Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GA/D)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  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 bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may 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.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
  4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. 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.
  2. 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:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Wisden Trophy 2024-03-21
  2. Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division 2024-05-03
  3. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl 2024-05-04
  4. Siege of Szigetvár 2024-05-05
  5. Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow 2024-05-07
  6. Portland Trail Blazers 2024-05-24
  7. Davenport, Iowa 2024-05-24
  8. Joe Rice 2024-06-03
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

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 a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove 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.

Articles listed for reassessment

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Citation needed tags and after a quick skim you will see other places that aren’t tagged but deserve cn tags. Also there are 2 maintenance tags but both are about expansions. 48JCLTALK 01:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SSC Napoli

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

19 CN tags. Whole sections unsourced. How has this not gone noticed? 48JCLTALK 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Online

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Self-nomination for feedback and review. With all respects to the efforts of the reviewer, the GA process was faulty. The FAC nomination prompted comments that the article had "significant" issues. Therefore it is probably worth checking where along the journey this article is at from experienced editors. Thanks in advance for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priory of Sion

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

Not sure about the main banner (unclear citation style), but lots of uncited paragraphs and statements; no longer seems to meet the recent-ish standards for citation at GA level. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

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

Back in April, I expressed concerns on the article's talk page about outdated demographics information and significant uncited text. As these issues with the GA criteria have not be resolved, to GAR we go. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Olympic Games

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

As noted on the talk page by Slgrandson and myself, the article contains significant material lacking inline citations (e.g. most information about the last three Games) meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tranmere Rovers F.C.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

GA from 2011, and hasn't been reviewed since. Currently looks more like a Start-Class article than a GA. There are tags (mostly citation needed) EVERYWHERE, every section needs major work and cleanup. Article needs serious changes to remain a GA. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The tags were added by a single user over the span of about an hour, who has similarly spammed several other football articles. I'm not saying they're all unjustified, but there's certainly way more than needed. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the tags were all added by Untitled740, who also added the tags on the 3 football GAs delisted in the past month (Hull City, Middlesbrough, and Bristol Rovers, the latter two I nominated), as well as SSC Napoli, another GA that may potentially have problems. Agreeing with you, not saying that these tags are wrong, but they seem disruptive. Still saying that the article should be delisted unless work is done, but the tags on all five of these articles should be looked at as well. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many (most?) of the tags are of little value. Checking a couple, they aren't always true: with that said, some have a point. I'd suggest that a proper review of those tags would be a good (vital?) first step before making any decisions as to delisting, but maybe if nobody is forthcoming to do that review, the default should be to delist. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galatian War

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

An older GA from 2007, with a bevy of primary and old sources (the most recent author died in 1905). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iazyges, I am willing to work on this. What is your expected timeline for resolving the major issues before we can take on the specifics? I believe I can get done with the former in 5-10 days. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Thanks! I don't have a specific timeline as long as progress is being made; the 7-day close is meant to be an accelerant for articles that attract no interest, not a hard deadline. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed YF-22

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. The article has nearly doubled in size, so I would like other editors to review my work to make sure it's still up to standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Steve7c8, marking my spot here, will post comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

A 2009 GA that no longer meets the criteria in its current state. Filled with sourcing issues (such as IMDb), poor prose, a section that has had an expansion tag for two years, unreferenced sections (personnel), among others. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks zmbro. I sourced the personnel section, but I cannot see myself working on this article. Anything after Village Green carries no interest for me. Speaking of which, Arthur probably does not deserve to be a FA at this point (it was promoted back in 2010). Tkbrett (✉) 17:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I completely agree. If you wanna post some FA concerns on the talk page to get the process started I'd say go for it. Otherwise I can do it when I get back from vacation next week. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kart: Double Dash

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

On 5 March, Sergecross73 tagged this 2012 GA as needing cleanup, noting on the talk page that the article was "well below GA standards" and contained "unsourced content, trivia, sloppy stuff, etc." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in terrible shape - a victim of a decade plus of people slow degrading it into a worse status. I originally intended on cleaning it up myself, but I've lost interest and am focusing on other projects now, so that cleanup effort probably won't come from me anymore... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roll back Why not just roll back the article to the last "GA-quality" version? It was fully-sourced at one point before a lot of cruft was added. The only part relevant to the modern day is a Kotaku listicle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to that if someone wants to present a certain version to revert back to. Not much has happened with this game over the years - it hasn't been re-released, found a cult following, had much in the way of a retrospective commentary, etc. So there's probably not much concern about it being "outdated" if we were to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was listed as a GA on 2 May 2012, and the adding of unsourced content began less than ten days afterwards. If rollback is needed, it would have to be to the version promoted to GA, which does not satisfy the current criteria (criterion 2b), for example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, fair, even the GA version is a bit light on sourcing. (Sorry Salv.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and fixed the gameplay section on a whim, so there's that chunk of work done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 3

