Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mike Gravel/1

Mike Gravel

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: No action, but recommend renomination. Geometry guy 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reassess Quick-failed GAWasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This GAC was quick-failed because Gravel is a candidate in the current U.S. presidential election, and thus the article is supposedly inherently unstable. In fact, Gravel has zero chance of winning anything in this election; his moment in the sun in the early Democratic debates has already passed. When he finally does drop out, only a sentence or two will be added to the article. The large majority of the article concerns his time as Alaska Senator in the 1970s or the overall trajectory of his unusual life story. There are many GA articles for current actors and pop music stars that are far more unstable due to new events occurring than this one will be. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * List as GA This would need very little work indeed even to be FA standards. This is a great article.  The stability criterion is based on the idea that an article is likely to substantially change.  This guy is the ninth horse in an eight horse race.  I didn't even know he was running for president.  No joke, the 2008 presidential run will be a footnote for him, the article is great.  It should be on the list.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Renominate. The quick fail was inappropiate.  The only "stability clause" in the quick fail criteria is thus: "The article has been the subject of recent or ongoing edit wars".  Although the article does not currently appear to be a GA (e.g. nonsense statements such as "initially a poor student due to undiagnosed dyslexia"), it does, at least, deserve a full review.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No action. I agree the quick-fail was inappropriate, and suggest the article is renominated at GAN after leaving a message on the talk page explaining the reason. I think this is pretty close to GA, but it needs a full review to iron out any minor points. Geometry guy 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No action at GAR and suggest renomination at GAN. The article should not have been quick-failed. I also disagree with the assertion that a 'Future election candidate' tag is automatic grounds for quick-fail. The Quick-fail criteria singles out only cleanup banners as a QFC. Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, actually there are several other QFC than cleanup banners. Edits wars, obvious POV, and a complete lack of reference material are all quick-fail reasons stated in the criteria. Van Tucky  talk 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse quick fail as reviewer. GA articles cannot be the subject of currently evolving subject matter like a presidential election. When an article will be changing on a day-to-day basis with an election, it can't be called stable. When major content changes are not just expected, but an inevitability, then a proper GA evaluation cannot be made and the article must be quick-failed. Quick-failing current election candidates is standard procedure for which there is precedent. I am honestly quite shocked that so many experienced editors think otherwise. Van Tucky  talk 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you're not being responsive to what I wrote above. Gravel is an extremely minor candidate.  Nothing is going to change that, day-to-day or otherwise; even when he drops out, it will be one sentence to add, not a major content change.  The vast majority of the article has nothing to do with his candidacy.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The major/minor status is irrelevant. Any presidential candidate could suddenly become famous (or infamous). Consider events like Bill Clinton winning the nomination after losing Iowa and New Hampshire, or Howard Dean getting booted for a yell. Being part of a national election is inherently unstable, regardless of the current fame of the candidate. If what you say about his candidacy is true, then you can just as easily renominate the article when he drops out. In fact, it would have been much easier to simply wait to renominate, considering the sluggish pace of GAR. Van Tucky  talk 05:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comparisons aren't really apt. Bill Clinton was a very visible, viable, well-funded candidate with a real base of support within the party; he didn't compete in Iowa and finished second in New Hampshire.  Gravel has no money, no base support, is now being excluded from all debates, and has 0% or 1% national poll ratings.  Howard Dean did not lose because of the yell; the yell followed a dismal third-place showing in Iowa, well behind Kerry and Edwards, that already showed that his previous front-runner status had collapsed.  Meanwhile, I'm comforted by knowing that Britney Spears has a life so stable and uneventful that her article is GA; I'd been worrying about her.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasted Time R is correct; that isn’t an appropriate analogy, as neither of those candidates were minor, as Gravel is. Unfounded speculation on what could happen is a mischaracterization of the stability requirements and, if such logic were applied to the GA process, no article on a currently-existing entity could be a good article.  What if all Herdwick sheep suddenly died of FMD?  I’d wager that’s about as likely as Gravel being involved in anything that would substantially change the content his article.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh be reasonable, that's utter hyperbole Elcobbola. It's not hyperbolic or outlandish to suggest that articles need to not be the subject of rapidly evolving current events. It's just common sense. Even if Gravel is minor in the race, he is still a part of a current event that is unfolding. That's not stable. Obviously though, this is not the consensus in this case. I'm not going to argue about it anymore. Van Tucky  talk 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct that "articles need to not be the subject of rapidly evolving current events". The article under review, however, is Mike Gravel, not United States presidential election, 2008.  It was indeed intended as hyperbole, as it was an analogy to your implicit assertion that an article on a, frankly, insignificant candidate will be subject to substantial changes on “a day-to-day basis” – also hyperbole.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Renominate. All living people can have sudden events happen to them, it does not seem likely that the Gravel article will be greatly impacted by the current presidential campaign. The only question will be when he drops out. Heh, I just read the last sentence in the article: even MSNBC thought he dropped out already. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As one (half-)wit wrote at GAR some time ago, "Articles which are about to become unstable are dealt with by the Good Articles Precrime Department, not by GAR". Just as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, neither should GA reviews, in my view, be based on predictions about what is going to happen to articles in the face of current events. There is a small chance that this article will become unstable or out-of-date, and hence fail criterion 3 or 5, but that is just speculation. At the moment it is stable and broad, and there is no reason to suppose it will not evolve in a stable and broad fashion as current events unfold, just as the article on Britney Spears will probably evolve as she does next whatever it is she does next. The idea that an article about a presidential candidate is "inherently unstable" is not one that I find convincing, and in this particular case, such "inherent instability" is very far from being demonstrated.
 * There is probably scope for further discussion of this issue, but this really isn't the place, and it makes no difference to this GAR, because whether the quick-fail was justified or not, there is nothing this GAR can do about it, short of suggesting to editors that they renominate. So I will archive this discussion soon (if no one else does), but if someone wants to take up the discussion of inherent instability of GAs somewhere else, please let me know. Geometry guy 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Nothing more can be achieved by keeping this topic open. Anyone who believes this article to be a GA can just renominate it or take it to peer review and get another opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria to deal with the issues raised by this article. Please feel free to comment there. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)