Talk:United States/GA3

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Initial statement
I am concerned about the status of this article as GA status. As can be seen in the article's talk page there is SOAPBOXing occurring, leading to the lack of stability. Therefore this article fails criteria 4 and criteria 5 as listed at WP:GACR. Therefore, I am nominating this article for reassessment. I might be one of the top ten content contributors to this article, by amount of data added (not edits), but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By soapboxing, do you mean the blatant disregard of the outcome of this RFC or something else; if so, then what in particular are you accusing of being soapboxing? EllenCT (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above editor has been slowly pushing to advance an agenda on the talk page, and making edits on the article to that affect. That makes the article non-neutral, as well as non-stable. Please again see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. See this statement by :"EllenCT, politically speaking, I am on your side of the aisle. But your approach here is really disturbing when you are not capable to realize that comments from you such as: If your idea of an excellent encyclopedia article emphasizes only the topics according to your discredited political preferences, then perhaps your skills would better serve your fellow citizens by editing Conservapedia, are utterly useless in a discussion about how to improve an article."


 * It is this type of environment on the talk page that has lead to the article being non-neutral and non-stable. I walked away from this article because the civility was gone and the POV pushing was blatant. Seeing how it was listed as a GA, having reviewed GAs in the past, knowing it did not meet the criteria required by GA, it begged to be reassessed.
 * That being said this reassessment is not about the actions of, this reassessment is about the article. It was locked due to edit warring. This is sufficient to show it no longer meets the stability requirement required by GACR. During the edit war the above user changed (by reverting a revert) the description of a major party to right-wing (instead of centre-right), showing a POV push targeting a party the editor appears to not agree with, among other edits.
 * This means that criteria 4 and 5 are not met, and thus this article should be delisted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, I had a vested interest in seeing this article improve, adding 48k worth of references to the article, but the vitriol found on the talk page drove me away from this article :( .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you were offended, but I stand by my statement. After repeatedly accusing me of POV pushing without providing any reasons why, for example, describing economic outcomes by education level is biased, this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Need I make a list of all your unsubstantiated, uncivil such accusations over the past year so that they can be compared to the statements about which you complain at such length? EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this article for months, and only recently submitted a couple of comments to the talk page. I concur that it has become a hotbed lately of POV pushing, particularly around fashionable discussions relating to income inequality. This has lead to arguments over how much should a high level summary article include, as well efforts to slant the writing. The result is both a battleground and sections that have had large POV additions and charts that are WP:UNDUE to say the least. This had degraded the quality of the article IMHO, and it's clearly not stable.Mattnad (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I helped other editors to bring this article to GA state last time it was nominated. However since then, like RightCowLeftCoast said I too noticed many cases of POV pushings. Most of the time editors involved in the dispute didn't care enough to reach a consensus on talk page first, or they jut didn't want to wait for other editors to reply to their discussions. Some editors just kept reverting others and provided explanations as an edit summary. They headed to the talk page after edit-warring. By then the damage was already done and it lead to full protection of the article. Anyhow this article has changed a lot after the last GA review and I too believe all these POV pushings over time has damaged the integrity of the article. -- Chamith  (talk)  19:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also part of the group that got this article to GA status, but the constant lengthy political bickering kept me away from the article after that. It is unfortunate that there seem to be a number of editors who solely edit the politically controversial parts of this article to push their POV. These folks are not seen editing other sections of the article nor do they edit much outside of United States political issue articles. While this is not a crime, it has led to significant WP:BATTLEGROUND and un-civil behavior that has culminated in the protection of this article. I'm sure everyone knows who I am talking about. Dispute resolution has failed time and time again for resolving these politically changed editors issues, so perhaps some topic bans are in order. Winner 42 Talk to me!  20:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to make such accusations, I would like to see specific diffs supporting what you see as disruptive behavior. I've been editing this article for years, am also in the top ten by text added, within a few tenths of a percent of the other recent top editors, and yes, I certainly do focus on standard of living, health, economics, and related issues. I make a point of discussing all changes for at least a week before actual editing (in stark contrast to the large number of undiscussed edits we've seen here in the past month) and I certainly don't do undiscussed mass reverts such as those which touched off the recent edit war leading to full protection. Should the editor who decided to make that undiscussed mass revert be sanctioned? I am very upset about the blatant attempt to disregard the most recent RFC outcome, and suggest that is the most disruptive behavior that we've seen in this article beyond simple vandalism. I have opened several RFCs here, and never once failed to abide by their outcome. Suggesting that any discussion of controversial topics needs to be avoided isn't just contrary to the first sentence of the WP:WEIGHT policy, it's absurd from an encyclopedist perspective. Can you imagine an article about North Korea which doesn't discuss human rights? How is topic banning editors who follow the discussion and RFC process on the most prominent controversies -- which I repeat WP:LEAD directs should appear in the introduction -- any different? EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose delisting and request closing of GA3 The initial reasoning has no bases in GA criteria. There is nothing in the criteria about the talk page demonstrating "soapboxing" etc, and no specific item or concern from the article itself has been questioned. Edit warring on a GA article is also not likely to be a reason to delist. It IS a reason to stop a GA review. Therefore, if this is a review of the article, this must be closed until the edit warring is over...not just until the article is unlocked. If we delisted every time there was edit warring on GA or FA....we wouldn't have any GA or FA articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Last I checked neutrality and stability were two criteria of a GA article. This article has neither at the moment. I believe, , and would agree with me on that.
