Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainCriteriaNominationsDiscussionInstructionsReassessmentReportHelp Desk
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single editor in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion on this page and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.

Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
  4. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

A list of all open GA reassessment nominees may be found at Category:Good article reassessment nominees.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed on this page and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page.

Individual reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the individual reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the article talk page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be yours, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is likely to be controversial, then opt for community reassessment instead)
  • Use the individual reassessment process if:
    • You are confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are not a major contributor to the article
    • You know the article has not been delisted before
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)

Note

  • Individual reassessments do not appear below on the good article reassessment page; those are all community reassessments.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for individual reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (while the second bold link creates a community reassessment page). The individual reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the article talk page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page.
  4. From the article talk page, transclude the individual assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Individual reassessment" and paste in
    {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, you may close it.
  8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were).


Good article reassessment
Community reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the community reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the good article reassessment page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be the result of consensus, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is not likely to be controversial, then opt for individual reassessment instead)
  • Use the community reassessment process if:
    • You are not confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are a major contributor to the article
    • You disagree with an earlier delist decision
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
    • 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)

How to use this process

  • The instructions for community reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (while the first bold link creates an individual reassessment page). The community reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the good article reassessment page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page. A bot will add the assessment to the GA reassessment page.
  4. From the article talk page, transclude the community assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Community reassessment" and paste in
    {{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure).
  8. To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page and will add it to the current archive.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page.

← (All archives) Replacement filing cabinet.svg Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 60) →

Articles needing possible reassessment[edit]

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

Racial wage gap in the United States[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Race Terms I've noticed there seem to have been some concern over the neutrality of this article and more recently some concern over the improper distinction between "Indian Americans", "American Indians" and "Native Americans". And on occasion the use of black rather than African American.

Race or ethnicity The sidebar calls this the ethnic wage gap, the title says racial wage gap

Suspicious Statements I feel like some weasel words may have snuck in since this article was granted good article status

  • Following urban-dominated studies and shifting research based on evolved conceptual and study driven thinking, sociologists determined that the racial composition of a local population means for a key element in racial wage inequality.
  • Studies of the wage gap for various minority races in the United States have revealed a number of factors that contribute to the differences in wages observed between white Americans and Americans of other races. The factors contributing to the wage gaps for various races and the degree to which they affect each race varies,[12] but many factors are common to most or all races. (also layout problems with this one)
  • When human capital, skills, and other factors contributing to the racial wage gap are taken into account, many researchers[example needed] find that there is still a portion of the racial wage gap that is unexplained.

General Formatting

  • Percent and % are mixed even in the same section.
  • Not enough bluelinks, as a non-American I need more context what are:Union Army, the Thirteenth Amendment, Confederacy, some of this stuff might be listed earlier in the article, but it's long so I'm not reading it sequentially, it's ok to repeat some internal links especially if they haven't been mentioned in a while.

Grammatical/fliw and context problems

  • Hispanic and Asian women, in particular, are shown to be most affected; Hispanic and Asian women are shown to fill less skilled, domestic service jobs where the concentration of their black and white counterparts are lower. Such barriers such as language show that such large dominance of immigrant population in such sectors only breed competition between lower-earning groups, further lowering average wages for such families.

Illustration The PNG

US occpuational distribution.png

is of insufficient resolution to adequately distinguish its elements at thumbnail size. Specifically which pattern corresponds to which bar is unclear, and the text is fuzzy.

