Search

Toolbox

Languages

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

"WP:GAR" redirects here. For the Good article criteria, see WP:GA? and WP:RGA. For the guide to abuse reports, use WP:GTAR.

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia good article reviewers.

The old nominations in need of additional reviews are:

Pikachu •

Shortcuts: WP:GAR WP:GA/R

Good article reassessment is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. It also allows feedback to be given for delisted articles or failed nomination when the explanation for delisting or failure was inadequate. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.

There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination; it is primarily used to reassess the status of current good articles. A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment. In that case, an editor requests a discussion on the good article status of the article, and that discussion is listed on this page. When consensus is reached, the discussion is closed and the status of the article is updated accordingly. edit guidelines

Individual reassessment

When to use this process

Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria.
Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself.

How to use this process

Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination).
Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article.
Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window.
Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for this purpose, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages.
If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To do this, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and then remove the {{GA}} template from the article talk page.
To close the reassessment, replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted".

Community reassessment

When to use this process

Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved.
If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises.
If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.

How to use this process

Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
It is also courteous to notify the most recent GA reviewer.

See below for how to contribute to a community reassessment, and how to close one. Depending on the situation, reviewers may move mountains to list an article as a GA, or they may simply endorse a fail, or suggest that the article be renominated.

Guidelines for reviewers.

Please consult the good article criteria before you comment on whether an article should have its status changed or not.

All suggestions for improving articles are welcome, but criticisms not based on the good article criteria do not ordinarily disqualify an article from good article status. Note also that if an article is listed here, it almost always means that someone considers it to be of good quality, so if it does not meet the criteria, an explicit explanation is more likely to be appreciated than a general comment that the article is inadequate. Furthermore, reviewers should feel free to fix problems with articles under review if they wish: this is not regarded as a conflict of interest, and may encourage regular editors of the article to engage more actively with the reassessment process.

Good article reassessment is not a deletion discussion, but many of the guidelines for contributing to such discussions (such as the essay on arguments to avoid) contain useful advice. Any registered user can list or delist a good article (see above), but for articles listed here, please follow the archiving guidelines below for closing discussions and changing the status of the article.

Guidelines for closing a reassessment discussion.

When a reassessment discussion has run its course, it can be closed: please click on the "show" link for guidelines on when to close discussions.

To close a community reassessment discussion, go to the reassessment page of the article and replace {{GAR/current}} by {{subst:GAR/result|result=result}} ~~~~. Here you should state the result (whether there was consensus, and what action was taken) and explain carefully how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. On the talk page of the article, replace {{GAR/link|GARpage=n}} by {{GAR/link|~~~~~|GARpage=n|status=result}} (five tildes) at the top of the page, where the result is one of "listed", "delisted", "kept" or "not listed"; alternatively, remove {{GAR/link}} from the top of the talk page and add or update {{ArticleHistory}}.

If the result changes the GA status, update the article talk page templates and the good articles list accordingly.

The reassessment discussion will automatically be removed from the good article reassessment page and added to the current archive within an hour. edit archiving guidelines

Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 7 days old, unless

at least five editors have expressed an opinion
the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus.

However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged.

Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining what the consensus of the reviewers is, and taking action where necessary. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes: for instance, the article may have changed since being listed for reassessment, and some comments may no longer be applicable. Compare the comments made in the discussion with the current state of the article and with the criteria for good articles.

If there is a clear weight of argument that a current good article does not meet the criteria, then it should be delisted.
If there is a clear weight of argument that a delisted good article or failed nomination does meet the criteria, then it should be listed as a good article.

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."

Good article reassessment (update archive number)

(Current archive: 40) →

1 Articles needing reassessment

[edit] Articles needing reassessment

[edit] Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show)

Article (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

There are several problems with this article that lead me to believe it is no longer GA class:

"Set design" is unsourced.
{{Citations missing}} tag at top.
"Gameplay" section contains several one sentence paragraphs and unsourced info.
No section on critical reception whatsoever. Isn't this an essential part of a television GA?
Other formatting isuses, such as typos (game show is two words, not one).

