Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you close a community GAR you are involved in?

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ethanol fuel in Brazil/1 is a community GAR clearly ready to close IMO, but as I'm involved, I've been holding off on closing it. Would it be appropriate for me to close it, or should I wait for someone uninvolved to close? Hog Farm Talk 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just closed it. I would think that Wikipedia:Closure requests would be the place to go to request a close. bibliomaniac15 18:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
If you hadn't opened it I think it would have been fine to close it as the result was pretty clear. You might find it easier to individual reassessments as you can close them. Aircorn (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Old GARs

There are a few GARs that have been open a while that need closure. I have commented on them or edited the article so it would be better for someone else to close them. They are:

*Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeopardy!/1

*Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/French fries/1

*Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Josiah Holbrook/1

Cheers Aircorn (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Only the second one is still open, and fresh concerns have been raised there. (t · c) buidhe 23:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ajpolino and Buidhe. Aircorn (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

GAR after a failed GAN?

Should we remove the advice that users can appeal a failed GAN at GAR? The top of this page says Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. and the "When to use community reassessment" box has a bullet point suggesting you can use GAR if You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it). I can't recall ever seeing anyone do this, so if policy reflects practice, maybe we should just cut it? Folks that have a problem with their review tend to post at WT:GAN, which is basically what's recommended at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_5:_After_the_review. Alternatively, if we want to keep this option on the books, maybe we should update the GA instructions to reflect that option? Thoughts from anyone? If no one objects I'll just cut it from the GAR instructions here. Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It almost always strikes me as easiest to just get another reviewer but I think having the community safety valve at GAR is a good one should there ever be the Infobox at Stanley Kubrick equivalent GAN (heaven help us). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
It's unusual to go that route but I don't see it as beneficial to remove it when it could be useful in especially controversial cases. (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I can recall a couple of times it has been used for this purpose, but I can't think of one where it has been overturned or even if there is agreement that the article was wrongly failed the advice has not been to request another review (I can search the archives if anyone wants, but it is rare enough that I might have to go back awhile). I am trying to think of a scenario where doing so would be helpful. If an editor is consistently failing articles incorrectly or there are some other behavioral issues, then we are not really equipped to deal with that. Good faith but incorrect fails are easier dealt with by talking to the reviewer and then requesting a second reviewer if that fails. Maybe if there was just one sticking point that editors disagreed upon regarding the criteria, but again that is probably best dealt with at WT:GAN or through a second opinion request. I have used this process to challenge an individual reassessment that resulted in a fail. The key difference then is that the article already had good status prior to delisting, whereas in the above scenario the article has probably never undergone a formal assessment. Aircorn (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with removal. It's always struck me as a strange one. WT:GAN is where these disputes get handled best, using IAR. We regularly decide there whether to renominate, or to delete the review, or to put the nomination back where it was in the queue. I can't see why we'd need GAR. — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Valid Closure of GAR?

I stumbled across this GAR during a patrol. It has been closed due the article author taking umbrage at having a GAR cast upon one of their articles. What is the meaning of this? Why was this brought directly to GAR without any prior discussion anywhere (on the talk page perhaps)? If there was prior discussion, why was I as the main contributor and nominator for GA not notified? ... my sense is that this particular editor - during the course of the discussions on the GAR page - (which never got to review) actually, engaged in a form of intimidation of the GAR nominee. Our guidelines do say that any uninvolved editor may put a GA up for review. Any uninvolved editor - preferably an experienced reviewer - may take that GAR and either dismiss it upon review, or proceed with it. I don't cognize that page author objections are a valid form of closure. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems to be a few mistakes and a bit of an overreaction all round. It is true that the GAR was initiated based on a misunderstanding of how the process works. Multiple cites for statements are not necessary and we are not housekeeping (i.e. GARs shouldn't be initiated just because an article was reassessed a while ago). It is a new editor who by all accounts is acting in good faith and even better looks willing to learn from their mistakes so that is not an issue. The reply was a little dramatic, but I don't think overstepped or came across threatening. They even applogised later. There is no requirement to start a talk page discussion so they were incorrect there. It is required at FARC as far as I know so maybe that caused a little confusion. There is a requirement to notify the lead author where possible though. All in all I don't really think there is much to do here and I feel the result is correct (I don't see any issue with the initiator withdrawing a community reassessment as long as no other editors object). Aircorn (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Bots?

Buidhe Thanks for closing one of the GAR I opened. I have always removed the green symbol manually in the past but if a bot will do that please could you update the instructions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2

Since there is no one who is willing to improve the article (including me as the main author) over a span of a month back to GA, I would like to have a close and delist. It's just a waste of time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

See this discussion for the disputed close. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The reassessment discussion is hard to follow - could whoever closes it write an executive summary in list format for future editors, to say exactly what needs to be done to make the article good. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I do get the gist of the review with extensive POV concerns and prose-source integrity. Again, like I said many times elsewhere, I'm more than happy for someone to close and delist the article, as these issues are not solved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion

Can we have a second opinion at the reassessment for the Billy Bremner Good article please? It has been flagged up at the football Wikiproject but unfortunately no one else has contributed to the discussion. There doesn't appear to be any way to request for a second opinion? Maybe it can become a community reassessment? Things aren't going so well. EchetusXe 22:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Place (Reddit)/1 - learn what a GAR actually is before opening/commenting on one

GARs are not pages to complain about an article you don't think deserves to be GA.
Do not open GARs just to say "I don't think this should be GA" and then dip. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Stability as a failing criteria

I was just sorting out the archives and came across Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/NATO/1 again. It was another reminder that I have been thinking for a while that we should address the stability issue when it comes to GAR. What do closers and watchers of this page think about adding something along the lines of Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Content disputes should be resolved through the normal means before bringing an article here. at the end of a new paragraph (example). Aircorn (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A specific point on instability is useful given it is the GACR that doesn't apply to GAR, but I don't think we should include "before bringing an article here". It suggests to me that bringing an article to GAR is an aim, when it shouldn't really be a consideration for content disputes. CMD (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Fair point. There are a few occasions when an article gets submitted here over something that is in essence a simple content dispute (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Inanna/1 for a recent one where a single sentence in the lead was enough to propose delisting an otherwise perfectly fine article). It is not quite the same as stability, so maybe I should not try and pigeon hole it into this discussion. Still since we are discussing it what about just removing the "before bringing an article here" part. So Content disputes should be resolved through the normal means with normal means being a link to WP:Dispute resolution. RFC's, 3rd opinions and relevant noticeboards are much more useful than us at resolving content disputes. Aircorn (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Bot request

Closing a GAR discussion is quite a bit of faff, so I'd like to submit a WP:Bot request to assist here. Because our instructions are contradictory, I'd like to make sure that I'm asking the right thing. The bot should:

  • remove the {{GAR/link}}
  • update the article history
  • remove the GA status from WikiProjects banners if delisted (I think returning the old values is a bit senseless)
  • remove the good article template from the article if delisted
  • remove the good article from the list of good articles
  • archive the discussion (if a community assessment). (already done?)