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the good article reassessment for Fallout: New Vegas right now, and after that's done I intend on getting to this article. Outside of the gameplay section, it seems to be in much better shape than the Fallout: New Vegas was, so it shouldn't be too bad. But in case I don't get to this article in time, I agree with Greenish Pickle!, this article does not meet the GA requirements as is. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just stumbled upon this and began a copyedit pass. It'll be next week before I can really sink my teeth into it, but I'm happy to do some work on it. This should be a salvageable article. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: @DrOrinScrivello: Sorry for the delay, but yes I do plan on fixing up this article, been working on other stuff. Ironically this is my favorite Fallout game, but it's been a bit of a struggle to work on this article. I did start working on it on my sandbox page. I've shortened the plot section and began work on the development section. Due to the extreme gameplay similarities between Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I asked the Video Games Project if it would be okay copying nearly entire paragraphs over from one article to another. The general consensus was yes, so long as the paragraphs that were copied are properly attributed in the original article they came from in the edit description. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo: your working version looks like you're doing the same sort of paring down that I started and you're much further along, so I'll pause my efforts for now. Feel free to ping me if you'd like a second set of eyes on anything. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in Islam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)

I do see a few sentences missing citations, which is certainly an issue. Could you give some examples of sources you believe are not acceptable for a GA-level article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VenusFeuerFalle have you seen the above question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I didn't. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can compare to what a reliable source is here WP:RELY. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and compare them to stuff like "Muhammad Shafi Usmani (1986). Tafsir Maariful Quran. Vol. 8. English Translation by Ahmed Khalil Aziz. "Al-Suyuti, Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra", and various QUran citations. Furthermore, the sources used rather point at WP:SYN. Please do not forget about all the other points and serious issues the article has. Also note, that the improvement sin the Miraj section are recent additions and would need a new review. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements in the article while the GAR is in progress are not only allowed but actively encouraged. The ideal outcome at GAR is that articles are improved to the point delisting is no longer necessary. I do ask that you keep in mind what may be incredibly obvious to you may not be so to me, I have only some basic knowledge of Islam (maybe more than the average American, but nowhere near the point I'd call myself well versed - I can at least tell you why the Sunni-Shia split is a thing). If I understand you correctly, you are saying the article is heavily reliant on the Quran itself for sourcing, which would be an issue due to WP:PRIMARY (especially inappropriate interpretation/synthesis of what's written in the Quran since it's a primary source) and our general expectation that articles rely mostly on secondary sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I came off as preassueming, I just thought my list was sufficient, especialyl due to the layout. I feel like the entire structure of the article reads like, Users cherry picked whatever sources they see fit. Furthermore, there is no historical critical analysis of Muslim sources (except for the Miraj section I improved a few days ago) and there is significant lack of hagiographic depictions of Muhammad.
I do try to work on the article while the reassessment is happening though. But yes, I think the lack of incline citations and reliance on primary sources should suffice to put it on a B rating, the lack of verification of structure would put it on a C- Ranking (in my opinion). If I could proof the lack of coverage, I would have made the additions already, but there is also a substantial lack of Muslim depiction of Muhammad as not a historical person but a holy person as well. I will try to update the article as much as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the lead has been written on its own, without reference to the article it is meant to cover. There is not much relation other than that both have a biography, however the body biography seems to be at least to some extent contextualised in the context of the topic (Muhammad in Islam) whereas the lead is just a plain biography. I suspect the lead should be completely rewritten. The Gallery similarly seems entirely disconnected from the topic at hand. The In the Quran section needs secondary sources, as touched on above. The Biography section is better in this respect, although it does cite a Tafsir to explain what the Tafsir itself says.
I do agree that the article needs restructuring. While some parts of the biography do direclty explain context, in other areas it strays into a plain biography that is slightly off-topic. The biographical organisation may not be the best way to handle this either, as it is overbroad and overlaps with later sections. "Legacy" seems similarly overbroad, with sections like that it is not clear why for example the Muhammad's Night Journey and Ascension section is on its own. I don't have access to the sources, but for example it seems that items such as his example as a role model (Morality and Sunnah) could form a section apart from items such as his various religious religious roles (Final prophet, Muhammad as intercessor, Muhammad and the Quran). CMD (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, since I am currently working on improing the article, I want to consider your suggestions. The main issue I have with the biography is that they are structured around a biography written by someone else, and thus original research. I tried to trim down the biography as much as possible and substitute with secondary sources elaborating on Muhammad's biography whenever possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings: hi all, where does this stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GAR has resulted in been significant improvement, especially in the lead, however not enough to overcome some significant sourcing issues as elucidated by VenusFeuerFalle above. CMD (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1225482527"