Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive1

message: If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away.
# Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.
# If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! 
# However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met.
|}
This would form part of a group of related changes. Wikipedia talk:Good articles for more details. TheGrappler 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you believe an article should be listed

message: Pelase see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Straw_poll_on_new_lead -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed lead changes 

message: With this archiving of the Perl discussion, a truncated version was archived. A fuller version of the discussion can be see here. The truncation was right in the middle of a sentence and Harmil's signature was removed. Only someone in charge of maintaining the Good articles/Disputes page should refactor it, and they shouldn't truncate in the middle of a sentence for being off the subject, and they should post to the thread to explain why they did it, and sign it. If nobody else does, I'll go through the edit history to see when and by whom it was truncated. The Perl good article dispute is currently being held against me in arbitration and if it was improperly truncated (which it was), that could affect things. -Barry- 19:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was? I thought it was just some random comment :/. Un-archive it then if you were still discussing it, I just saw a bunch of timestamps from May 23rd or something and archived it. Homestarmy 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakal323 truncated it here earlier today for some reason. The pre-truncated version should be archived. Not sure how to do it offhand, but I'll look into it later if nobody beats me to it. -Barry- 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, is the non-truncate discussion more than a month old now? Homestarmy 17:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truncated version of Perl discussion archived 

message: I think somebody started mass-archiving old discussions without checking them very closely, Perl was re-archived again, and several disputes which were clearly in favor of "delist" were not enforced. I think there needs to be more clarity in the instructions about how to archive, so anyone can do it without interrupting things. Homestarmy 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added some preliminary instructions in Archive 4, I hope nobody minds. Homestarmy 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is need for an independent editors to take "ownership" of discussions and to ensure the result occurs then archive the discussion.  I only archived discussions that had been inactive for 16 days or more one was even 30+ days. Gnangarra 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Perl's latest comment seemed to only be about a week old, and Ethiopia was never delisted, so I decided to bring up the subject :/. It does, however, occur to me now that waiting for too long to archive may result in delisting an article which has been radically changed, perhaps some self-determination for archivers is in order to determine whether or not the article in question is still suffering from the grounds of disputes?Homestarmy 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where are the archives, BTW? --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Their in the box to the right. Homestarmy 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving instructions 

message: I'd like to bring a motion to the floor that we change the number of approximate days until something is archived down to a week of stagnent discussion; especially with articles with a bunch of editors, more than 2 weeks is a very long time for an article, and a discussion occuring more than two weeks ago may not even come close to reflecting the actual state of the article. Plus, since archivers are supposed to enforce the final decision when a consensus or near-consensus is reached, this may become difficult if the article has changed too much. Also, what with all the changes going on with discussing the purpose of the project, and the very large need to do a big sweep of the entire list, I predict this page may become far too swelled with articles if the time limit is too long. Homestarmy 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I was wondering why some were sitting there for days/weeks. Lincher 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since there's been no objections, i'll change the instructions on archiving to a week. Homestarmy 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Days until archive 

message: This was my first delisting, so i followed the instructions and just left a topic on the talk page citing my concerns Talk:Harry_Potter#Better_sourcing_is_available. Then I was told that I had to put it on review first? If that is true, I think the instructions need to be made more clear. Borisblue 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't have to put it up for review, if people are asking you to do it though they should know that anybody can open a review. Homestarmy 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a requirement to go to review? 

message: Since recently many people have come here thinking that they can get a review here I suggest we change the lead to mention that this is not a place to get a general review but to review the GA status of an article. Here is what I suggest.
:The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if a article still merits its good article status. Articles on this list are graded against the good article criteria in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the article assessment scale. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the articles status. This is not a Peer Review Process, for that see  Wikipedia:Peer Review.
Feel free to comment or change it as you wish. Tarret 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still think moving the page back to the old name would be better, but the wording here might work, as long as you add in that it is also for contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted. Homestarmy 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead for page 

message: I propose to add the following line
# Check that you have logged in, anons may not delist articles.
to the current list of instrutctions on delisting an article. Comments? --RelHistBuff 09:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: Can I get people to agree to a second sentence, along the lines of what Tjstrf said? It would add extra emphasis, do a bit to avoid hurt feelings if someone is reverted, etc etc blah blah blah. I think this is a trivial addition and is certainly in the spirit of the first sentence.--Ling.Nut 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding anonymous delistings 