I think the User:FACBot (maintained by @Hawkeye7) is already doing something very similar for featured articles. I'm not quite sure how a bot would be triggered in the case of an individual reassessment though. Would this be useful? Femke (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes/1

Article above was just delisted by the opener of GAR - isn't this not suitable? GAR had only been open a week. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to ping OnlyFixingProse - might not be aware, but community reassessments are usually closed by an uninvolved editor. I don't get involved much with GAR, so I'm not sure what the next step is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh really? I saw multiple editors already delisted the GAR they open themselves when no one improved the article + its more than 2 weeks by the way. Feel free to revert if its necessary. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Individual GARs are usually closed by the person opening them. If there is a dispute, the letters as written suggest opening up a Community GAR, but perhaps just asking for more input here comes to the same solution. CMD (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/UBS/1

This GAR could use an uninvolved closer. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Good Article with massive factual errors

Rosemary Edna Sinclair was passed as a GA in 2016. The author confused the article's subject with an unrelated person of the same name, introducing massive factual errors into the article. Unfortunately this was not picked up by the reviewer, whose review was cursory at best. A new editor has just picked up on the error and I have amended the article accordingly. Neither the author or reviewer are active on Wikipedia anymore. I think we can have very little confidence in the factual accuracy of the remainder of the article, what is the process for unilaterally delisting this? ITBF (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You can open an individual reassessment: Instructions. Femke (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Do notify the original author, they may still be around, but simply stopped editing. Femke (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User script to close GARs

Hello friends. I have added the ability to close GARs to User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool. [Keep] and [Delist] buttons will appear on GAR subpages (but not the main index/digest page at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment). Please feel free to install. Enjoy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Mass reversion of individual GARs

Over the course of a couple of months, PCN02WPS did individual GARs on eleven of the "women's national football team" GAs, which were originally listed about ten years ago. Three were opened in early May (Guinea-Bissau, Gambia, and Togo), and delisted nine to eleven days later. The remaining eight were opened on June 27 and July 1, and closed on July 9, eight to twelve days later.

They have done about three dozen reviews at GAN to date, and have been competing in this year's WikiCup. As best I can tell, they thought they would get WikiCup credit for GARs, but didn't (regular GAN reviews do count; GARs do not).

The notifications of interested parties were not fully done. While WikiProjects seem to have been notified, none of the previous reviewers or current active editors of the articles were notified, which is unfortunate. (All of the articles had originally been created and nominated by a now-vanished user, so notifying them won't do anything useful, but current editors certainly and original reviewers should be informed.)

On July 17, Sportsfan77777, without any discussion, simply made the GARs and the delistings disappear, and restored GA status to the eleven articles. Their rationale, taken from their edit summaries, was as follows: Numerous procedural errors: #1: GAR was done solely for WikiCup points. #2: Should use community reassessment, not individual. #3: Did not give others enough time to address concerns. #4: Poor attempt at notification. #5: Mass de-listing many of the same type of article --- makes it impossible to reply to all of them.

I think this mass reversal is more problematic than the GARs themselves, given the listed rationale, and it's important that we have a discussion here about how best to proceed. In the interim, PCN02WPS has opened community reassessments on a number of these articles; one of these caught my attention, which led to me posting on their talk page asking why they hadn't gone with the original GAR, and them pointing me to the mass reversal (see User talk:PCN02WPS#Individual GA reassessments). PCN02WPS addresses the individual points in Sportsfan77777's summary; my thoughts on them are listed below by number, including what is probably best done at this point:

  1. Why the GAR was done is really irrelevant; what matters is whether the articles currently meet the GA criteria
  2. According to WP:GAR, individual reassessments are appropriate if the editor conducting them thinks that they can reasonably assess and make the decision re the GA criteria on their own, have no significant edits to the article, it hasn't been delisted before, and there isn't an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Given this, I don't see why a community reassessment is mandated.
  3. Seven days is standard. Did anyone even start to address the issues?
  4. The notifications were not good: while WikiProjects do seem to have been covered, none of the current active editors or original reviewers were informed on their talk pages.
  5. It takes a few minutes only for any user to ask for more time given the similarity in articles. Did anyone do so? If not, then this argument doesn't hold water.

My feeling is that PCN02WPS did the reassessments in good faith, probably inspired by the WikiCup, and had every reason to assume that individual reassessments were appropriate based on WP:GAR. I don't see any argument that their reviews were inadequate in terms of the GA criteria, just that proper notification wasn't done and more time might have been nice.

Under the circumstances, what I would suggest is that all eleven individual GARs be reopened, notifications be posted on the talk pages of all active significant editors to the individual articles, and a set period of time to be decided here (two weeks should be more than enough) be given for work to be done on the articles, though of course if good progress is being made, the time should be extended. If some editors need to work on more than one article, then extra time could be allowed on the ones that can't be given immediate attention. If this is agreed to, the community reassessments created today should be deleted as duplicative. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume the point of the WikiCup is to get editors to do things, so that seems to be working. If the GARs were completed properly, WikiCup is no issue. Aside from perhaps more notifications, I don't see any issue here procedurally. The large batch of similar article could be an issue, but that is easily fixed by just delaying a close upon request. I would suggest that even a GAR that has been recently closed could be reopened if someone popped up saying "I didn't know about this GAR while it was running, can I work on it now?". This would also ameliorate notification issues somewhat. With that in mind, I would agree with closing the Community GARs, and seeing if anyone wants to work on these articles. If they do, reopen the individual GARs and give them two weeks plus extra if work is ongoing or if they want to work on one article at a time. If no-one wants to work on the articles, no point reopening the GARs just to close them again. CMD (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The point of the WikiCup is to work on creating content and helping get it listed, not helping it get delisted. I don't think GARs are even supposed to count for WikiCup points. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the WikiCup, but the GAR process is about improving content, much as similar processes are. Listing is not a sacred status. CMD (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate BlueMoonset reaching out on my talk page, and their comments in the paragraph above beginning My feeling... are absolutely correct. I know now that my notifications were sub-par and I apologize for that. I would have no problem reopening any and all of the women's national team GARs that I've done, and two weeks sounds like a good waiting period. Also happy to do the notifications to individual editors for the reopened GARs. Thanks again to BlueMoonset and also to Chipmunkdavis for their comments above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Why the GAR was done is really irrelevant; what matters is whether the articles currently meet the GA criteria

I agree it may not be relevant to GAR, but it's relevant to the WikiCup. I've raised the concern there. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:GAR, individual reassessments are appropriate if the editor conducting them thinks that they can reasonably assess and make the decision re the GA criteria on their own, have no significant edits to the article, it hasn't been delisted before, and there isn't an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Given this, I don't see why a community reassessment is mandated.

Not saying it's mandated, just that it would be helpful to go to community reassessment. For instance, it's an easy way to notify people if you don't want to waste time figuring out who the best people to notify would be. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Seven days is standard. Did anyone even start to address the issues?

I don't buy this. Most of the articles at community GAR right now have had over two weeks of inactivity (or even more than a month). I can't comment on what's normal for individual GAR because I can't find where these are listed. If there isn't a page that tracks all active individual GARs already, then I would advocate for creating one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The notifications were not good: while WikiProjects do seem to have been covered, none of the current active editors or original reviewers were informed on their talk pages.

Other people you could notify are people with football GAs or women's sport GAs (like myself). I don't think the editors with the most women's football GAs have been notified for instance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It takes a few minutes only for any user to ask for more time given the similarity in articles. Did anyone do so? If not, then this argument doesn't hold water.