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with delisting this article, per TenPoundHammer's comments. It was borderline when I checked it over last December (maybe I was slightly lenient too :P), and unfortunately time hasn't been kind. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist. Lacks enough information on critical reception and isn't sufficiently referenced. Majoreditor (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Sharapova

Article (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

The article is quite a way below GA class in my opinion. Some of the major problems:

A large array of citations missing, only a few have been tagged, but a lot of work needs to go into solving it.
The prose is dire. It's basically a rewrite of her WTA page. This is accentuated by the "season summary" which appears at the top of each year section, exactly the same as the WTA page. The format is basically a wikilinked copy-and-modify-a-bit-and-paste. Let's remember we're trying to write engaging prose, not merely summarise every quarter, semi and final match she's ever appeared in. That way lies dull, uninspiring prose.
There's a "quotations" section which is simply trivia. And we discourage trivia sections, so this should be discourage as well. If the quotation is signficant (e.g. the "cow on ice") then include it in the prose. Otherwise this section should be removed.
There's a "notable matches" section which has some vague criteria (just added by User:Tennis expert) such as "trailing badly ", "heavily favored ", " big lead", "long or very close, or both.". It also includes "(5) finals" but then doesn't include all the finals she has been in. The inherent WP:POV in this section means it should be removed or "big", "badly", "close" etc should be defined.
References are in bad shape. Between about [30] and [65] we have no accessdates, publisher information, nothing other than a link.

I advocate the delisting of this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The misrepresentations you (The Rambling Man) have posted here are truly breathtaking! Let's take a brief look at the most important one. If you look at the Maria Sharapova information on the website of the Women's Tennis Association, you will see very quickly that this article has nothing to do with that website. It's astonishing that you would claim that anything in the article is "exactly the same as the WTA page." Did you even bother to read the WTA website before posting your false claim here? Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, does this article still meet the good article criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist This article has a ton of work that needs to be done on the references and referencing before this article can remain at GA status. First of all, as mentioned before, all web references need accessdates and publishers. Current refs 14 (RolandGarros), 15 (Wimbledon 2008 Statistics) and 59 (RollandGarros) deadlink. What makes these refs reliable (and note, these are only from the refs that have publishers listed):
- #6 (About.com) (About.com is almost never reliable)
- #87 (Jurgita)
- #87 (ThinkExist)

Links such as the one in ref #25 (Edmondson book) should be linked to the title of the book, rather than being a bare link. I also agree with the Rambling Man that the items in the quotes section should either be incorporated in the article or removed and transcluded to WikiQuote. There are a number of fact tags in the article that need to be resolved. There are some direct quotes that do not have references, which is a big no-no (see the end of the first paragraph of the Endorsements section for an example). Also, is it really necessary to have a "summary of the year" and a "year in-depth" section for each year, even when the year-in depth section isn't that long (for example, 2003)? As a final comment, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and therefore usually doesn't need references unless they're supporting a direct quote. Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist. The article needs substantial improvement before it meets GA standards. The prose is lacking, a problem common in all too many WP sports articles. The layout style is unencyclopedic with far too much emphasis on "and then..." chronology. Stubby paragraphs and sections have a half-baked feel to them. Sections such as "Awards" are nothing more than a bullet-point list. The quotes section has trivializes the article. Plus, there's formatting issues with several citations, as noted above by Dana Boomer.

Some of the of the {{fact}} tags are overkill. As an example, does the statement Sharapova developed rapidly at the academy and began playing junior tournaments really require a citation? My interpretation of GA criterion 2b suggests that referencing isn't required in this case as it's not a direct quotation, a statistic, counter-intuitive, contentious, etc.

I hope that the article's editors don't give up on discussion. Step back, take a rest from the article if needed, and come back recharged and ready to iron out differences. Majoreditor (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist I feel that the edit-warring is sufficient grounds, even if everything else were perfect. Which it isn't. There's some astonishingly disruptive WP:OWN editing evident on this article. Reinstatement of MOS-breaching date linking is also not helping and is inviting a listing at WP:LAME. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gliese 581 c

Article (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

Very soon after this article was granted Good Article status, the article has undergone significant editing, including various tags such as {{contradict}}, passages of text in the article criticising the references, an RFC on the talk page. I thus believe the article no longer fulfils criterion 5 (stability), and possibly not 2 (accuracy and verifiability) or 4 (NPOV). As an editor who has been involved with the article I feel it would be inappropriate for me to carry out an individual reassessment, hence my request for community reassessment. Icalanise (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll support delisting on the mere basis that the current revision is significantly different from the reviewed revision, as well as 2 and 4. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support delisting as per Icalanise. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] L. Ron Hubbard

Article (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

Notified: PresN (initial GA reviewer), WP:SCIFI, WP:SCN, WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:SKEPTICISM, WP:BUDDHA, WP:MONTANA, and WP:SCOUT.

This article was passed as a WP:GA on November 7, 2006 - see Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/GA1 for the archive of the first GA review. I think it is time for a good article reassessment, as in my view the article in its present state does not measure up to current standards at WP:WIAGA.

