Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Habbush letter/1

Habbush letter

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: delisted Ok. I've looked at this one for a little while and it is high time to close it.  On review we had a few problems.  One, pretty innocuously, a typo resulted in a failed nomination with no apparent review.  Two, the review itself appeared perfunctory and didn't fail the article on a listed Good article criteria.  Simply put, vandalism and IP POV pushing are not what is meant by "unstable".  Ongoing edit wars between major participants on the page changing the meaning and scope of the page are what we mean.  But, a review which failed the article on incorrect grounds doesn't mean that the article should be passed automatically.  I am going to delist this article and suggest that it may be renominated at any time. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC).

The article was rejected for good article status, but the reviewer did not even indicate how to improve the article as seen on the very blank review page. It is apparent that the reviewer committed the review in bad faith, considering his/ her track record in other Wikipedia-related activities such as this. Starczamora (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that the assessment was performed here, but I agree that the reviewer could have given more information as to how the article was inadequate. I feel that questions of WP:NPOV are important when reviewing this article.  When was the article nominated for GA?  It might help us shed some light on the "unstable" clause. Some of the references need to have better formatting.  -Malkinann (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Starczamora's very blank review page is due to a typo, "GAn" instead of "GA1". The review is exactly where it should be, Talk:Habbush letter/GA1, and has been there since September 8th. --Una Smith (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was rejected due to the fact that there are many vandalism just with a quick look on the history, meaning it was unstable.Eduhello (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What kind of vandalism did you see? Simple cursing does not count for this consideration, it has to be a content dispute. -Malkinann (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here it is:(cur) (last) 23:42, 25 August 2008 EdJohnston (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Habbush letter: Edit warring. If the dispute still doesn't settle down, full protection is an option [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC))) (undo)
 * Got it?Eduhello (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it cool, ok? Did you look at what the edit war was about or if it had been resolved? -Malkinann (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm almost always cool. Here is just a partial taster of the dispute. []. There are still many others once you look at the history. Happy Editing! 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, i spent a few hours editing this page, and i think you should hold off before you call it 'good'. there are still a lot of unanswered questions about this situation.... someone should really triple fact check every little word in the article. imho


 * Comment. The article did receive a GA review. However, the review is unhelpful at best. The reviewer provided few comments on his reason fail the article due to stability/edit war concerns. The reviewer's concern has some merit as there is evidence of edit wars taking place up until August 25. Since then the article's edit history has stabilized. Majoreditor (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the review is not satisfactory, being too short, but has anyone asked the reviewer to expand it? Given his response here, he is willing to expand on it, but I think (a) he needs some coaching and (b) his native language is not English. --Una Smith (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a new review to the article. In my opinion it is more satisfactory. Here is it.

Please tell me if it is more satisfactory or not.

Thank You!Happy Editing! (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)