Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Osteopathic medicine in the United States/1
Query
[edit]@GAR coordinators: I'm wondering why the four GAR Coords aren't looking in to GARs like this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a concern with this one. I've been working long hours at work lately, leaving limited time for editing. Happy to discuss if you're concerned with the close here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, having looked at the article, I would have closed as delist solely on the amount of uncited material in the article. I also think the block quotes are beyond what is reasonable for non-freely licensed/PD text. I'd argue the GAR should be reopened at a minimum. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- This GAR was opened by AirshipJungleman29, and then closed by them, presumably as they felt they could not achieve consensus to delist. In general this is quite good GAR practice, and I don't feel we should override a withdrawal decision by the original GAR opener. CMD (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Was the close "obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- My query was more related to whether the Coords are following GARs ... this one got little feedback, for instance, and the article is a wreck, so it seems for optimal GA functioning, the Coords might be looking in ... I may misunderstand the Coord role :) There was only one declaration (mine to Delist), so I'm unclear on how the process is intended to work-- something I need to understand as this article is typical of most medical GAs in terms of datedness and other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Considering, as Sandy stated above, the only formal vote was her delist, and the other participants were "I strongly doubt that anyone is going to clean up the article for you" which does not support keeping the article at GA status, though acknowledging the unsourced text is a concern, and "the needed revisions seem minor" which carries little weight as it is a two sentence comment which quite frankly does not square with the present state of the article from my analysis... I certainly do not see a consensus to retain the GA status of this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, having looked at the article, I would have closed as delist solely on the amount of uncited material in the article. I also think the block quotes are beyond what is reasonable for non-freely licensed/PD text. I'd argue the GAR should be reopened at a minimum. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)