 * Furthermore, unless I am unaware, there is not different criteria to base delisting articles. Therefore, we must look at the article based on GACR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be hopeful that 's giant disputes resolution section (props to him for that) will lead to some stability and neutrality in the short term, but the question remains whether such a high-traffic article can remain stable in the long term. I think whether a GA review is required will become apparent in the week following unprotection depending if edit warring resumes or not. Winner 42 Talk to me!  01:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you cherry pick the criteria you want to use when the criteria is clear. You must quick decline a GA nomination if there is edit warring. How can you use that to begin a GA3? If you have no specific concerns how can anything be addressed?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding me, I'm agreeing with you. I think that we should wait to see if "significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks" before considering a GA reassessment. Winner 42 Talk to me!  03:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry...my fault. I was replying to RightCowLeftCoast and should have stated that.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Our guidelines actually speak directly to this issue and both RightCowLeftCoast and I are correct: "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.". So, while the lock will run out tomorrow, I urge RightCowLeftCoast to close this now per guidelines for community reassessment and if the problem persists re-open based on that fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mark has a good point. I understand why listed this page for reassessment and I would have done the same thing given that this article ranks 58 by traffic. And as he pointed out stability and factual accuracy are key points of a GA article, but, like WP:GAR says its not appropriate to reassess the quality until the edit warring is over. Which means whoever is going reassess the article must start his review after the article is stabilized. However, I don't actually think reassessment request should be closed. My opinion is that the reviewer should take a while before jumping into the reassessment. Because, article healing process takes time.-- Chamith   (talk)  06:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For me it's not content disputes alone. The article is bloated and it's not just from POV pushing (although there is that problem too).Mattnad (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you say there is more bloat in the sports section or in redundant references? Do you think the history section can be further summarized? EllenCT (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think is correct. The article is heavily bloated, but not in any particular section. I think the article is graphic heavy, needs a major copy edit for brevity, clarity, encyclopedic value, and undue weight issues in general. There is a lot to be said about redundant references and weak references needing strengthening but I think the talk page is getting a general consensus on a number of issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As one of the editors who helped get this article past the GA review, I still notice all of the POV pushing. Sadly, it is not possible to have an article like this stay neutral because of so many different opinions. The article itself is not that bad, and perhaps it would be best to revert to the version before the POV pushing began. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The lock of this article has ended, the edit conflict remains, with more tags having appeared in this article since the last time I edited it (until the recent edits)(in April). Therefore I would say this article does not pass the neutral part of GAR, and a delisting would be appropriate at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I would have to agree so. It's shame since it was promoted so recently. Unfortunately, edit warring simply bloats the article. Still, outside of the fact that it is not a GA by wikipedia standards, I would still say it is a pretty informative article, and I am still happy we were able to improve it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Prior to all of our involvement, many sentences were uncited, and subject to WP:BURDEN. This is no longer the case. The article was C/E'd to a high degree, and is easier to read. Unfortunately, as it contains controversial sections, it has become a place of conflicting editors, all whom believe they are doing the right thing for the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)