef blocked) added the GA template . The article is literally incoherent; this is from the lede:
::"Within partake of PAGCOR Philippines Asia affiliation e-games venue facility accustomed. The hotel is basically owned by the Korean billionaire who also administer more than hotels over Asia. The expansion hill of pueblo de Oro tracks the hotel, with the tourism holdings support the Koresco hotel acquires engineering features. Grand stars construction embedded forming V-shaped building systems created by the Filipino architect Richard Tan."
I'm being overly cautious by even asking, aren't I? I'm prone to that. So can I remove the GA template without nominating it for reassessment? Dawn Bard (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, that was just the GA icon that was added, it wasn't added to the GA list. I removed the icon, GAR is for reassessment of articles that have been reviewed for GA status at some point. Thanks for asking. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about reassessment procedure 

message: Many articles listed here could probably have been dealt with by individual reassessment. Considering participation at this page is low and in effect many are closed with only one or two comments anyway maybe we should do more to encourage individual reassessments. Community re-assessemnt should really only be used when there is a dispute over the classification of a Good article, not for routine maintenance of the standards. One way could be to only let articles that have been assessed, either through individual reassessment or GAN assessment, recently (month, week or some other set time) undergo community reassessment. It will mean some rewording to the instructions and some sort of informal check to identify any bad faith nominations (maybe a list here of current individual re-assessment that can be monitored). If any disagrees with an individual re-assessment it can then be turned into a community one without losing any work done by the assessor. AIRcorn (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encourage more individual assessments 

message: Not sure why this isn't appearing: Talk:Luke Ravenstahl/GA2. Help?--GrapedApe (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be ok now. Just needed to be transcluded.  MathewTownsend (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Luke Ravenstahl/GA2]] 

message: I am done with my review of Polish milhist articles up to GA class, and I have found several articles that do not seem to meet modern GA class standards. I have posted on the talk pages of those articles, listing the problems, and contacted their authors, some over a week ago, some just today, and I think for the articles that have had no action for over a week, we should start a GAR procedure. I am not overly familiar with GARs, so I'd appreciate comments from a more experienced GARer. The articles in question are:
* Szczerbiec - missing references
* Kiev Offensive (1920) - missing references
* Vilnius Castle Complex - missing references
* Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660) - missing references
* Battle of Grunwald - missing references
* Biuro Szyfrów - missing references
* Władysław Raginis - questions of comprehensiveness, prose and structure.
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two main choices, and that applies to each article. You can follow the "Community reassessment" (see green boxes on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment), and that way the community takes the decision to pass or fail (delayed if necessary by a "hold"); or you follow the "Individual reassessment" (see green boxes on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment), and that way you do a GAR assessment and award a pass or fail decision (delayed if necessary by a "hold"). "Individual reassessment"  is a faster process, but one editor ends up doing the whole of the review, for one or more articles. Either way it would be polite to notify the original nominator and reviewer for each of the articles (assuming that they are still active), plus relevant wikiprojects (e.g. Milhist, Poland, etc). Is that what you were looking for, or were you expecting a different answer? Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's helpful, thanks. I guess my next step is to notify the reviewers/nominators (if different from the main author). If nobody replies, I will probably open an individual assessment, leave it for a few days, and pass/fail depending on whether there is any action taken. Does it sound fair? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a quick look at Szczerbiec, but it was not a "review". I found a couple of  flags and I see from the history history that they were added today (by you). Kpalion has done most of the work see here. I suspect that I would not fail it: see if Kpalion is willing to fix it, that could save the effort of reviewing it at GAR. Kiev Offensive (1920) looks a good article (not the same as a Good Article), but there are whole subsections without references, so possibly unless it is fixed, its not GA-standard - i.e. not compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 2(a) & (b). I'm not going to look at the rest (well for now anyway). I'm happy for you to review them, but reviewing can take a lot of time (almost all of my time, anyway). Pyrotec (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've contacted all reviewers. Kpalion has fixed the Szczerbiec article, so that one is fine now, as for the rest... we will see. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish milhist GA for reassessment 

message: One I've happened to come across, but I don't have time to follow up on. I wonder if someone could handle (i.e. list or whatever) it. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Education in Iceland]] 