Racial Earnings Comparison.png is of similarily low quality, but of sufficient quality to make out the patterns, just the text is fuzzy.Ethanpet113 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure about this one. Some falls outside the criteria. Things like Blue links and percentage formatting. I tend to agree on the graphs as the colours are not clear even at larger sizes. I don't think we can hold the sidebar against it. As for neutrality I only found one discussion from 2016 on the talk page and that seems to have been resolved. The use of Black doesn't concern me overly as it is used in contrast to White and a quick google search [1] didn't lead me to believe it is generally considered offensive. It is also used a lot in literature. There are some grammer issues. The such barriers such as language show that such large dominance of immigrant population in such sectors only breed competition between lower-earning groups, further lowering average wages for such families linked above is just cringeworthy. One citation needed, but otherwise it is pretty well sourced. Given the time it has been under reassessment, the lack of response and the complicated nature of the topic I am leaning Delist on this one. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I would also lean toward Delist. The most obvious criterion this article has problems with is 1a ("the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct"). I only got through about half the article's text, but I found a decent number of prose issues. I fixed several simple problems along the way. Some that I couldn't/didn't fix (not counting the ones pointed out by Ethanpet113 and Aircorn above):
  • Despite the improvement in wages made by educational attainment, less educated Hispanic men still have less return to education than non-Hispanic men that are statistically comparable. "less return to education"? Not sure what this is saying.
  • ...where many modern causes of racial wage inequity, such as educational disparities and discrimination, stem from were even more prevalent.
  • Public state records from the 1930s indicate white owned schools in the south spent approximately $61 dollars per student, or $1,074.14 in 2018 dollars when adjusted for inflation, compared to just $9 per student, or $158.48 in 2018 dollars. Compared to $9 per student for... which schools?
  • As the United States joined the global market economy, three outcomes occurred. Those who possessed financial and human capital, such as education, succeeded in the new economy because the money and skills they had to offer were in short supply. Those who possessed only labor did not fare well because cheap, physical labor was in oversupply in the global market. That's only two outcomes?
Some other issues:
  • This sentence which cites Wikipedia: However, Native Americans are the poorest ethnic group when measured by per capita income. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income#>
  • As of 1995, Hispanic women of all education levels, except for those without high school diplomas or associate degrees, had parity in earnings with white women. While this information is positive, a broader examination of Hispanic women's wages reveals that inequality still exists. While I'm sure the overwhelming majority of readers would agree with it, describing the change as "positive" is making a value judgement, and so I think technically a WP:NPOV violation.
I don't think it would require a huge effort to fix these issues, but since no-one seems to have stepped up to the plate on this since the article was listed for reassessment in early December, I think it's appropriate to delist for now. Colin M (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow (film)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

The "Plot" and "Cast" sections are currently completely unreferenced, and I have therefore placed the {{unreferenced section}} templates on them. This brings it under the "Immediate failure" criterion of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, so the issue either needs to be resolved or the article needs to be delisted as a GA. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: The plot section of a work of fiction usually does not require citation, per MOS:PLOTSOURCE: the film itself is assumed to be the source. I personally try to provide references where possible to avoid any potential for conflict, but it isn't a GA-pass criterion. The sourcing for the cast section is a concern, but one that should be a lot easier to resolve. Vanamonde (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: ah OK, thank you. I wasn't aware of the MOS:PLOTSOURCE allowance, but I guess that does make sense. I've removed the orange tag from that section. Hopefully the cast can be dealt with fairly easily then, and we can close this quickly.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Technically the cast list can be covered by the film itself. It is statements about character motivations like An orphan who looks towards Ichabod as a father figure after his own father is murdered by the Horseman and extra info like Tim Burton and Michael Gough had previously worked together on Batman and Batman Returns, with Michael Gough portraying Alfred Pennyworth which really need sourcing. I might see what I can find. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I added some sources, but it was pretty lackluster to be fair. I have never seen the movie so just went off a few reviews and they all pretty much concentrated on the first three. I am not going to do that for all the minor characters. I guess someone could remove the descriptors or else look for more obscure sources. Probably neutral on whether this is delisted or not. It is pretty standard for a lot of film articles, but personally I find the overquoting in the development and reception sections a bit too overdone. The reception section is quite average as it is basically bullet pointed quotes minus the bullet points. Thinking about it more I would see this falling into delist territory as is. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Second Partition of Poland[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

It doesn't really seem as if this article can measure up to good article status. For example, the maps for the partition are too small to view properly, and the article just doesn't seem to provide good enough organization or provide concise, essential facts (see the Partition treaty section).

More detail please. Pictures seem big and can be easily resized. The treaty section seems quite comprehensive. What detail is missing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Not that the article is not comprehensive, but it's not concise or organized enough. There's really stuff from the treaty in the background info, etc. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I am really sorry but your criticism is still so generic that it is not actionable. It's like saying 'article is too short'. Well, I don't think so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that the good article criteria do not require "comprehensiveness" like the featured article criteria do. All that's needed is "broad in its coverage", which is a pretty low bar and allows for short articles to become good articles in certain topic areas. Mz7 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Not seeing anything here where the article fails the criteria. The standards are not really that high and as someone not familiar with the topic it read quite well to me. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Abby Martin[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