message: The six related articles one needs archiving as somebody has already delisted them. LuciferMorgan 00:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Archived as NO CONSENSUS. The discussion that was still going on was, unfortunately, mostly bickering (of which I was a part... mea culpa. Actual discussion of the article was more than a a week old.
--Ling.Nut 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway Archived as NO CONSENSUS 

message: On Wikipedia, whenever the status of an article or is under review, it is traditional to place some kind of notice either on that article or on its talk page. Some articles that are my within my Wikiproject's scope have been recently listed, and while I agree entirely with the delisting, I'm a bit taken aback by the process. You see, there was no warning whatsoever aside from the discussion on the "review" page, a page that few editors take the time to watch. It seems to me that the absence of any kind of visible notice makes an article's presence on a "review" page entirely pointless: it could have been simply immediately delisted with approximately the same level of warning. Second, given a week of warning, the project could have been notified, and the shortcomings could have been easily resolved, and now we have to resolve them post facto, and ask for relisting. Am I the only person struck by the inefficiency? – ClockworkSoul 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your timing is impeccable. We are in fact discussing/dealing with that very issue at this very moment. If you'll look just two subsections above this one, the issue is getting near resolution: Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Review#Using templates in the GA review.3F. Sorry for the inefficiency you noted; hope we can correct it in the future.--Ling.Nut 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, dear. I seem to have missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. :) – ClockworkSoul 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No notice? 

message: See above threads "Using templates in the GA review?" and "No notice?"--these obviously had no affect. WHY IS THIS CONTINUING TO HAPPEN. It just happened again with The Scout Association of Hong Kong, and others I'm sure no doubt. This practice needs to CEASE IMMEDIATELY. It is not too much to put SOME SORT OF NOTICE ON THE TALK PAGE. Yes, I'm shouting and I don't care because that's the only that looks like will cause anything to actually happen. No wonder the GA project doesn't have the status of the FA project. The next time I find this happening, I will simply delist the GAR and not notify anyone thereof since they don't have the common decency to do the same. Rlevse 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved. (I normally took the time to notify articles when other people didn't, but so many are being listed today its annoying to keep up :/.) Homestarmy 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the talk page notice, but the problem is editors who list GARs--they should be the one doing that, you shouldn't have to follow up behind them. Mopping the water up only goes so far, the spigot needs to be turned off, in this case that was LuciferMorgan. Rlevse 03:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 2 seconds HUMBUG, it's been in effect for weeks, plus you should have a common courtesy to notify people, so what's YOUR problem. I guess you like do things in the dark and behind people's back. Actually, it's not my GA, I just felt like working on it. I don't care what you think either. People like you are why GA has such a sorry reputation anyway. Rlevse 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually hasn't been in place for weeks - I usually hang around here. I'm not going to respond to your other comments - let's put it this way, they'd be heavily censored. LuciferMorgan 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, yes, it's been in place since Nov 22nd, that's 19 days and almost 3 week on my calendar--not to mention the talk here prior to that and the common sense of notices on the talk page. With actions like yours, we have every right to complain. I guess you haven't hung around for 3 weeks.Rlevse 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not responding anymore to you - find someone else to whine to, or shut up and improve the article to GA standards. LuciferMorgan 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is to GA standards or you'd have to delist at least 40% of the GAs. Rlevse 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be surprised if that many GA's were still so clearly lax, we had a pretty big sweep a month or so ago and I think we've gotten most of the clear cut fails out of the way. (Plus, Lucifer has removed even more which wern't really compliant either in that time) Homestarmy 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I just picked 10 at random, 3 had more than 25 (which the HKSA has right now), most had 10-15, and 1 had only one ref. That's 70% by sheer ref count. Rlevse 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal complaint 

message: Not being a master of Wiki formatting myself, I was wondering if perhaps anyone knows how to change the list of archives to a two rowed table or something else more compact, I think at this rate its going to start bulging into the page soon :/. Homestarmy 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive table format 

message: Does anyone double-check to see if articles are actually delisted after having been voted DELIST and then having their discussions archived? I was thinking that I didn't check when I first started archiving things not too long ago...--Ling.Nut 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I normally delisted them as I archived them. I'll check the archive and finish any of them you may of missed. Homestarmy 01:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see any which were not delisted right or something :/. Homestarmy 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops articles voted delist possibly not actually delisted?