The writing quality is certainly lacking and the lead/intro of the article does not satisfy WP:LEAD as it is not an adequate independent summary of the article. It is true that portions of the article are factually accurate and verifiable, but many whole sections/paragraphs are either completely unsourced or verge on WP:OR. Many aspects of the subject's history are discussed, but some are lacking including for example a bit more information on family history and personal relationships with immediate family, wives, children, etc. A recent post to the article's talk page notes at least one large chunk of text with NPOV issues. The article has been relatively stable lately but it should be noted that it has been permanently semi-protected since July. Images seem okay, but this one Image:MastersOfSleep.jpg has a "public domain" tag and a fair-use rationale which is rather confusing. These issues and others which other people may raise here should be discussed and addressed, but my take is that the article would need a significant amount of work to retain GA status at current standards, and should be delisted. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is a dense article, and I haven't given it more than a cursory glance at this point. However, I haven't found an entire section which is unsourced. The article doesn't suffer from a lack of citations; however, I'm not sure that all of the references are quality(sigh, it will take some time to check.) I'm also concerned with borderline POV-issues Cirt mentioned. The tonality drifts from neutrality in spots. Majoreditor (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct actually, there is no one singular subsection that is entirely without citations, but there are whole paragraphs that are unsourced, in addition to lots of other portions of the article that aren't sourced that well. Cirt (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist. This article is significantly under-referenced, which is the main reason it should be delisted. Other problems include a heavy reliance on quotes (both block and in-text), and a lack of consistency in formatting the numerous block quotes found throughout the article. The references themselves need quite a bit of work. All web references must have access dates and publishers, and titles should be linked, rather than having bare links. References should be formatted the same way - currently some use templates and others do not. Books should have page numbers. Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The article sports 128 in-line citations at present. Admittedly, I identified (and flagged) three direct quotations lacking in-line citations, but this doesn't make the article "significantly under-referenced". My bigger concern with references is that some citations aren't complete, some aren't properly formatted and others may be of dubious quality. Majoreditor (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist. Several citations don't use reliable sources. See, for example, "Affidavit of Andre Tabayoyon (5 March 1994). Source: alt.religion.scientology." Many of the footnotes aren't properly formatted. There's also the matter of POV. Majoreditor (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist Doesn't follow WP:LEAD. It is too long. Citation formatting is inconsistent. Sourcing quality is spotty (Cirt is right, some sources are good and verify material in the article, but others are of dubious or unknown quality or don't verify the text). Too many quotes. Image:MastersOfSleep.jpg is both fair use and PD-age. Tone is choppy. Taking a section at random (World War II, I know that it summarizes another article) sees tone problems, factual errors, some misunderstanding regarding the navy's promotion scheme, and other issues. Various style problems. This isn't an awful article but it isn't a good article. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pikachu

Article (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

The article doesn't feel very informative per se, more accurately how the article is organized and fleshed out. Many bits of information feel more peppered through the article than emphasized as actual points, and there are a few citation tags in there too it seems, not to mention some blocks without references. Fair-use imagery usage is a bit troubling too; the box for the video game for example references the anime before the anime is even discussed. The card doesn't bring anything of use to the table either, as all pokemon at this point have been printed in card form. The prose really needs an overhaul too at this point. It's a decent article and should be B-class, but really doesn't seem like it should remain GA at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm kind of disappointed this article still uses the old Poké-template organization. While it worked as well as could be expected for the other hundreds of now-merged articles, doesn't feel right when applied to the most famous of them all. Just a gut feeling I have. Nifboy (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I honestly think this article would benefit from being delisted, but I'm not sure it is blatantly outside the GA criteria. I have issues with the FU images and with the coverage but nothing that I would just fail an article for. If I reviewed this today for GAN, I would probably put it on hold with a page of recommendations. I am, however, not inclined to delist it just based on that fact. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep There is only one "citation needed" tag, and I believe that could be adequately addressed by using the previous cite. I also don't see a major error with the organization of the article. It is written in a standard way: Concept and Creation, Characteristics, Appearances, and Real-world impace/history. Everything seems to be there, perfectly cited. If you could give some examples of the "peppering", that would be great.

I'll have to look through it again, though I think I mistook a bit in there as a cite tag, so I'm going to go ahead and retract that statement.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think the card image should stay. I'll be bold and remove it. The prose isn't the best, I agree, but certainly good enough for GA? There are many GA articles out there with even worse prose. --haha169 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think this is what Nifboy talking bout but im not sure, anyway shouldnt the infobox be changed from the Pokemon species infobox template to VG character template. The current template is incredible in-universe. Salavat (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- But remember, Pikachu isn't just a video game character. In fact, it is more famous for its appearances in the anime, so I'm not sure if a video game character template would be appropriate. Artichoker[talk] 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  - What Nifboy's refering to I think is the structure of the article rather than the infobox.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Oh yeh i forgot to consider the TV show. So then shouldnt it be changed to simply Template:Infobox character? Salavat (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)