message: If there is an uninvolved experienced editor who could take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1, I've recommended a speedy close as keep there. Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress talk 14:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  A speedy close would be very appropriate.63.119.36.186 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed the article and GAR text, and closed this as kept. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the speedy keep. Please explain your reasoning further.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'm not sure where your concern lies, but I'll do my best. One possibility is that you are concerned that this wasn't handled as processes as are at FAR/FARC. That's because GAR isn't like FAR/FARC. For GAR one uses "this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria." It isn't meant primarily as an article improvement process, but as a delisting process, unless issues are quickly addressed. FAR is a more complex process which has a stage that is mainly focussed on improvement, and a stage focussed on assessment with a view to possible delisting. Another possibility is that you are concerned that I haven't explained in detail why the article meets the criteria. It appears to me to be well-written, its lead appears consistent with MOS. It is abundantly referenced. Some may think it over-referenced, but given the potentially contentious nature of the subject, particularly at the moment, I think it's fine. I haven't been through it line by line, but I'm not seeing evidence on the talk page or the edit history to suggest any WP:OR problems. It is broad in its coverage, addressing personal life and education, business career, state political career, and presidential candidacies, as well as some separate discussion of key aspects of his views. If this were a candidate at FAC, I would be considering any possible duplication between the penultimate section and the body text, but I don't see it as an issue at GA since, even if there duplication, it is limited in scope. Individuals will seldom agree on the neutrality of articles about living partisan political players (IMO), but the careful referencing, the neutral language, and the watchful eyes of experienced editors all suggest to me that it is sound. Likewise, articles such as this are not always very stable in terms of vandalism, but I don't see edit wars or disputes on a scale that should prevent it being GA. Finally, images are generally OK; I am aware there is a live debate about one image that relates to one of the GA criteria ("images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions"), but there is a sensible discussion going on, and I don't think editors are trying to keep an image in the article that is clearly agaisnt the criteria. I hope these points address your concern. Let me know if not. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Please show where I seem "concerned that this wasn't handled as processes as are at FAR/FARC". Which is your first claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't - i said I wasn't sure what your concern was, so I covered a couple of options. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't what? I asked you to show where I seem concerned about these things. I don't understand "I didn't" in response to my inquiry. You DID make a claim that is not accurate, speculation or not.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I wasn't clear re: "I didn't" - I meant "I didn't make that first claim". hamiltonstone (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

text: It was innaccurate and not a reason for speedy delete since it is not anything I have ever expressed and makes accusations of policy interpretation NEVER stated and I take it rather serious when being used as an excuse to speedy close a community reassesment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You also state "use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria." which is the reason the GAR was started. You also state:"It isn't meant primarily as an article improvement process, but as a delisting process, unless issues are quickly addressed". OK, all these points seem to have been met. Primarily doesn't mean "ever" and "unless issues are quickly addressed" would seem to also be covered by the good faith work editors are attempting. All of the FAR reasoning is your speculation and not a part of the actual reason you speedy closed. There is no debate about FAR on the GAR, the talkpage of the article or elsewhere. --Amadscientist (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR speedy close 

message: Is this speedy closing appropriate? Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1 Seems to me there was reasoning given beyond someone is working on it. Thanks for assuming bad faith on my part.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have largely responded on the issues, above. I'm not sure what you mean about assuming bad faith. I think you're making a useful contribution, and certainly don't think you've any bad motives; I just don't think the GAR process needs to continue, since the article meets the criteria. I'm very happy to see you continue to contribute to improving it. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this "Speedy close" was innaproppriate and made several accusations of mis-interpretations of FAR, above in speculation, instead of simply contacting the editor being accused of these things for clarification. This speedy close was NOT appropriate and I request it be restored for the community to continue working on. I also believe these types of "shoot from the hip" decisions, accompanied by accusations or speculation of any kind contribute to editors leaving or stopping further contributions.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For other editors who may wish to express a view, as well as for myself: can I just get clarification of whether you still believe that the article fails to meet the GA criteria and that I have misapplied the criteria in my reading of the community discussion on the page? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy closing of Community reassesment seems unreasonable if the community is working on it in good faith! 