There have been recent edit controversies surrounding this article. There is information without sources. I have also been finding fabricated information in the article not supported by sources. I think this warrants a review of the article overall.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • The edit controversies you refer to in the above began with you and another user edit warring and destabilizing the article due to your own POV pushing. Additionally, the content you describe as “fabricated information in the article not supported by sources” is, in fact, real, accurate, and verifiable and supported by the original sources found in the GA reviewed version that you appear to have discarded. So, not only are both of your claims false, you yourself appear to be responsible for the current state of the article, which makes your attempt at reassessing it both duplicitous and in bad faith. The solution, therefore, is not to reassess the article, but to revert and rollback all your changes and to restore the last good version. However, because I am no longer active here, I will not be participating in any changes moving forward. I just wanted to comment on your poor edits and bad justification for this reassessment and to observe that you should not be allowed to edit this page. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas: Thank you for your reply and using your good faith to accuse me of having information "discarded". This is not the case. Looking at the article when it originally was granted GA status, there were some different sources used, for example RT's discovery of Martin and the information that was not originally only sourced by a college research paper. I did not remove such sources and much of this happened before my edits. I am only bringing this article to be reassessed because of genuine concerns regarding edits between the original GA article and what is currently posted. Since I can now see the original sources presented, I may be able to add them back and fix some issues.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


  • I stand by my comments, more so based on your reply to my concerns. How could you possibly request a GA reassessment without doing the bare due diligence, namely, checking the originally reviewed version? You are clearly biased against Martin based on your previous edits, and your claim to be interested in this reassessment is just an attempt to remove its quality rating. I therefore have zero interest in discussing anything further with you, and it’s this kind of extreme incompetence and blatant POV pushing that has led me to lose all interest in Wikipedia. Don’t ping me again. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I will not ping you, but I admit that this is my first time requesting a GA reassessment. It was only done purely because I noticed multiple issues (mainly missing sources and WP:OR) and thought that there may be more fundamental issues with the article. Just replying to your response and thanks for sharing your concerns.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @ZiaLater: I made some edits to the article. There is still a tag asking for a better source, and I agree the source is not great. The statement does not seem very controversial though. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A lot has been reverted or removed. I tried. I feel the lead is too short, but YMMV. All in all Neutral on its good article listing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Green[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

I'm not convinced that this is a reliable article. Some of the sections have missing citations, and the writing at times comes off as an essay:

"All the colors you see on your computer screen are made by mixing them in different intensities." "Unfortunately for those who wanted or were required to wear green..." "Green laser pointers outputting at 532 nm (563.5 THz) are relatively inexpensive..." "although the price remains relatively prohibitive for widespread public use." "Green animals include, especially, amphibians, reptiles, and some fish, birds and insects."

Just to name a few. 100cellsman (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


Johann Mickl[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is mainly based upon two sources by:

  1. Richter, Heinz; Kobe, Gerd (1983). Bei den Gewehren—General Johann Mickl—Ein Soldatenschicksal [With the Guns—General Johann Mickl—A Soldiers Fate] (in German). Bad Radkersburg, Austria: Selbstverlag der Stadt Bad Radkersburg;
  2. Schraml, Franz (1962). Kriegsschauplatz Kroatien die deutsch-kroatischen Legions-Divisionen: 369., 373., 392. Inf.-Div. (kroat.) ihre Ausbildungs- und Ersatzformationen [The Croatian Theatre of War: German-Croatian Legion divisions: the 369th, 373rd and 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Divisions and their Training and Replacement Units] (in German). Neckargemünd, Germany: K. Vowinckel.

