Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Jennifer Brunner/1

Moved from end of reassessment
If the article is not up to snuff, I don't mind it failing. However, I am a bit confused about how the GAR process became a GAN reevaluation as opposed to a evaluation of the review. It seems like the change will allow for people who are hoping for a second opinion to the contrary to just bring failed GANs here without cause. My objection is not that the article is a few notches below FA, it is that the review was $h!tty and worthless. If I am correct that it did not actually point to valid problems, it is the worst review I have probably had in about 200 or so. The old process use to be an assessment of whether the review should be endorsed. Now, the new process is a second GAN. The change in rules probably protects the GA portfolio, but probably does not reprimand worthless reviewer. I'll take the article to WP:PR and come back if that is what is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow response, but your implicit accusations required digging up some evidence. What change in the rules? If you want to reprimand worthless reviewers, GAR is not the place for that. Try their talk page, or RFC. Most community reassessments are started when someone questions whether a current GA meets the criteria. Reviewers then assess the article against the criteria, just as they would at GAN. Community reassessments concerning contested GAN reviews (or contested individual delistments) are rarer, but they don't follow some radically different principle and I doubt they ever did. Just check the archives. To save you time, here are some reassessments from over a year ago (going back to August 2007) which all demonstrate that reassessment judges the article against the criteria, not the competence of the nominator or the reviewer.
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_26
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_26
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_27
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_27
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_28
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_28
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_29
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_29
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_30
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_30
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_32
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_32
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_32
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_33
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_33
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_33
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_34
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_34
 * As no further comments have been received, the present reassessment will be closed shortly as "not listed". Geometry guy 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to close the review. My point is that during 2007 (I guess befor Archive 26) GAR was used to challenge the reason for failure.  I don't remember when that changed. I am not going to go through the whole list above, but I was the nominator for the first one you list.  It was a delisting and not a review of a failed GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are very few reviews of failed GANs. I listed a mixture of GARs, concentrating on reviews of reviews where I found them. It seems you are bothered by a perceived change that happened more than 18 months ago, have only noticed it now, and can't point to it. I'm underwhelmed. Geometry guy 08:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went back a bit further to check:
 * Good_article_review/Archive_21
 * Good_article_review/Archive_21
 * Good_article_review/Archive_22
 * Good_article_review/Archive_23
 * Good_article_review/Archive_24
 * Good_article_reassessment/Archive_25
 * That takes us back to May 2007. Of course there are also cases where the GAR only covers issues raised in the review: your perception must have come from somewhere. GAR has evolved and its reviewers have changed, but it has always been permissible to raise additional GA issues. Here are some even older examples:
 * Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_6
 * Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_12
 * Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_13
 * Good_article_review/Archive_14
 * Good_article_review/Archive_15
 * Good_article_review/Archive_15
 * However, the quality of the comments and the process drops off the further back one goes. Geometry guy 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)