message: This article was delisted on 12 May by User:Veritycheck as a result of a GA review, and then relisted on 13 August and the Review result retrospectively changed by User:Tarc without any new review that I can see. Personally, I don't think the article is a GA. Right now, it has five templates pointing out citation problems, MOS problems like "He" when referring to God in the body text, prose disasters like 
*"He later worked mostly as a merchant, as well as a shepherd, and was first married by age 25", 
*"The revelations (or Ayah, lit. "Signs [of God]")—which Muhammad reported receiving until his death—form the verses of the Quran, regarded by Muslims as the “Word of God” and around which the religion is based", 
*"The Quran addresses Muhammad in the second person not by his name but by the appellations prophet, messenger, servant of God ...", 
*"God has caused some messengers to excel above others 2:253 and in Sura Al-Ahzab 33:40 He singles out Muhammad as the "Seal of the Prophets""
I wouldn't even want to begin drilling down into the sources. So what is the most appropriate action now, given this state of affairs? JN466 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the thought of trying to fix these issues ever crossed your mind? Resolute 13:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The review had no consensus to de-list from GA; Veritycheck did that unilaterally. After the initial arguments were shown to be bogus, some new issues cropped up (such as a copyvio) which I understand have been fixed, so there was no real reason to de-list in the first place. Template tags that have appeared recently should be addressed and fixed; de-listing from GA without even bothering to fix these things is rather drastic. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An individual reassessment does not need consensus, it is up to the nominator (in that case Veritycheck) to decide whether it meets the criteria. If there is disagreement the next step is to bring it to a community reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think Veritycheck lost the right to unilaterally delist when their ridiculous rationale was found to be invalid.   It became (unofficially) a community reassessment at that point, and the community had no consensus. Resolute 02:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad faith delistings should not be counted and editors that abuse the process should be sanctioned. Not sure that is the case here. Either way I think any controversial cases like this should probably always go through the community (maybe needs stronger wording here). If that had been brought straight to a community reassessment it would most likely have been relisted (see the article history of Margaret Thatcher for a recent case). Still it should have gone through the protst. AIRcorn (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad GA review 

message: Can someone close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pink slime/1. I was involved in a dispute over the article earlier so it would be best if someone else does it. AIRcorn (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Hello. Is there anybody here? AIRcorn (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is someone here. I will read the reassessment and then article and then come to a decision. There seems to be little in the way of participation, so I'm not going to close it without doing the background checks first. Pyrotec (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not many do. Homeopathy only got about four participants and I was the only one I know of who hadn't been involved with the article previously. Thanks for taking this one on and I hope you stick around. This place is crying out for experienced reviewers willing to comment on or close reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink Slime 

message: I was searching in the archives for the reasons why the article Organic food was delisted on 15 October 2007. For some reason, I fail to find it. Wrong date, wrong place or so? I think I need some help... The Banner talk 00:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a sweep of all early GAs to make sure they met up to the current standards (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps). Most of this was before my time so I might be wrong, but I believe it was in response to getting the GA "green spot" put into article space. Anyway, what you are looking for is at Talk:Organic food/Archive 2#GA Sweeps (on hold). AIRcorn (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Sweeps pre-dates the "green spot". Many of the articles that were awarded GA status prior to 26 August 2007 were found to have been awarded GA without an adequate review, so the sweep, which took three years to complete, re-reviewed every article in the list. Those that were found to be non-compliant with the requirments were either delisted immediately, or put "On Hold". For those articles that were put On Hold, the relevant wikiprojects were informed and given time to bring the article(s) up to standard. The record shows that Organic food was put On Hold for 12 days before being delisted. There is a link to the review in the articles milestones template on the article's talkpage but the relevant section has been archived and that link was not been updated. I have now updated it. The template also gives a link to the article at the time that it was delisted and that shows that the article had several  flags present. Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just curious why is was delisted, but looking at the links and your words, it should never have been promoted in the first place. Clear. The Banner talk 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It was promoted to GA in 2006 and on that basis was put up for WP:FAC in February 2007 but it did not make it through that "hurdle" and soon lost its GA as well. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am glad that someone appreciates the purpose of the Sweep. It was a very time and labour consuming process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes indeed. I came in towards the end, some time after you, and I did only 46 sweep reviews, but one reviewer did over 300 reviewers and another over 600. Pyrotec (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassesment Organic Food 2007 

message: I wanted to close my GAR at Talk:Henri Brocard but the instructions here are so badly written I cannot do it (and no, I don't intend to waste more than 5 minutes of my time trying to decipher them). I'll however list the problems with the instructions so somebody who knows what to do can fix them:
* "go to the community reassessment page" - what is the community reassessment page? Link it. It certainly is not the Talk:Henri Brocard/GA1 because it doesn't have the mentioned string.
* "On the talk page of the article, replace  by adding or updating ." - replace means remove? ArticleHistory exists, update it HOW?
Thus I failed at both steps. Whoever wrote the above instructions - go take a course in manual writing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the instructions for closing a community reassessment. What you want is step 5 from the individual reassement column. I just realised that it doesn't mention what to do if you decide to keep it, which it probably should even though the steps are roughly the same. I showed you how to close these a while ago. Simply put keep or delist on the reassessment page (Talk:Henri Brocard/GA1) and then update the article history template to say whatever you decide to do. The instructions are at , but what I do is copy the previous one, increment the number by one manually (for example if the previous fields were action1 change them to action2) and change the fields (GAN to GAR and so on). If it is delisted then the Wikiproject classes should be changed (GA to B or C), the article removed from the list at WP:GA and the  template removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