According to this review of the sources, the article also fails criterion #4 as being non-neutral MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist: does not meet the current GA requirements for sourcing and neutrality. The review of the sources offered by Assayer is thorough and compelling: POV issues because of unreliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist per above... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • comment. Unlike Coffman I find Assayers arguments far from compelling. Presumptions are made about reliability, peer reviews and the manner of publishing. That said, the style isn't appropriate; it should be rewritten because this appears too often in the article. Dapi89 (talk)
  • Delist. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The reviewer of the original good-article nomination, Tbhotch, imposed their personal criteria rather than the criteria outlined at WP:GA?, in failing the nomination. Specifically, they lamented the absence of a "Background" section and made impractical suggestions to conjure one up, dismissing the fact that any further information about the album is out of the scope of the available literature and sources on the topic; I even provided an example of the topic's relatively mediocre 3rd-party coverage in the form of Scott-Heron's AllMusic bio, its skimpiness, its factual errors. The reviewer misused the "broad in its coverage" point (point a) of criteria 3 as a means to encourage the article to meet their personal critera; according to WP:What the good article criteria are not: "Point (a) means that the 'main aspects' of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be 'addressed' in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects ... Mistakes to avoid - Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." Dan56 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is reinforced at the actual good-article criteria page: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. (WP:GA?#cite note-6) The words this reviewer kept citing and would not waver from was "as a reader I am not reading why the album exists", which is their own words, their own criteria, and vague (there are many reasons an album can exist, usually because it was recorded and released, which is explained by the article, but apparently there are other reasons for the reviewer, reasons they did not themselves specify yet wanted stated in the article; "impractical suggestion"). Dan56 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Not until their closing comments bloviated about other articles that exist in the manner they prefer, did they explicate their vague personal criteria, but it is buried in a torrent of hostile, personalizing remarks, in frustration over having their reviewing mistakes called out as "lazy" and "presumptive" (presumptive, because, to go back to the above issue, they had given no effort in going over the available source material on the topic themselves and were just blindly guessing, hoping, imagining?... that there is more information out there on the album's reason for existing. The reviewer did not define at all what they wanted this supposed "Background" section to explain or what specific information to hold; they just assumed it exists out there and the article should follow this form, conceptually, superficially.... Dan56 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Elsewhere, with more ancillary concerns like a link (the shah) redirecting to an associated article (an association the reviewer did not give a concrete position on, but ultimately used to fail the article), the reviewer often gave problems, rather than solutions, and left me having to clarify without an idea as to how they wanted me to fix it. The aforementioned link was used as a grounds for failure as well: as WP:GAR points out, however: compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting; WP:GACN reinforces this: Mistakes to avoid - Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages ... Requiring the resolution of links to disambiguation pages. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Dan56 asked me to participate in this GAR at my talk page (in what I felt was a respectful, neutral way). I have not participated in a GAR before, but I have reviewed articles at GA and FA, including articles written primarily by Dan56. These included an unusually extensive review (continued at the talk page) for the article Fôrça Bruta. I say this at the outset to be clear about what brought me here and what my relationship with Dan56 is. I've worked with him closely and I think he's done good work, but I also feel I have maintained critical distance from his work. I have critiqued his work quite extensively when I felt it was necessary to do so and have disagreed often with Dan56 about particular issues (sometimes these issues have resolved in my favor, while other times Dan56 has convinced me to reconsider my original stance). Point being, I feel I can be reasonably objective here, and I'm not here as Dan56's backup.
As to the GAR process itself: I don't think I'm going to take a stance supporting or opposing this. GAR strikes me as a little odd for issues beyond delisting, though it seems to be permissible—Tbhotch opened the door to the process in his comment when he closed the review. My own instincts would have been to simply renominate the page, as Tbhotch also suggested in his comments, and that would be less contentious than this process. On the other hand, it does make some sense to me for there to be a procedure to resolve disputes over reviews that the nominator has reason to believe were erroneous or contrary to the rules, as Dan56 seems to believe is the case.
That said: Dan56, I think Tbhotch has a point about your tone. I'm not really interested in litigating the specifics of this issue as it applies to this review, but I think it's worth bringing up all the same. I've reviewed your work a few times and I've participated in a few content disputes that you were involved in; I've been on your side in disputes, and I've been on the other side too. In my observation, you have sometimes been aggressive or impatient in disputes over article content or policy/procedure, and sometimes you've been rude—as I believe you have been to Tbhotch. I'm not saying you always behave this way; there's no doubt you've been perfectly cordial and respectful in the past, too. I think you tend to cross a line when you feel someone else has been unreasonable, and whether you're right or wrong about that in a given situation, your responses can tend to escalate these situations. This behavior can be off-putting, and it sometimes hinders your ability to resolve issues in your favor. Wikipedia can be frustration... and I've felt that same frustration myself at times, believe me.