Because of the poor notifications, I only noticed it after they were all delisted. Would you rather I comment on the closed discussion? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If PCN02WPS or anyone else still wants the articles reassessed, then I agree with reopening as a community reassessment. But it's ridiculous to expect one editor to address so many articles in just two weeks. Like I said above, many of the community GARs stay open for a month or more. Why do you want to close all of these so quickly? They look fairly straightforward to address. I can get to one of these in a few weeks. I can't get to 11 of them!! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Going forward, I think these reviews should be reopened as individual reassessments (the current community GARs can stay as community ones, as converting is more effort). They're quite straightforward, and not about really big topics. Closing in 1-2 weeks is appropriate if no-one indicates they're willing to work on it, but given we have a volunteer to do the work (thanks), they can stay open for a few months as long as work is done to address the issues. It's not necessary to notify people with unrelated football GAs. To keep this the GAR process lightweight and avoid an overload of messages, I only see a good reason to go beyond the recommended notifications for high-impact GARs. Femke (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I will clarify that's precisely the reason I closed them as early as I did, because nobody was working on them. Granted, it may have been because I did not send out as many notifications as I should have, but to expect me to dig around and find the editors with the most women's football GAs is a bit absurd and doesn't fall under the realm of notifying major contributing editors, especially if they've never added anything major to the article in question. (As a side note - that's one of the uses of keeping up with a WikiProject talk page: you can get notified of things which you are interested in but may not directly be involved in.) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
After reading the above, it seems like one of the concerns is that the reviews were closed after a week. WP:GA/R says, "An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity." (Individual reassessment, How to Use this Process, Step 7). Would editors be interested in opening a separate discussion about extending the amount of time stated in the instructions (perhaps to 14 days?) Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Might be appetite for that change, yes. I'd be against it, as I'd like the process to stay light. In practice, 7 days usually means between 7 days and a month anyway. Femke (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Re: "7 days usually means between 7 days and a month anyway." This sounds like one of those unwritten rules that tend to happen in bureaucracies (and yes, I know, Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy, but sometimes I think it functions suspiciously like one). Maybe this guideline can be better described in the instructions, which is something can be brainstormed in a wider discussion? I've never done a GAR so I only know the procedure from what the instructions say. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I would say the unwritten rule is actually a very permissive one, in that there is almost no deadline for an article being actively worked on. Sometimes things stay open even with just the promise of future work. Other times they stay open for longer simply because someone has to get around to closing them. CMD (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, what I'm getting from your comments above is that you like the community reassessment better and you think it makes things more obvious to a wider community. However, the individual reassessment has been around for a very long time and has been used by many editors successfully, with reviews sometimes open not much more than seven days. Community GARs tend to stay open for a month or more because it takes that long to get editors to comment on them so that a consensus forms, not because taking so long is considered ideal, whereas with an individual reassessment, the person doing the assessment is frequently doing all of the review work (essentially like a GA review, since they should be covering all the GA criteria). The hope of a reassessment is that someone will show up to work on the aspects where the article falls short of the criteria, at which point the reassessor should help direct the editor to the improvements needed, much like a GA reviewer would do with a nominator. That's why I suggested the individual reviews be reopened: the issues have been identified, but the individual editors who have lately worked on the articles were not notified. My experience of GARs is that you're more likely to get an editor from individual notifications than from WikiProject ones, though those do sometimes bear fruit. I do agree with Femke and PCN02WPS that there is no requirement nor reasonable expectation that the reviewer should have to notify other editors with women's football GAs. However, the set of who you should be notifying is the same with individual and community reassessments: prior nominator, prior reviewer(s), major contributors. Anyone arguing that the notification requirement is less onerous for community reassessments is misreading the process explanation at WP:GAR. What you didn't address is whether you feel the contents of the reviews was problematic, so I'm assuming that wasn't an issue.

To answer one question: when you discovered the delistings, you could have either posted your concerns to one of the closed reassessment pages and/or to PCN02WPS's talk page directly, noting the notification problems and pointing out that people like yourself might well be found to address the issues raised, and recommending/requesting that all of the closed reassessments be reopened.

As I said in my original post, I believe the eradication of these individual reviews is itself out of process. As to how we should proceed, I believe that they should be reinstated and reopened, and suggest they stay open for two weeks after the various editors active on them have been notified that the reassessment is under way and editors are needed to work on the issues found in the reassessment. If Sportsfan77777 is willing to work on the ones that don't get attention from other editors active on those articles—I'd imagine that PCN02WPS would be willing to check with Sportsfan77777 to be sure they do plan to do the necessary work—then it may be that the final result is all of them are ultimately reclosed as "keep". BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's not required per se to do a good job with notifying other editors. If that was the only issue with the reviews I wouldn't have reverted them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Anyone arguing that the notification requirement is less onerous for community reassessments is misreading the process explanation at WP:GAR. That's not my point. The point is that posting as a community reassessment notifies anyone who watches the GAR page (which can be helpful to a nominator who doesn't want to put effort into the notifications). As far as I know, there isn't a page that tracks individual reassessments. (There should be this kind of page somewhere.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I reverted the reviews because I thought they were out of process. If that is not the case, then the assessments can re-opened or re-listed. The GAR instructions already permit challenging a past de-listing with a community reassessment. I didn't really want to do that because I didn't want to open so many community reassessments at once, and it doesn't solve one of the initial problems --- reassessing so many of the same type of articles at once. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
That solution is more than okay with me - I'm happy to leave the reassessments open for as long as it takes to get the articles back up to GA-quality. However, Sportsfan has also pointed out to me in a different thread that they thought the reviews themselves were of poor quality and that I did a bad job in leaving comments and things to improve, saying The lack of quality of your reviews is the concern and The procedural issues are the reasons I reverted, but it would help if you did a better job with the reviews. I'm not so sure how that will play into all of this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I think in general the reviews are of a high standard. At points, they go beyond the GA criteria (like most GA reviews). For instance, dead links are fine per Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_ref-4, and many of the prose suggestions go beyond "clear and concise", and are more what I expect in an FA review. Agree with the procedural comments of BlueMoonset. Femke (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Starting reversions to restore reassessments

I have looked at all eleven articles, checked their article histories, and have almost finished making lists of editors active on them in the past couple of years: there are some editors who have worked on all or most of the ones I've checked, plus a few who seem to have specialized in only one or two teams. I plan to post to each editor's talk page to let them know about the reopened reassessments, in the hopes that one or more of them will wish to try to improve the article so it meets the GA criteria.

It was immediately clear to me that Sierra Leone women's national football team was appropriately delisted: the article has had a "factual accuracy" tag on it since March 2020, and four separate "section needs expansion" tags from November 2020. There are also unlabeled empty tables. So I have preemptively restored the delisting on the talk page, and removed the good article icon from the article.

Community reassessments had been opened by PCN02WPS on the Madagascar, Cambodia, and Mauritius women's national football team articles after the reversal by Sportsfan77777. Since both Madagascar and Cambodia have since received keep and delist comments respectively (the former after Sportsfan77777 edited Madagascar to address issues raised in PCN02WPS's individual review), I think those community reassessments should continue. I'd like PCN02WPS to request a speedy deletion for the Mauritius community page, so the individual review can continue with the rest of them. I'll be deleting the link to the community review and restoring the one to the individual review on the article's talk page.

I'll be reopening the remaining eight individual reassessments—Mauritius (just mentioned), Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Togo, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Niger—for two weeks, as proposed above: this would make them available for improvement for at least that long, and subject to reclosure starting August 10. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, in light of the comments above, I suggest just leaving all of the individual reassessments closed. I can just revert my own reversions myself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777, I got through a few before seeing this, so I'll need to backtrack on those, but I'm fine with doing so. It will mean restoring the original delistings for Sudan, Seychelles, and Rwanda, figuring out what to do with Mauritius (best seems to be having PCN02WPS continue with the speedy deletion of the community reassessment and you or I would restore the individual reassessment delisting), while letting the Cambodia and Madagascar community reassessments continue. I have restored the delisting of Sierra Leone (the article was a mess). That would leave you to take care of Togo, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Niger. If any of those currently editing any of the other women's national football team wish to submit the articles to GAN at some point in the future, they're welcome to do so. Make sense? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, I think the proper way to handle the situation per the GAR instructions "Use the community reassessment process if... you disagree with an earlier keep or delist decision" is for me to challenge a particular past de-listing with a community reassessment. The main difference between that and what you suggested is that I would do it on a timescale that makes sense (i.e. have only one or two open at a time) instead of ten, which is unreasonable for anyone to handle at once. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, apologies for being unavailable today - it's a travel day for me. I have added {{db-g7}} on the Mauritius community GAR as you requested above. If you need anything else from me just send me a ping and I'll be happy to do it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for making the request, PCN02WPS. It's all set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Current status

