Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/James L. Buie/1

The arguments went to the merits of the reassessment
Articles should be judged on their individual condition under WP:GA standards. However, this reassessment started with: "'Note: This is a Doug Coldwell article. Gusfriend'" This is an unfortunate argument that is an Argumentum ad hominem. The whole process started with that. There were de minimis changes that were uncovered and corrected. Article improvement is good; and I welcome everyone to do it. Neverthelesss, this article was and is a WP:GA. Indeed, the responses at the AFD went on to opine on claimed 'masses of articles' and to repeat the claim as a justification. Fallacy of composition applies. If there are real reasons to reassess, I would hope that good faith and substantial proof will be presented. We will know what User: Gusfriend and other editors may do by the articles they choose hereafter to get reassessed and the merits of their efforts. They are the masters of their own editing. I am all in favor of article improvement. I would not have written this, but for the demand that I retract what I said (if I redacted my comment, it would not erase the history in any event — WP:Duck) and the last comment in the AFD saying they want me to shut up. I had deemed the matter 'closed.' I was not "questioning the validity of the process" as User:AirshipJungleman29 claimed. My position related to this article. I hope that this becomes an irrelevancy in the future. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)