Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Perry v. Schwarzenegger/1

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action. There is no benefit in bringing the article to community GAR now. Once the dust about the case has settled the article can be renominated at GAN. If further disagreements arise, a new community GAR can be initiated. Geometry guy 01:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Short term vandalism is not a proper reason for rejecting Good article assesment as required by Good article criteria. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias and it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Let's continue with Good article assesment as over a year owerhelming collective effort on the article deserves. Explanation given by GregJackP does not count since under more serious attack and vandalism are Featured articles such as Evolution or Global warming. Actually, intentional malicious effort of anonymous vandalists undermining effort of good editors is not good excuse to hold off Good article assesment indefinitely. --Destinero (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a mistake. This article is represents a current event. Several weeks or months should transpire before this article is nominated for GA. The quick-fail was the right choice. For the short term vandalism, but more importantly for the fact that it is still ongoing. --Moni3 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Because the GA process is intended to help editors with article improvement, "quick-failing" may not be the best option. Even if an article has obvious shortcomings, the more specific information that the reviewer can provide to help editors meet all six Good article criteria, the more they will help the overall process of article improvement. Therefore, "quick-failing" is discouraged. Just because you are not willing to review an article in-depth after taking a cursory look does not mean it should be removed from consideration. If it is apparent from the article edit history and talk page that the nominator has already put extensive work into the article and is genuinely trying to improve its quality, then generally a quick-fail is inappropriate even if obvious issues still exist. Give someone else a chance to review the article and provide the needed help." Reviewing good articles
 * It's still a mistake. There will be nothing harmed of this article to let it wait a few weeks as new source material and analysis of the decision will inevitably be published. --Moni3 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my initial assessment for the reasons outlined by Moni3, but I have no problem with another editor assessing the article, nor to a community reassessment. At the present time, I do not feel that it meets the criteria, although I can see the hard work that has gone into it and applaud the editors that are working on the article.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   17:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)