I have just reinstated the delistings of Togo, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Niger; there didn't seem any reason to wait. Seychelles, Rwanda, and Mauritius have also been restored to their delisted state (with the latter's community reassessment removed as duplicative, especially as it hadn't received any comments). This leaves Madagascar, where the community reassessment appears to be headed in a favorable direction, Cambodia, where the one response is affirming the delist conclusion of the individual reassessment, and Sudan. I had reopened Sudan as initially noted above, and Bilorv did significant work in addressing a large number of issues raised by PCN02WPS before I returned to it, though they have noted structural issues with the article as it currently stands. Under the circumstances, I think Sudan should remain open for the two weeks posited above, and I'll be notifying the active authors of Sudan to see whether any are interested in addressing the noted issues. I appreciate everyone's patience, and hope we're in good shape moving forward. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

GAR norms question

I've been spotchecking and running Earwig on my recent promotions, having realized that I should have been doing that all along, and I've found a couple of problems and have left notes on article talk pages. I've just run into one that seems worse and would like to know what the best way to approach it is. The article is Hajji Ebrahim Shirazi; the nominator's prose is not good and I nearly failed it on that basis but ended up doing a fairly long review to get it over the line. Just now I ran Earwig and found multiple instances of short copied strings of text. I've left a note on the article's talk page about them. I still need to do the manual spotchecks. My question is what's the usual way to approach this? If the nominator, who I'm going to assume is acting in good faith, cleans up everything I can access, which is not much because a lot of the sources are Persian, do I treat that as sufficient? Or is the level of problems found there the sort of thing that would trigger a GAR? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike. This can be a bit tricky. Usually I assume good faith on sources I can't access if the ones I can are good. Obviously that is harder in this case. You could always ask the nominator to provide excerpts of the text, which in itself requires plenty of good faith. Or go deeper and ask at a noticeboard or talk page for someone who can access the sources and translate them to comment. These are supposed to be light weight so I don't see any problem with assuming good faith on those once the others are fixed either unless they have a history of issues. Whether you want to trigger a GAR is up to you. I don't know that we could do a whole lot more here to be honest. Not a lot of help for you sorry. Aircorn (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
No, that is helpful; thanks. I'm inclined to accept the other citations unless I have reason to distrust the user; I think I just wanted to know if that was naive. I'll figure it out based on the nominator's response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Winston Churchill/GA3

A user has placed a GA reassessment template for Winston Churchill. The editor appears quite new to Wikipedia and perhaps this is not the right method? While I think any article of this size will always have something, I think it is still GA. Would welcome further input at the reassessment page. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: have closed the GAR after 7 days of no activity. Coldupnorth (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:GAN about GAR

For people interested, there is a discussion at WT:GAN#We need a MUCH quicker way of delisting GAs about speeding up the GAR process. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Incoming changes

Per Proposal 14 at GAPD23, which passed with overwhelming support, the individual and community reassessment processes will be merged. Other possible (and ongoing!) proposals relevant to GAR include: Proposal 12, which proposes adding GAR listings to the GAN page; Proposal 13, which suggests the implementation of a GAR co-ordinator position; and Proposal 17, which advocates redirecting WT:GA and this page to WT:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Drafting of new process instructions

PMC has drafted new instruction for the GAR process now that the two processes are to be merged. Comments are invited at User talk:Premeditated Chaos/GAR proposal. An alternative/simpler set of instructions can be found at: User:AirshipJungleman29/sandbox4, but we'll be working from PMC's proposal to make the process a bit easier. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

New instructions launched

The new instruction are launched. The User:SD0001/GAR-helper script has been updated, so people using that will not notice the existence of individual reassessments in the {{GAR}} family of templates. I've clarified my request at WP:RT to change the {{GAR}} family of templates. Let's evaluate in a month or so how this is going, with people closing more of their own reassessments. There are two things we should look out for:

  • The most important doubt on my side is that we decrease the 'keep' percentage if we go too fast.
  • Can we give enough support to newer editors before day 7 if their reassessment was not strictly based on the GA criteria. WP:Silent consensus + new editors can lead to higher error rates.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

One other thing I can think of to watch out for is going to be reminding people not to have too many similar topic GARs open at once. I've noticed several times lately that there's a large number of similar articles, such as multiple periodic table elements or cities in a region, up at once, and while GAN/GAR is a lighter weight process, we do want to make sure that there's care to not overwhelm a specific editor or project to the extent that there's no real way to attempt saves. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke, is it OK to now WP:MMS the talk and user messages at WP:DCGAR? Could anyone involved at this page be sure to look over those messages before I MMS them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to send those. I've tweaked the message a bit to give more background. Last sentence is unnecessary, as this is a one-off MM (at least, I think it should be, we've wasted enough time on these articles..). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/user talk notice. Could I get your blessing on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/article talk notice as well ? Yes, on wasted time ... would very much like to get DCGAR moving if you all are ready. Let me finish up two more articles in the lunar series at the Coldwell CCI, so I can be done that and re-focus on the DC GAR, and I'll return to your other message above in a few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Everything at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 updated (I hope); pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
looks good. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps convert the section headings to just style headings, so people can't edit the instructions directly from the main GAR page? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 I don't know what that means ... could you do it yourself so I can see (I'll revert if I hate it, but sounds useful). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles needing possible reassessment

Does anyone really go through these? It can be useful in identifying articles that need reassessment, but they usually sit there longer than open reassessments. It is adding an extra step to a relatively complicated process. Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Could it be useful as the starting point for, or a small-scale substitute for, a GA sweep? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The articles are usually a mixed bag, so I would recommend interested editors going through the clean up list if interested in psuedo seeping. In theory it has utility, but is obscure enough and only used by a handful of editors I am not sure if it is very effective. Does anyone else here go through that list? Aircorn (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I have done so very rarely, and only for topics I'm quite familiar with. A category might make more sense. CMD (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm okay with removing this. I think it's too subtle on the talk page to lead to people improving the article, and it's better if the extra step is omitted and people nominate directly or write a talk page message in the hope talk page watchers act. I think if the nomination process is simplified and semi-automated, people wouldn't use it anymore. We've got the momentum now to empty the category pretty fast. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Femke here. I'm trying to go through the list, and it's a little bit of a pain. Would be nice if someone could help with emptying it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll modify the template to say it's deprecated in a few days. Marking as historical will then happen after emptying the category. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: would you be open to helping? With your enthusiasm we may be able to clear the remaining ones out in a week. Like Aircorn says, the articles are a mixed bag, and you have to guess why people put the template up. Femke (alt) (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke, the category has been emptied (or will be very shortly indeed). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles needing possible reassessment retirement

