Talk:Rabies/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I was surprised to find this article was listed as a Good article. In its present state, I believe it fails to meet the criteria, and would therefore propose delisting until a stable version emerges, which provides a proper summary of all the material that has now been hived off into all the various subpages. I will notify the relevant wikiprojects. Please comment here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I can't seem to find a GAC assessment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Neither can I, still looking. Near as I can tell, GA template first use is with this edit, almost three years ago. Basie (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a review in the talk history either, but assuming that edit was accurate the version that was reviewed was probably c. 5 February 2006, eg: [1], which appears to be almost completely unreferenced, and probably wouldn't meet the current criteria either. I'll put a note on Cacophony's talk page, in case s/he remembers reviewing it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the snap shot of the article at the time of the GA assessment [2] and the talk page likewise [3]. To my understanding, the criteria did not exist until the March of 2006,[4] a month after this article was promoted, and it complete criteria didn't really exist until May [5]. My hypothesis that the promotion was at the discretion of the user at that point, and that the quality at the time was comparatively good. So in short, I think B would the rating we're looking at, however we could also ask for a reassessment. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- B doesn't sound too far off, but the GA delisting is an even easier call given the apparent lack of the kind of assessment that is required these days. Kingdon (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- If everyone agrees on delisting, after giving people adequate time to respond, then I don't think we need to ask for a reassessment, we can just do it ourselves. I'm not sure I'd give the current article more than C class. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- B doesn't sound too far off, but the GA delisting is an even easier call given the apparent lack of the kind of assessment that is required these days. Kingdon (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the snap shot of the article at the time of the GA assessment [2] and the talk page likewise [3]. To my understanding, the criteria did not exist until the March of 2006,[4] a month after this article was promoted, and it complete criteria didn't really exist until May [5]. My hypothesis that the promotion was at the discretion of the user at that point, and that the quality at the time was comparatively good. So in short, I think B would the rating we're looking at, however we could also ask for a reassessment. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a review in the talk history either, but assuming that edit was accurate the version that was reviewed was probably c. 5 February 2006, eg: [1], which appears to be almost completely unreferenced, and probably wouldn't meet the current criteria either. I'll put a note on Cacophony's talk page, in case s/he remembers reviewing it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Delist. This article is B class. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delist per above discussion. Basie (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. I believe the current article fails to meet GA criteria 1a, 2a, 3a, 3b & 5, and it is also peppered with various clean-up tags. I would rate it C class. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delist per above, I was being conservative with giving it a B, but C seems to better reflect the views here. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delist (just in case I wasn't explicit enough above). Kingdon (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)