text: You also need to remove the  template from the talk page (that is what links to the reassessment and is now covered by the link in the article history). AIRcorn (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did all but the article history. I think I could do it too, if I dedicated 10 minutes or so to learning this arcane tool, but to be frank - I have better things to do with my time, like create content. If you or someone else who understands this can fix the article history, please do. Hopefully one day this template will be made more user friendly or automated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ideally there should be a way to just change the status field in the  template to just delisted or kept and then a bot should be able to do the rest. The article history is updated when the article is listed as Good so it should be possible. AIRcorn (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. This is a good idea, might be worth proposing it at Template talk:Article history. Ping me if you do so and I'll gladly endorse it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly written instructions 

message: If a GA has dead links and no archives or replacement links can be found (such as by the WayBack Machine), then the content doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is a requirement for GAs (see WP:GACR). So why does WP:GAR state that "Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs...are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing." Till 12:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability is only required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons - science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines". If a dead link is used to support one of these things then it can cause the article to be delisted (or the information to be removed). AIRcorn (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Dead links are a common problem with many articles. Currently 5353 Good articles have dead links tagged (many more will not be tagged). It is possible that over half of all Good rated articles could be delisted if this was a requirement. AIRcorn (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, having a web link is not a requirement for a citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: The Risk parity article received GA status on September 15, 2011. Since that time it has received about 25 minor edits to tweak the article and strengthen the citations .  On January 4th, 2013 User: Don4of4 began a reassessment and failed the article claiming it needed more images and wasn't comprehensive enough. I left a detailed response and challenged his logic and the misapplication of GA guidelines in his reassessment. He has not returned to WP since Jan 4th, the day he reassessed and failed the article.  I don't think this is appropriate procedure nor is it fair to me or the original GA reviewer, User: SCB '92. Can someone help me?-- — Keithbob • Talk •  23:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Don4of4 did not close the last GAR. Images are not really a concern unless there are free suitable ones available. Comprehensiveness is a GA issue though. I will have a look and comment at the open reassessment. As an individual reassessment it is up to Don4of4 to close it. If it is failed and you believe that to be in error the next step is to nominate it for a community reassessment here (I can help you do that if we need to). AIRcorn (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk parity 

message: Does History of the Jews in Mauritius qualify for GA Reassessment? I was surprised to see it listed as such because it was so short. According to the criteria, shortness in and of itself is not an issue, but it seems to fail "broad in coverage", since it covers a very small portion of the history. I'm new at this, however, and I don't want to waste everyone's time with an official reassessment if I'm way off base, so I figured that it was short enough for maybe someone to just take a quick look? 184.187.183.118 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have it right with your interpretation of the criteria. This article rings a bell for some reason. Will have a look at it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Found Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16#History of the Jews in Mauritius and the concerns raised there still seem to be valid. I personally find the broadness criteria the hardest to assess as it requires some knowledge of the topic. Having gaps is a good indication that somethings missing and 60 years is a long time considering the short history. You are not way off base and would have a good case for delisting. Saying that it is not the worst article in the world and I doubt there is much information to be found to fill the gaps. AIRcorn (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to look, I can't say that I'm an expert on the topic, but I'll see what's available. Thanks for the reply (sorry mine is so late!). 184.187.183.118 (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this book alone makes me believe that there's more to be said about the 1940-1945 period, let alone the aftermath. I think there's a good case, so I'm going to nominate it. 184.187.183.118 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, apparently I can't create a nomination since I'm a lowly anon. But I still there's a good case here. 184.187.183.118 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The period between 1940 and 1945 is probably the Patria disaster or its aftermath.--Tomcat (7) 20:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Jews in Mauritius 

message: *No worries
**Talk:No worries/GA2
I request that this be a community reassessment and not an individual reassessment:
#The nominator failed to consult the instructions and neglected to notify me, the original GA contributor who brought the page to GA.
#The nominator failed to cite any secondary sources to back up any of his assertions.
#The article hadn't principally changed or been degraded in quality in any way since its initial GA promotion.
#The article already did indeed have a worldview perspective, bringing together information from numerous secondary sources.
#The article already did include discussion of usage in multiple locations, including a total of five (5) countries.
*Can this GA Review please take the form of a community reassessment and not an individual assessment, or at least not from a contributor with a vested interest to delist the article page who did not do due diligence first???
Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:No worries/GA2 request for community reassessment