If I remember it correctly, there was a discussion to retire GAR request process. That category is empty now, maybe it's time to remove it and delete (archive?) GAR request template? Artem.G (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you point to that consensus? I've used that request before, and was glad to have it, as it meant I didn't have to dig in to complex instructions of a process I don't follow -- the equivalent in the FA process of WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Given the sudden jump in attention to GAR, it seems like it might be useful to keep this around. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I was almost sure it was discussed somewhere, though I can't find it at Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023 or anywhere else. And if people think it's useful, than it's great and let it be, though it's unclear who should react to that request if there is no notification anywhere about it. (Though most wikiprojects are almost dead and notifications wouldn't change anything.) Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Could someone provide a courtesy link to the template being discussed? DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Template:GAR request (I hope it's stll in the instructions, as I found it once when lost in the GA process, and somehow the GAR was launched). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I take it that adds articles to Category:Good articles in need of review? If so, anyone watching the category will see on their watchlist if an article is added. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The up-and-coming GAR Coords would presumably follow that cat and prompt as/if needed (a list at this talk page, as an example). It's likely to be populated by people like me who haven't really engaged GA (in my case except for DC), and aren't sure how to negotiate the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion about deprecating this process is a few section above #Articles needing possible reassessment. I think there was a (weak) consensus there in favour of deprecation. The process differs from FARGIVEN in an important aspect: there are usually no reasons given for the reassessment. Thus, any future nominator has to redouble the work. The cleanup listing gives a better way of selecting GAs in need of review. There is such a backlog there, that we don't need another list to work from.
I hope with the rewrite of the GAR process, nominating an article should be a breeze, and we don't need to have a simplified way. Sandy, if you have suggestions about making the instructions even simpler, I'm all ears. I would argue that including this process makes it more difficult, as new people need to make a choice between processes.
We could make a FARGIVEN type of page here. My plan for the GA sweeps it to include it in a column, similar to WP:URFA/2020, and not on yet another separate page. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good ... any shortcut for those like me who are reluctant to dig in to the whole process. The one I added was an obvious case, as the article tags explained it ... or some such ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I suppose you could notify a coord, but using the User:SD0001/GAR-helper script is easier than sending a message, if I'm being honest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
A newcomer doesn't know that though :) They just see a big long page of instructions (not complaining, as FAR has the same issue) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on simplifying the look of the instructions. Should be a bit better already, but will see if I can do more. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I've wanted to get involved with WP:URFA/2020 for a while now, but I've always been a bit confused with the notes/noticed/notification stages and whatnot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Just dig in and do what you suspect the instructions tell you to do, and the nosy busybody who wrote those instructions will come along and explain anything you missed. Notes mean a FAR is not really needed (we wouldn't hide our eyes in shame if it ran on the mainpage), but it would be nice to get it cleaned up. Noticed means the article is headed to FAR if something doesn't change. Notifications mean hello, you are at FAR! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The most difficult part of managing that page is the size ... meaning we trim sigs to the bare minimum to keep the page from mushrooming in KB and becoming uneditable ... but I fix that on all first-time posters there so they catch on quickly enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
As an occasional URFA participant, I have found its regulars very amenable to further participants. CMD (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
We loves 'em :) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

DC GAR launched (GAR Coord role)

The mass messages to article talk pages and GA reviewer talk pages have been sent for WP:DCGAR (the en masse Doug Coldwell GA reassessment).

Aspiring/potential/future GAR Coords will need to:

  1. Be familiar with the timeline and implementation laid out at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023
  2. Be aware of Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023#Intent to open an independent GAR
    As seen there, one editor may need a time extension; that's a Coord decision
    Be alert should any other Coldwell GA show up at GAR so that it can be removed from the list for en masse bot processing
  3. Consider whether these independent GARs require Coord closure ???
  4. Assure that offline sources are verified and checked for source-to-text integrity issues as well as copyvio and too-close-paraphrasing before any independent GARs are closed. I have seen multiple claims throughout this exercise that an article is clean when it still has too-close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of sources. Presumptive deletion applies.
  5. Direct questions to Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for central coordination.
  6. Work with Novem Linguae on any bot/script issues
  7. Consider whether notifications can be waived for the independent GARs, as all talk pages and reviewers have already been noticed and the original nominator is community banned, and another frequent contributor is topic banned.

Anything else ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that about covers it. Important is to note that the rules of this GAR are different in three ways:
  • The AGF assumption doesn't apply for anything DC. The nominator must be able to vouch for text-source integrity / copyvio
  • The GARs should be closed by an uninvolved editor. Doesn't have to be a coord (if we even have a coord by then)
  • Notification are automatic with the script for users. The manual ones for the WikiProjects can be waived imo, given the massive attention this already has.
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Please keep topical limits in mind

Just wanted to echo something Hog Farm said above: One other thing I can think of to watch out for is going to be reminding people not to have too many similar topic GARs open at once. I've noticed several times lately that there's a large number of similar articles, such as multiple periodic table elements or cities in a region, up at once, and while GAN/GAR is a lighter weight process, we do want to make sure that there's care to not overwhelm a specific editor or project to the extent that there's no real way to attempt saves. I'm aware GAR has not been systematically manned at least as long as I've been around, so I'm sure once folks start looking we'll see an enormous backlog of GAs that need substantial work. But for most articles there's only a small group of niche-interested editors who might possibly do that work. And asking of them more than they can handle is just going to fatigue them, and reduce the chances that these GAs can be "saved". I think this is well-done at FAR, and requires some hard-to-codify finesse to gauge a given topic's editor base (if any) and their current bandwidth. But here's gentle encouragement to the new coordinators and the new folks interested in this process to keep it in mind.

I was brought here by the biochemistry articles, we've got GARs for lipid, antibody, amino acid, oligonucleotide synthesis, and X-ray crystallography all launched this week. I completely understand this is done with good intentions, but if you'd like the very small group of biochemistry-interested editors to clean these articles up, you may need to take pity on us and slow down a bit. Pardon the long message (though I partially blame Hog Farm for having a good quote that couldn't be easily trimmed). Ajpolino (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I did notice a lot of cities go up at once. (I managed to save one!) I have seen this sort of thing matter in FAR, so I agree it is worth considering here too. Perhaps a per-Wikiproject consideration, as that is where most notices will end up. CMD (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree. I'm not quite sure if @Onegreatjoke has this page watchlisted (may be relevant for and @Praseodymium-141 too). The goal is to have as many articles rescued as possible, and all of these are really important :).
@Ajpolino: If there is one/two/all you would like to work on in the future, just indicate your preference, and we can put it on hold for a couple months. I don't think we can do what we do at WP:FAR and make it not transclude, but we could temporarily collapse the text with a note it's on hold? Femke (alt) (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll try varying my topics for nominations if that works better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Very much appreciated :). Femke (alt) (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to work on atomic theory and universe, but the latter was delisted while I was in the middle of working on it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The new instructions say that that shouldn't happen: "Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article. ". User:Airshipjungleman29, could you undo that close? It would be good to show when an article has been last edited within the GAR page to make it less likely people make this mistake. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
It's an effect of very close timings. XOR'easter started editing 20 minutes before the close. (Same thing happened to me and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Manila/1, with an even tighter couple of minutes.) The time of last edit might be useful, although I suspect such things are bound to happen every now and then, and I wouldn't say it is necessarily a mistake. CMD (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
While this shouldn't have been closed, nobody made any comment that the article was being worked on at the GAR page so it's understandable why it was closed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Fixing the ping: @AirshipJungleman29. Agree with the above it's an easy mistake to make, and it's better to indicate at the GAR when you start improvements. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, all. I'll revert the close shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks — I had been planning on leaving some comments on the GAR after my first round of edits, since I wouldn't have much to say before then. Unlucky timing! XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Ajpolino, Femke, and Chipmunkdavis:, so do we just leave the chemistry GARs up for a longer period (say one month)? Would that be the best course?
On a related note, for GARs like Gaza City and John Edward Brownlee, which have been both taken on by editors but which are not being improved (as I speak!), how long do we keep the GARs open? The former has been open since 7 Jan and has received no substantive improvements since 21 Jan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Your idea of leaving the current Chemistry GARs opens for a bit longer sounds sensible to me. I would also close them in a staggered manner. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/X-ray crystallography/1 perhaps can be closed at a normal speed/first, as Ajpolinio has indicated it would be a substantial task.
Re time being taken on, traditionally we gave a long time for this, although my reading of the feelings surrounding the topic is that this time should be shorter. I see both Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gaza City/1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Edward Brownlee/1 have had comments within the past week, I don't think there is an issue leaving them open. If there is no progress after a further time, a standard GAN note should work for GAR too, along the lines of "Progress on this has been slow over the last X weeks/months, and the issues have not been substantially addressed. Given this I am closing this GAR for now, and hope improvements can continue to take place in a less time-pressured environment" or similar. CMD (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Ditto what CMD said. I'd suggest having no more than 2-3 GARs in a given topic open at once. The goal is to pull in someone(s) to improve the article, so make every effort to notify editors who might be interested. Talk pages are often not watched, so post to relevant WikiProjects. If you've really tried to attract attention, and heard from no one I don't think there's anything wrong with closing and delisting after just a week. As an example, for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Antibody/1, Onegreatjoke posted at Talk and WP Medicine (no response) and both of us posted at WP Molecular Biology (no response). The chances that someone will step in are not that high, and if someone does, they could always renominate the article through GAN.
In cases where someone is attempting to address the concerns about a given article, I'd suggest giving them an extra couple of weeks (or basically as long as they ask for) to do so. In many cases, folks who try to cleanup articles at GAR will find they lack the time/interest/ability to bring an article back up to the GA criteria. In that case, once they go quiet for a week, I'd ping them and suggest a close. If someone is lingering, perhaps a GAR coordinator can provide the outside opinion and close the review. Ajpolino (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
What they said. No hurry in closing if somebody has trouble finding some time to do the work. An extra ping can't hurt. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
There are now four open GARs listed at WikiProject Physics: Universe, Astronomy, Electricity, and Albert Einstein. I barely have time to work on one of them. I don't think there are enough volunteers with subject-area knowledge to get them all done in a week. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@Onegreatjoke: please do really keep in mind that the goal of GAR is to improve articles, and that we should not overwhelm topic editors. For these top-level articles, you should really give a bit of warning to editors before nominating too. Getting them back to scratch is probs at least 2 weeks work, but can be 4 weeks too. For now, I see two possibilities
  • We can undo the opening of the GAR
  • We can put the articles "on hold" by hatting the text, with a note that they can be reopened in x weeks. For instance, we reopen astronomy in 4 weeks, and albert einstein in 8. I will work on Electricity over the next two weeks. I'll try to suss out if the general references support text without inline cites. If the do, it'll likely be closeable as kept after my edits.
How does that sound @XOR'easter? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Those both sound like reasonable options. I don't mind putting my limited editing time towards jobs like these — it's a better use of that time than many other things would be, and the pages do need maintenance. But when most of the concerns are about potentially uncited material, and most of that material is of the sort that is in college textbooks, it's not the most pressing maintenance. XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I would be in favour of closing Astronomy and Einstein. Other editors have stepped forward with Electricity, and you've started work on Universe I believe XOR'easter. Onegreatjoke please do try and not open too many huge GARs at once—that just leaves previously willing editors disillusioned with the process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that closing gives a bit of mess in the article history, I've opted for the physics ones 'on hold'. I envisage that this is something coords will be doing when we have them. I'm a bit lost on what's going on with the biology ones, so inviting somebody else to decide how to put those on hold. Does this work? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
It does work, except you put a notice on universe not astronomy, which I've fixed. I think there are so many chemistry articles that we could just keep the bigger ones at GAR for a month, in case anyone turns up, but delist the smaller ones where no-one is stepping forward (Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory, Oligonucleotide synthesis). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:GA § Should everything be cited?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GA § Should everything be cited?. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

