Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1

Project Chanology

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: List as GA. There is no sign that this article is currently unstable, and all recent arguments support listing it. If it becomes unstable, editors may initiate delisting in accordance with the delisting guidelines or open a new GAR discussion in the event of uncertainty or disagreement. Geometry guy 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology was reviewed by, and successfully passed and listed as a WP:GA. then summarily delisted the article's GA status, citing WP:WIAGA, point (5), article stability. The article does happen to be semi-protected, but that is only due to vandalism, and WP:WIAGA clearly states: Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. In his delist comments, stated that due to ongoing protests that members of Project Chanology are involved in, the article may change in the future. This certainly is possible, but I do not think that that possibility should preclude the article's viability for a current WP:GA status listing at this point in time. felt that it passed all the criteria, as do I (though I could not do the GA review, as a significant contributor to the article itself). Cirt (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fail - current event = fails stability criterion (there will be another mass organised protest in 2 weeks time, and there's very likely small protests going to be happening until then). Will (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist as GA - The article has been stable lately, with no content disputes. As stated above, vandalism does not apply to stability concerns.  Yes, there will be upcoming protests, but those are also likely to continue for some time in the future.  Should the article never be allowed to attain GA status due to a series of upcoming mass protests?  No, the article should pass as a GA article, per the GA Review of .  Cirt (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist as GA - Will's reason for delist was wrong. In GA criteria 5, an article should not "change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war." After checking page history, there was no edit war in recent months. Plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't care about upcoming protests. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That means, to pass, it needs to pass both of those. It passes "no edit wars", but not "change signficantly" - the event's currentness thus makes it susceptible to significant change. Will (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, global warming is happening right now, let's be bold and delist this FA (just for those who don't get the joke) OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but will the content of the global warming article be sure to change in a few weeks time? No. This article? Yes. Will (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fail/Endorse delist - WP:WIAGA; it's likely to change regularly. Not sure who put the "and" there when consensus is for it to be an "or". In any case, the initial GA review wasn't thorough enough. I suggest the editors take the article to GAN when the event is no longer taking place. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are more protests planned for a few months out. Should the article be prohibited from ever attaining GA status, just because a sub-subsection of the article will be updated occasionally?  I agree with, who rightly stated Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Are there any other concerns about the article's quality other than the criterion 5 issue? Majoreditor (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has raised any concerns/suggestions as to any of the other criteria other than criterion 5. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relist for now The delisting was initially based on a quickfail edit conflict, but those criteria do not apply to the article. While it addresses an unfolding event, it does not have a definite endpoint. It's a rough and imperfect analogy, but I would compare the development of this article to that of the general article about a sports team. I'll point to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football as an example since I'm familiar with it. It bears repeating that my analogy is not exact, but this is an example of an article that has attained GA status despite the fact that it will most certainly continue to be updated until an unknown point in the future. On another note, the Project Chanology article has some really picky style/personal preference issues that are mostly a result of the developing nature of the subject, but this doesn't affect the overall quality or stability of the article at this moment. However, this is the main reason why I say "relist for now" rather than just "relist," as I can see certain things resulting in a downward spiral of quality if the core contributors don't remain vigilant during updating flurries. That said, I feel that a future GAR, perhaps after the expected flurry of updates, might be appropriate. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist as GA per Cirt. The delister, Sceptre/Will, has been regularly disrupting the progress of the closely-related Anonymous (group) article through subjective misgivings and policy violations. (I will provide evidence if requested.) Taking this into account, I feel it should be borne in mind that his position on the issue harbours a potential conflict of interest, to put it mildly. Ayla (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no known endpoint to Project Chanology, so it could permanently be a current event. As such, it should not be denied GA status based on critera 5 anymore than an article on the Iraq War should fail for being a current event. DigitalC (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So does that mean you would support relisting the article as a WP:GA? Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For now yes, as I have not seen any valid reasons for its delisting. DigitalC (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification that you support relisting the article as a WP:GA. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Should the article be relisted while the GAR is taking place as it was before it was delisted? Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let someone else answer that one, as I am a significant contributor to the article and would not have been the one to do a GA review in the first place. But I will say this much: several other editors have commented both above in this discussion, and on the article's talk page, that the move of quickfailing the article's GA status seconds after it was passed as a GA, instead of first taking it to GAR, was an inappropriate way to go.  Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm almost 100% sure this is the track record for shortest timespan between listing and delisting a GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it wasn't seconds, but minutes - 8 minutes from the GA Review and pass by, to the GA quickfail by (As stated above, there was no GAR in-between).  Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * List. The article is now somewhat stable. There's no edit wars and no major changes in article size or content. It is possible that upcoming events could de-stabilize the article; however, I don't have a crystal ball and can't make a prediction on what may happen. Majoreditor (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist. Yes, it is subject to regular editing, but nothing which would make the article unstable or controversial, hence, relist. Qst (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist. Article is stable enough to warrant GA status. -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have joked many times about creating a Good articles precrime department, and I begin to wonder if I actually should. If this article becomes unstable, please delist it. If instead it continues to incorporate ongoing events into its text without becoming unstable or failing any other GA criterion, please keep it as a GA. I propose that this discussion be closed fairly soon it seems to me that snow is starting to fall. Geometry guy 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. 10-15 cm of snow is expected to fall in Toronto tonight O_o OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist It is like saying that all BLPs cannot be GA/FA because things could change any day. Criteria 5 is meant to stop articles undergoing edit wars or constant changes due to arguments over quality. See Hulk (comics) for a classic example of that. It is my understanding that it is not related to events that are in effect ongoing, yet the article remains stable. Woody (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist My personal opinion on current events is that it is meant to keep truly breaking events from becoming GA, not to prohibit ongoing campaigns or longstanding events from achieving GA status. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you think that it is safe to relist? To me, this has passed with 9/2/0 (81.8%). There is support that Criterion 5 didn't apply anyway. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you, but better to let someone else do the actual relisting. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note. This is not a vote. In terms of weight of argument, the percentage support for listing is much greater than 82%. Geometry guy 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that at this point in time, we should wait 1-2 weeks to relist. There will be a lot of activity on the article over that time (more sources due to media coverage of 3/15), and we should wait until the article has stabilized before relisting. DigitalC (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And my sentiment remains that as long as the article remains stable and the additional potential sources are added in such a manner so as not to change the structure/dynamic of the entire article, but rather only a sub-subsection of the article as a whole, that this should not preclude the article from being relisted as a GA. And then at that point, the article should not be delisted from its GA status every single time a new protest is announced. I think if you look above you will see that many other editors have already expressed a similar sentiment.  Cirt (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Just because there will be edits in the coming weeks does not mean that the article will become unstable. If it does, then (and only then) should it be delisted from GA. DigitalC (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Meantime we still have the matter of this ongoing WP:GAR. Several above editors have expressed comments that there is a snowing sentiment towards relisting as WP:GA... Cirt (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)