But there's a difference between expressing reasonable disagreement—or even expressing frustration with another user's actions that you feel are unreasonable—and expressions of disrespect. I don't want to discourage you or make you feel I'm taking sides against you. Your contributions to Wikipedia are extensive and really valuable; I really admire the overall quality of your research and writing, your sheer prolificness, and (above all) your unassailable good taste. My intentions in bringing this up are sincere and come from a place of respect for you and your work, and I hope that comes through as you read this. But when things heat up, you should consider taking a step back to make sure you are treating other users with respect and conducting yourself in a way other users will perceive as reasonable and respectful.
Now that that's out of the way, I want to move on to the actual points of contention regarding the review. First, I wouldn't go so far as to say Tbhotch imposed their own personal criteria. There are inevitably going to be matters on which a reviewer is going to have to interpret the policy in order to apply it. Whether Tbhotch was right on every issue or not, I think it's fair to say he made a good-faith effort to apply the GA criteria. Here's where I come down on the individual issues:
  • Necessity of background section: I don't think it's strictly necessary for a GA-level album article to have a Background section, in the sense of a section that has a ==Background== heading. There may not be enough material to justify including a separately designated section on background material. I don't feel too strongly about the inclusion of a heading one way or another. However, I think it is reasonable to ask for some text on background material whenever possible, even if it's to a minimal extent. I say this with awareness of the distinction between the GA requirement to be "broad" in coverage and the FA requirement of comprehensiveness, but it does bring to mind some edits during the Fôrça Bruta FAC.
When you nominated Fôrça Bruta, it looked like this and did not have a designated "Background" section—instead, it jumped in with "Recording and production". The article did include textual content that amounted to contextual "background" material, it just wasn't labeled as such. During my review, I brought up what I felt were issues with organization and inclusion of background material. While I didn't ask for a separate "Background" section, I did ask for a more chronological organization and front-loading of contextual/background info in the "Recording" section. Over the course of your revisions, you created a separate, one-paragraph section for "Background". I hadn't called for this change, but I thought it was a good idea; I commented "I think adding the short 'Background' section was a good idea, too." I would have been happy with including this paragraph either as the first paragraph of the "Recording" section or as its own section, but I think making it its own section ended up being the better idea (and it happened to be your own idea).
Now, I know a bit about Gil Scott-Heron myself and I agree with Dan56 that, for a musician of his significance, there is a regrettable paucity of secondary source material about him. Tbhotch, you pointed out that Winter in America is a GA as a counterpoint to Dan56's protest that there isn't much material on Gil Scott-Heron; it's true that Winter in America is quite comprehensive—Dan56 wrote that one too, incidentally—but Scott-Heron's career as a whole is covered very unevenly in secondary sources. You can talk about the context of Scott-Heron and Jackson's collaborations, but there may not be material about how that led up to this album in particular. While I haven't reviewed all the available source material for this particular album, I don't find it hard to believe that there may be a comparative absence of source material specifically covering the "background" of this album. I personally know Dan56 to be a thorough researcher, so if I were the reviewer here I would have likely taken his word on the issue—not saying it was necessary to simply take his word and move on, just speaking for myself based on my past experience with Dan56 and background knowledge of the subject.
With that caveat: I nevertheless think what Tbhotch had asked for was reasonable. Judging from his review and GAR comments, it seems like he was just asking for whatever minimal material was available, which would have included general statements explaining the history of Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson's past collaborations—for instance, noting 1980 was the duo's sixth collaboration, and noting that it followed Secrets, which was a similar-sounding album. This may have only amounted to two or three sentences, but I think there's enough material for a background paragraph (whether it has its own heading or not). That's not asking to dredge up something that isn't there in the sources, it's just asking for presentation of whatever context there is, however minimal.
  • Original research: I don't think linking "the shah" to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is an original research problem. I don't think there's any room for ambiguity or doubt that Christgau was referring to Mohammad Reza. It's not a jump to take Christgau's naming of "the shah" as a reference to Mohammad Reza, who was at the time (and continues to be) referred to simply as "the Shah" or "the Shah of Iran". This was also at the time of the Iranian Revolution and Iran hostage crisis, putting "the Shah of Iran" in the forefront of American consciousness. Reference to a "shah" or "the shah" in American media at this time should be presumed to refer the shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza, unless explicitly specified otherwise.