GAR coordinators

Proposal 13 from the Good Article proposal drive, which would establish GAR coordinators, was closed as successful. So now, we need to figure out implementation. What are people's thoughts? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The proposal above by PMC has a suggested implementation/roles. After that is agreed (more input welcome), I think we'll ask people to step forward, allow a week for possible objections, see how we like the system afterwards. Femke (alt) (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke I admit my rapid-fire introduction to the GA process has left me exhausted. (It's hard to believe it's been only three days since the Doug Coldwell ban.) I am unable to find PMC's implementation notes you mention in any part of Proposal 13; could you point me in the right direction? Specifically, is there likely to be a GAR Coord in place in time to manage more of WP:DCGAR? Will this impact the timing of the DCGAR? As Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023#Implementation and timeline stands now, it's not clear to me that the non-independent GAR portion can't proceed regardless of timing on the independent GARs, or that a Coord is needed for that portion, but it would sure be awesome if a Coord could help handle the portions that will happen after the individual/community merge is complete and independent GARs are launched. It seems like we could go ahead and send notices to the Reviewer list and Article list to get that ball rolling, but I don't want us to get crosswise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the work so far. In theory, we don't have to wait for the merge to happen before launching WP:DCGAR, but it will make things easier as the process is now half done according to the old, and half done according to the new. I believe 'officially' the old rules still apply, but people have been speeding GAR up with the new simpler rules.
The coords proposal is part of the merge proposal at User:Premeditated Chaos/GAR proposal. So far, there has been little comment / objection on the role of coords in the two discussion locations ( one / two). In short: coords a) move discussions along b) may close controversial GARS (but other experienced editors may also do this) and c) should be involved in review of closes where people disagree with a GAR outcome.
I hope to see the process launched over the weekend, as this grey transition period is causing some tension and confusion. But we will need to make sure people agree with the text as it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Femke; that give me all I needed to know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I am willing to step forward and throw my hat in the ring. It would be a nice change of pace from pure GA reviewing. I'd love a bit of time to finish wrapping up Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023 beforehand. We can also open up a tab for coordinator nominations once I've finished shutting everything down at the proposal drive. This talk page is going to be redirected anyway. I'm honestly in no rush. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Femke would you be willing to put yourself forward as a GAR Coord? You seem to be doing it anyway. Trainsandotherthings, how about you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I am open to being a GAR coordinator. I would like the role to be clearly defined first. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I like that :) I asked Femke first as I believe she is familiar with the sorts of things the FAR Coords do and how they do it (patiently, and staying uninvolved, pinging to keep things moving, closing and doing the bookkeeping when there is consensus-- but I believe it is envisioned here that the GAR process be shorter). Two or three Coords is a good idea, so if Femke agrees, and feels familiar, you could "learn as you go". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
In fact, you might have a look at how the role is defined at WP:FAR, and contemplate the differences from there ... and have a conversation with Nikkimaria about how she views and handles her role. Patience is more required with FA because we are stripping a community assessment, where here it is a one-person assessment, so my sense is this is set up to be an intentionally shorter process, but I haven't followed closely enough to know if I'm just blathering ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I foresee the role as being both a shepherd that helps keep GARs proceeding in an orderly manner (no more GARs open for 6 months at a time) and occasionally making tough calls when there are conflicting views. In the case of a clear consensus to keep or delist, there's no need to necessarily involve a coordinator (though de facto Femke has been closing most GARs). Coordinators would also be the first point of contact (via the GAR talk page) when people have questions or concerns about the process or specific GARs, though that doesn't mean other editors can't help out there as well. It's certainly true that losing GA status versus losing FA status is much lower stakes, but just the same it can take months for an article to get reviewed at GAN, so we should still take it seriously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd like to be a coord. When my brain fog is sufficiently cleared, I'd like to spend more time article writing. Furthermore, if Wikipedia feels less like WP:volunteering to me, it'll probs start causing me stress.
The reason I've been very active is that I want to set up some new WP:GA Sweeps, focusses on the 5 or 10% most-read / most-vital / most-wikilinked articles to encourage improvements to these important articles. FAR has been a great way to get this type of work going, with massive improvements to articles like J.K. Rowling, Dinosaur and Star. I'd like to see that here too. I don't really need to be a coord to do this. I just want to stay involved in the discussions around the balance between waiting for people to step up to tackle this, and ensuring we can maintain enough speed.
Sandy, what is your impression of how long it takes for people to indicate their willingness to work on an article? I'd say, usually 10 days? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll put together a long post here in a bit ... have been out all morning and catching up ... need a few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
PS, the TLDR version is that, while I think TAOT could probably handle it alone, three would be an optimal number, and it would really be good to have someone who has run the gamut at FAR on board to help TAOT, as those people are aware of the pitfalls, requirements, and personal attributes needed to coord. Who is an active FAR editor who is also active at GAN but not already a FAC Coord? Would that be Extraordinary Writ, Aza24, Z1720, Firefangledfeathers, someone else ? More ideas on the big picture later ... gotta get my bills paid first ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ, Aza24, Z1720, and Firefangledfeathers: the GAR process needs Coords. Femke has declined, while Trainsandotherthings is willing. I have mentioned it would be helpful to have someone who is familiar with how the Coord role works at FAR, but also an active GA participant.
Overall, once you have some volunteers step forward, I suggest posing the candidates at the busier page (WT:GAN) and allowing a few weeks for consensus to form, and then request close by someone uninvolved. Three is a good number; at four, things can start to slide, as everyone thinks someone else will do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate you thinking of me, but I think there are better candidates who are more active in GA than me. I also have times when I will be busy in real life and less available. If no one else is able to step forward, feel free to ping me again. Z1720 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I think I'd rate myself at a 5 out of 10 on a mixed scale of familiarity with the procedural area, willingness to do the work, and confidence in striking the balance between boldness and caution during the period of procedure and norm development. I'm not sure how that compares to others who might fill the role. I have one GA and about a dozen reviews, so those that like to promote from the trenches—a reasonable view—might view my level of experience with arched eyebrows. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll have to pass too: I don't mind closing a few GARs every now and then, but I'm not really looking for any long-term time commitments right now (plus my GA/FA activity has been pretty lackluster lately). It's a shame Femke isn't interested. Vaticidalprophet would do a great job (User:Vaticidalprophet/GA reform is definitely worth a read), but unfortunately he hasn't been very active lately. Has anyone asked if any of the FAR/FAC coordinators (Nikkimaria, Buidhe, Gog the Mild, etc.) would be willing to do double duty? That would at least be better than nothing... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any way that I'd be able to handle this and FAC duties, and I don't know that I'm particularly well-regarded at GA anymore after being the reviewer for a number of the Coldwell GAs. Hog Farm Talk 22:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, Femke who's next ? I don't know the players ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke returning to this. Hard to say, because we can't compare to the FAR process, which requires prior notification of at least a few weeks. Since you don't have that here, not sure what time frames you want to use for the overall. No matter what time frame you choose, someone will scream that they hadn't logged on for two weeks and didn't know they were on the chopping block, so it's always tough. Do your best, prepare for people to get upset, make sure Coords are willing to give extensions when reasonable requests are made ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Recap so far of those stepping forward: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we figure out what the role is meant to do? Or are we picking people and seeing how it defines itself? CMD (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I figured it was rather self-explanatory that the coords would check the schedule of the GARs, ensure work is being made, and close them for inactivity/completion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
