Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/LaRouche conspiracy trials/1

LaRouche conspiracy trials

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Renominate for GA. The article was promoted by a user editing in violation of a community ban, and therefore never has been properly considered for promtion. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was passed GA by a confirmed sockpuppet. Other editors have expressed concerns that this article, as it stands, has deficiencies which should have held it back from GA. The implicit accusation is that GA was passed inappropriately and should be revoked pending improvements. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This article was never reviewed for GA. No one signed up to review it. There is no past GA review. It was promoted by removing it from the nomination page and placing GA passed code on the talk page. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the banned user did post what was purported to be a review on the article's talk page. I agree that no one ever signed up on the GAN page. Speaking only for myself, I have no strong feeling about whether the article is reassessed here, or placed back in the nominations queue. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A real GA review is not posted on the talk page but is transcluded on to the talk page from its own review page with the template. For example,  is a current review page &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which which why I phrased that as I did. Although, the subpage's use on all GA reviews is a recent development. Do you feel the more appropriate course is relisting? I have no problem with closing this and getting Will Beback to re-nominate. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My first instinct would be to simply relist it, since it really has not had a real GA review. Take the GA off the talk page and proceed as you were going to do when it was originally listed for GA. It has never actually been a GA so GAR doesn't fit. But I am not familiar with all the ways of GA. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking this back to the talk page :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)