This is not a stretch or an example of original research in interpretation. Analogously, mention of "the Queen of England" in 1980 (or now) presumptively refers to Elizabeth II, and mention of "the Pope" in 1980 would presumptively refer to the person Pope John Paul II. Indeed, the titles "Queen of England" or "Pope" are more familiar in the western context than the title "shah", so the presumption that "shah" = "Mohammad Reza" would be stronger than either of the other two inferences; it's far more plausible that a reference to "the Pope" may refer to the title of pope in a generic sense (the phrase "does the pope shit in the woods?", for instance, does not refer to any individual pope at all), while it's hardly likely that a reference to "the shah" refers to the title in general or an obscure shah. The fact that Christgau refers to the Shah is "dead" is not great evidence that he's referring to the title rather than the person, either. It's true that the office of the shah was abolished before the review, and Mohammad Reza died shortly after the review, but the title of the song is "Shah MOT (The Shah Is Dead/Checkmate)". Christgau is only referring back to Scott-Heron's (poetic) declaration of death.
Regardless, MOS:LINKQUOTE is not really an original research policy, it's a stylistic policy. It cautions against getting it wrong in interpretation, which is overlaps with OR concerns, but again I don't think there's reason to believe this link gets it wrong, much less gets it wrong so badly that it becomes a serious OR concern. Unfortunately, I think tensions had gotten high enough at this point that a disagreement over a comparatively small matter like this blew up the process.
  • Studio — this is a final issue that was raised in the closing of the review, not the review itself. Nonetheless, it's a fair point and it looks like the answer is found in the liner notes. The studio was TONTO in Santa Monica, California, as gleaned from a scan of the LP liner notes (on the Arista 201 733 issue of the album). This is the same studio as the previous album Secrets.
All told... I'm a bit exhausted going over all this in-depth. I hope this comment helps contribute to productively moving forward and sorting out the problems at play here. —BLZ · talk 06:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding Tbhotch's reasons given for failing:
    • 1b Disagree on statutory grounds. Whether or not the article fails MOS:LINKQUOTE is irrelevant to WP:GA?, because 1b only requires compliance with 5 specific MoS pages, none of which include MOS:LINKQUOTE. See What the Good article criteria are not#1.
    • 2c Weak disagree with labelling the link in "the shah (dead)" as WP:OR. I can appreciate that this is close to the borderline of OR, but I would have gone the other way on this. I find the alternative interpretation offered by Tbhotch (that the author was saying that the title of "shah" was dead, rather than the individual commonly referred to as "the Shah" who had in fact recently died) highly implausible. Also, the fact that it's a non-piped wikilink (i.e. that [[the shah]] is actually a redirect to the person in question) makes me feel like there's less of a leap in ascribing the author's intent.
    • 3a Neutral This is tricky because "major aspects" is subject to personal interpretation, and unfortunately the term isn't really defined in any policy document. I definitely think a "Background" section should not be imposed as a GA requirement in this case (and the WikiProject advice page that Tbhotch linked to in his review is not binding in a GA context). As for whether more information is needed somewhere in the article about why the album exists and where it was recorded, neither of these personally strike me as major ommissions. But I also don't think Tbhotch is being unreasonable, even if his definition of "major aspects" differs from mine. I do think a sentence or two giving context about Scott-Heron and Jackson's collaborations up until this point would be welcome. I think insisting on giving the recording studio is a bit much. The question of "Where?" is very important in an article about a building, a protest, a natural disaster, or species of butterfly. For many other subjects, it's of little importance (say, an article about a font, a number, or a thought experiment). In most cases, I think the location where an album was recorded is little more than trivia. I think the "Five Ws" theory of broad coverage does come across a bit like "personal criteria" and I'd be wary of applying it in a procrustean manner.
As for conduct of the editors involved, I think both could have tried a little harder to be nice. I find many of Tbhotch's comments to be a little peremptory in tone, and though Dan56's comments started out cordial, they let their frustration get the better of them in later comments which were mildly sarcastic or hostile.
Agree with BLZ that re-nominating is probably the simplest way forward here. Colin M (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Cody Rhodes[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Based on my comments at Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


CAC[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

There has been continual edit-warring between pro-Pakistan and pro-India editors following the recent 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Editors are routinely blindly reverting to keep their preferred version, removing any edits that are made by anybody else. The edit warring has not been stopped by spells of semi-protection, it has just been continued by auto-confirmed editors. As this has continued for over two weeks now, it is clear that the article is not stable, thus failing criteria 5: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." and criteria 4: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." It should therefore be delisted.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It should be reverted to the pre-disruption state (which Guy Macon has done several times). I have fully protected it for now. The various warring parties can then discuss it on the talk page. Once a consensus position is determined, the article can be unprotected and the edits made. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I concur with PM67; a delisting does seem to be premature for this situation. Applying criteria 5 in this way to justify a GAR seems unreasonable unless it is a particularly protracted situation that has not been able to be resolved through discussions on the talk page. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)