We need to figure out wording that still puts the primary presumption of closing on nominators, with co-ords working as dispute resolution. CMD (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: The new GAR instructions contain the line "Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR co-ordinators." I think this satisfies such language. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Well first thing I noticed, we should standardise "coordinator" or "co-ordinator", I missed that line due to searching the former. I note as an aside that the instructions only suggest the editor who opened it should close it with a silent consensus, which is not what I thought consensus was (my reading was that they were generally expected to close it). As for coordinator role, it would be preferable to have a clear indicator somewhere of what the roles are, rather than assuming it is self-explanatory. For example, WP:FAC devotes a paragraph to clearly laying out what a FA Coordinator is. CMD (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
CMD, are you putting your hat in the ring ? Just checking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm open to it, but either way it is important to figure out what the role is exactly, and how much is expected from it. (Even if the answer is we're not quite sure.) CMD (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've changed it to coordinator; it's far more likely to be searched. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I recognize this may feel bass-ackwards, but please hear me out :)
When the Coldwell AN closed, the next day saw a rash of questions at my talk page. Long story short, about ten days later, I can say that there was no one to take charge of the process, so here I am (a non-GA person) having launched the whole thing. There's no leader here, and without a leader, you aren't going to get proposed wording on the Coord role to come together, because what I saw in the DC GAR thing, is that someone has to just take the bull by the horns.
So my odd suggestion is to do this backwards. Come to consensus on who the Coords are to be, and task them with putting forward a proposal for community consensus on the definition. After all, appointing Coords is akin to RFA in that it's more about community trust and personality attributes than job description per se.
If you all can get behind that, I will be happy (as an outsider with no knowledge of who the key people are) to take the list of people who have thrown their hat in, and put it forward for a consensus discussion, and find someone to close the discussion. Then the newly appointed Coords would take over and put forward a proposed job description.
Of course, I have a vested interest here; I never imagined I'd have to do the whole DC thing myself, and am looking forward to being out of that business :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
No response; ok then, what are the plans to get this moving??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
You might get more responses asking at the main GA talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree, think this conversation should be brought to GA talkpage, with this bit linked and nominees put forward. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Will do later today when I get a free moment (unless someone else does it first). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll do it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I have opened the discussion here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Aircorn was defacto GAR coord for years and it seems a disservice not to mention this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I am doing quite a bit of closing GARs at the moment, but I was going to concentrate more on article improvement in the future, which is why I haven't put my name down (similar reasons to Femke above). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've put up a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Poll_proposal on how to do the poll (nominate till next Monday, one week of endorsements, top 3 become coords). Femke (alt) (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:GAN § Idea: Good article save award, akin to WP:FASA

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GAN § Idea: Good article save award, akin to WP:FASA. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Poll now open for the election of Good Article Reassessment coordinators

A poll to select coordinators for the good article reassessment process is now open; please contribute to the discussion and !vote if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Manual GAR instructions

The current GAR closing instructions are missing some steps.

  • "but it will have to be manually added to the current archive" is present in text, but there is no indication on what this archive is or how to add the GAR to it.
  • "update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page" needs to be split into more specific steps. These instructions are from the earlier process, but it is now more difficult as {{GAR/link}} formatting mimics the GAN pages, and as all GARs are now on their own subpage system linking to the GAR page can no longer be done just copying the existing template text.
  • For failures: "restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were)", I don't think this makes sense. An article coming off GA will be very different to its pre-GAN state. We should suggest adding a class based on the issues identified in the GAR.

As an aside, I believe we had consensus to consolidate some talkpages so I am posting here instead of at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/guidelines (which should redirect here?). CMD (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I vaguely remember there is a page with the current archive counter, so that we can make a link to that archive. I don't remember what that page is.. @Novem Linguae: do you happen to know?
  • I don't really understand. I've changed the example to a delist from a community reassessment (rather than individual reassessment), as this is the same format as we're using for the merged reassessment. Does that address your issue?
  • I've replaced the sentence about project assessments with: "remove the GA assessment from the Wikiproject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment"
I've been wanting to implement the redirect of the guidelines talk, but I'm not quite sure what to do with the old messages there. Copy them to a seperate archive? The close stated that we would get rid of this page too, but I don't think that's justifiable with the increased traffic here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
We redirected a handful of talk pages to WT:GA and WT:GAN a few years ago, you can see how we dealt with the archives by looking at the archive boxes of those two pages (basically we archived the old pages to their own archives, redirected the current talk pages, and linked to those old archives from the archive boxes at the target pages). Ajpolino (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
To add to this, WP:TALKCENT has step-by-step instructions. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The archive counter page is Template:GARarchive. But I think the instructions and CMD are talking about adding the GAR to the log page itself, which is done with an edit like this.
  • Sure, I could expand the "update article history" instructions a bit. Need to remove GAR/link template, remove the "GAR request" template if present, merge in GA template if present, change |currentstatus= to DGA, and add an article history entry for the GAR. Like this.
  • My GARCloser script just blanks all the article rating fields. So for example |class=GA would be replaced with |class=. Then the WikiProject gnomes swing by and give it a rating at their convenience. Perhaps we should change the official instructions to also suggest that.
I can make these changes to the manual closing instructions if everyone is in agreement with these bullets. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for those suggested changes. Regarding bullet 2, the use of GA pages meant that for adding the GAR to article history, you just copy the original GAN link and increment the counter by 1, no need to go out of the edit window. Now, either you memorise the GAR path and which number GAR it is, or you have to exit the window to copy the page title. A little bit of extra work that didn't exist before. (Normally of course the script does this, but the script also forces you to notify people which is not always wanted.) CMD (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Regarding scripts forcing user talk notifications, GAR-helper (used for opening GARs) lets you turn them off if you hit "preview" (there's some check boxes of users at the bottom of the preview), and GARCloser doesn't notify at all (since it's not part of the GAR closing instructions to notify users). –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah thanks, top tip I shall have to remember! CMD (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI: I've tweaked the GARMessage template

See Template:GARMessage. It now contains a title. Should make notifying ever so slightly faster :). If you use "New section", you can just subst in the description and leave the title empty. Of course feel free to revert if this does not make life easier. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there any individual reassessments still open? Asking because if not, I'd like to remove it from GARMessage's documentation. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I've just closed the last one (OP was inactive), so there shouldn't be any more individual reassessments open. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I've removed the individual reassessment option. Also, if you forget to enter the page number, it now defaults to 1. (Previously, it linked weirdly to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Example]].) Let me know if you'd prefer a different default. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
It can now automatically find the latest page number, so feel free to leave out GARpage if you wish.
E.g. {{subst:GARMessage|Apple}} links to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple/3]] Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Note for new coords

@Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings:, for the past few weeks I've been closing GARs on this process:

  1. If there is no response from any editor on the GAR page, and no substantive improvements on the article itself, close the GAR after a week.
  2. If the GAR page has been responded to, but any improvements to the article have stalled or not started, give two weeks from the last indication of intent (on GAR or article) before closing.
  3. If an editor is continually working on the article but not finishing, up to (length of time to be agreed on; perhaps three months?) will be given before closing.

These are obviously not applicable to WP:DCGAR articles, and nothing has lasted long enough for step 3 to be applicable, but I think it's worked well enough over the past couple of months. Hope everything goes well! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure strict timescales are helpful, I do think after a week if someone has added one and not added to it, there should be a ping. I've had many GANs which last longer than this before the actual review. Real life sometimes gets in the way. I do agree that after a ping, give it a couple days then close the GAR with no prejudice against opening a new one if there is valid criticism. As co-ords it's a good idea for us to bring discussions over exacting prose details and obscure parts of the MOS (which are still valid, but not part of the GA criteria), and push the discussion back to if the article (or more importantly, which parts of the article) fail the criteria. I'd much prefer an article to become a GA, get delisted, and then renominated than have a belated GAR that runs for a long time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that the GAR coordinator position would not replace the ability of individual nominators to close their GARs, so I hope you continue! CMD (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
That's right. The co-ordinators are just here to make sure the GAR process goes well. There is nothing stopping (nay, it's encouraged) individual users from closing items if they are happy there is either no way to quickly address issues, or the article meets the criteria. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't worry, I don't intend to stop; but I do want to focus more on my content work, so I might not be so active here. Also, I did want to know what people thought of the process, so Lee's comment above was very helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ping template

@Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings: have you all set up a template so you can be pinged? See {{@FAC}}, {{@FAR}} and {{@TFA}} for samples. You might also add that to the instructions, similar to WP:FAC, WP:FAR and WP:TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, but I am clueless as to how to implement one myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
If none of you can figure it out, I can do it ... just really really busy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Appears to have been done by User:AirshipJungleman29 at Template:@GAR; I'll add it to the guidelines. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

GAR pages no longer move with talk pages

Due to the recent change to have all GAR pages as subpages of the project page rather than talkpages, GARs no longer move with talkpages. Happily this should not affect the article history template, but will matter for ambiguous titles. (For example, I just moved Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/My Hands/1 to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/My Hands (Leona Lewis song)/1, as My Hands is now a different song.) Presumably this would have been an issue for previous community GARs as well, so something to keep an eye out for when looking at previous GARs. CMD (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 11

The GA review for Ontario Highway 11, by a user since blocked for sockpuppetry, includes such gems as But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel. The entire thing reads like ChatGPT. I'd say this should be grounds for rapid delisting, since no actual review was done. But I don't know community procedures in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Reviewer blocked. CMD (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I would happily accept it being relisted at its previous place in the queue. I very much loathe fly-by reviews. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Floydian, I have deleted the review page and reverted the talk page; I hope that restores the page to the correct nomination age (even if that is not currently visible in the sort order). It does look like a decent article, unlike the review... —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Vielen dank! - Floydian τ ¢ 19:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Page order

@GAR coordinators: , would the page work better with the oldest at the bottom, instead of at the top? This is how things work at FAC and FAR, and it would somewhat alleviate the problem of the Joseph Dart DCGAR overwhelming the entire page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
No objections on my part. If we don't like it we can always undo the change. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, do you mind changing the configuration at User:AnomieBOT/CategoryLister/Categories per User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 14#GAR page? It's inaccessible if you're not a template editor/admin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Could you confirm that Special:Diff/1152490585 was right? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I mean, seems to have worked right. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

For archival purposes

For archival purposes, I've moved the GAR rewrite draft and the associated discussion from my userspace to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/GAR proposal. Noting it here so it gets archived in this talk archive and will be searchable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian submarine Nerpa (K-152)

This article was promoted to GA back in 2008 but has a number of cn tags including the opening sentence. - Indefensible (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortinet

Hi there! Apologies, I don't know how to use scripts yet, but I wanted to raise Fortinet for GAR. Comparison between where it is today (puffery and NEWSDEPTH violations everywhere) and where it was ([1]) makes it stark, but specifically:

  • Well written - no - puffery and NEWSDEPTH violations
  • Verifiable - yes - I didn't spot any violations
  • Broad - no - legal issues either removed or dispersed through the article, making it difficult to concisely understand without reading the entire article in detail
  • Neutral - no - puffery and undue balance
  • Stable - yes - relatively inactive and no ongoing disputes
  • Illustrated - yes - the logo and a photo of their product is there, and I don't see what else is needed

Please let me know what you think. Couruu (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

On the "puffery" point you raise, do you have an example of "exaggerated praise" from the article that we can look at? A lot of people (including several admins) have looked at that article over the past couple of years. See Wikipedia:Wikipuffery - Wikipedia and Puffery - Wikipedia for references, explanations of puffery as used on Wikipedia.
I've looked at a number of corporate articles on Wikipedia and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to how they are structured. Many of them have warnings about self-promotional content, conflicts of interest, etc. For its part, Wikipedia doesn't provide much precise guidance to the business community on what is and isn't acceptable. It's hard to define when people ask you what's allowed. On the one hand, these articles about businesses - enterprises that provide goods and services. On the other hand, Wikipedians sometimes get upset or express outrage if a company article lists its products or services. I can see not providing lists of awards, but it's part of a company's history and notability if it sponsors sports events or wins awards. Even so, Wikipedians often object when these details are added to the articles.
So I don't think the article is too biased. How do you talk about a company without describing what it does, what it sells, what it's accomplished? What's the point of these business articles? Any GAR needs to take into consideration the purpose of the article and how it fits into what Wikipedia is trying to do.
As for the legal issues, as I mentioned above, there's no specific template these articles are supposed to follow. Why does there have to be a specific legal issues section in order for the article to be considered "Good" by Wikipedia standards? Other technology company articles usually lack specific legal issues sections, but they mention lawsuits sporadically. I don't see that this applies under "Broad".
Nothing wrong with reassessing a Good Article status after a few years, but I think this article is pretty clean in terms of the puffery and broadness points. Michael Martinez (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/archive6&oldid=1193584841"