Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive2

More rigorous process
First, I think we need some more eyes here. I've brought a couple issues here and they were decided by three people (and I was one of them). For instance, Jimmy Wales closed with 1.5 votes for delisting. Speedrun closed 2-1 in favor of delisting (no consensus). We need to get editors here so we can get a better, more thorough review.

Second, I think that GAR should model itself more closely along WP:FAR. For instnace, I commented on the Mario GBR that it lacked citations in the "Relations" section. That was since fixed up, but my comment was still considered a "delist" vote when the closer of the GAR delisted Mario at Talk:Mario. I think we need to separate it out - review, then voting, similar to how WP:FAR does it. Hbdragon88 04:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been getting more active here lately, it might very well be about time we change things to be more like stronger systems, like AfD type rules or FAR type rules. But FAR reviewers seem to be far more plentiful than we have here, and I think that if we have that two ordered thing, it would be far more slow and more cumbersome for less editors to deal with :/. The time to ending may need to be changed, for instance, with FAR's the debate ends I think at a week after a review is submitted, and AfD's end in like 5 days I think, but some of these GA reviews were submitted in early december....Also, instead of having the inexact sort of rules to delist or keep we've had for awhile, we might want to go to just simple percentages, i've been using more than 66 percent or so as the threashold for decisions :/. Homestarmy 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Switching to percentages seems like a bad idea - it encourages editors to form voting blocs instead of discussing the issues. CMummert · talk 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think the GAC process should have reviewers reviewing the articles, as opposed to one person, more like the FAC process. LuciferMorgan 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you'd have to explainhow WP:GA is different from WP:FA. -- SCZenz 15:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An explanation of exactly how the criteria differ would also be useful - looking at WP:FA? and WP:GA? it is hard to tell what the actual differences are. Both seem to cover the same points.  In short - what type of article should be nominated for GA that couldn't be copyedited a little and nominated for FA? CMummert · talk 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Early Archive
Is it possuble to archive an article up for review if it is nominated for FAC. I am planning of put the Roman-Spartan War up for FAC and I don't think that it should be on FAC and GA/R at the same time. Could someone please tell me. Thanks. Kyriakos 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, i'll ask if anyone has anything extra to say, then archive it early if you want. I mean, its already 4 to 1 heh. Homestarmy 13:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * K, thanks a lot. Kyriakos 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

References to both the process and reviewers here, made elsewhere
Copied from review of The Beatles on main page; "I would advise folk that... I wrote a piece at Village pump (policy) entitled WP:FAR and WP:GAR Are The Enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. I was quite rude, in the first comment, about the review process and the people who do it. I did it to elicit a greater reaction, and have since apologised for language and given my rationale. I stand by the general thrust of my comments. Reviewers here may wish to make their representations." I mention it as perhaps some reviewers have not read the Beatles review. LessHeard vanU 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving 2
Can we archive some of the GARs on the page at the moment? The page is getting a bit clogged, but I noticed some of the articles have already had their GA status removed which means their specific GAR discussion needs archival. LuciferMorgan 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, sometimes delistings that occur during a review get overturned, but I guess I can archive some of the ones with obvious outcomes, I think there's one or two of those. There has been much more activity on this page than I have seen ever before I think, it'd be a lot easier on this page if we could overturn the wait time before delisting rule so we can just sweep some of these more obvious fails rather than people taking them here... Homestarmy 03:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, some of the more obvious fails include a ton of articles I warned in December. Three of them I've brought here thus far. LuciferMorgan 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alot of the other articles up for review also seem like ones which could of been safely sweeped away.....if we were allowed too. This is starting to bloat things, and its taking time away from the candidates page i'd think.... Homestarmy 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be most helpful if someone created a script for archiving debates and delisting articles. / Fred-Chess 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that most of these debates are still fairly new, its not that nobodies archiving them, its that their all coming in so quickly now. Homestarmy 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok another thing -- I don't quite understand why we have to wait so long. I mean, it takes 5 minutes to list an article -- must it then take 14 days to delist it...? / Fred-Chess 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As i've been trying to not-so-covertly hint at, many of these articles wouldn't even be here and we wouldn't be talking about them if we could immedietly delist some of the more obvious non-GA's like before. I mean, it was barely like a 4 person decision... Homestarmy 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying Homestarmy. Most of the GAs I'm listing clearly fail 2. b. for example, and couldn't get passed in their current state today. LuciferMorgan 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Judaism, Globalization and Crime
The article pages of the pages above state that the articles do not sufficiently cite their sources. Should that disqualify them from GA status? John Carter 23:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ever-expanding archives box
Process header blue could be a good substitute for the ever-expanding archives box on the article page... --Ling.Nut 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Revert if you dislike. --Ling.Nut 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Still Reigning
Can a few people weigh in on this GAR please? The reasons the failer has given for failing this one are just plain ludicrous to be frank, and people need to give their thoughts on the article. If it passes the criteria then feel free to say this at the GAR, or if it doesn't, then can you please give a specific area that needs addressing to meet GAR? The problem is the discussion hasn't really taken off, and I'm alarmed that a GAC can be failed for such lame reasons. Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Criteria
I penned this essay of sorts in my user space. It explains how I usually apply the GA criteria. Feel free to use it if it closely describes you application of the criteria. I plan to reference it with every review that results in fail.A mcmurray 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. On the nominations page why don't we replace:
 * Review carefully—the standards of good articles are only as high as those of the most lenient reviewer!
 * With:
 * Review carefully—Here is one example of how a user can review an article!
 * I think the other one is to long and this gives newer reviews an example on how to rate an article. Tarret 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So if we all make our own essays, we can have a "Review carefully-Here are 15 example essays of how a user can review an article!" line? :D Homestarmy 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we could make it link to a list which links to all the essays. Tarret 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Umm... --Ling.Nut 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

World energy resources and consumption
Please look at this recently-passed GA. It was failed last month, and it was just passed by as the *only* edits he has made to Wikipedia. The main author if the article previously stated he attended MIT, although he has obfuscated all of his user and talk page entries. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Taken care of by an admin; likely sockpuppetry, a GA pass by an IP, later corrected by Indon, and quite a mess. Now corrected. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Interacting with the ArticleHistory template
ArticleHistory records all review-like events in one, including peer reviews, wikiproject reviews, wikiproject a-class assessments, GA nominations and FA candidacies, and even a few other rare ones. If you don't want to deal with the details of the template, the main relevant part is the  option. While this can take values like FA and GA, it is not the same as the class option in wikiproject templates. The appropriate status for a delisted GA is DGA, and for a failed GA nominee, FGAN. Any GAs that are former FAs, should have FFA/GA - this is the only combination status code supported. If a FFA/GA is delisted from GA, the status should become simply FFA. Failed FACs (FFAC) which become GA are status GA. Gimmetrow 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor change to delisting rules
Can we please change the rules so we can delist articles immediately if they obviously fail the GA criteria? It will hopefully clear up the large dispute backlog. Tarret 00:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I too support the re-institution of speedy delisting for obvious fails since this page is getting altogether too long with disputes where its a bit obvious how they should end, something that reads like "If you see an article on the list which clearly fails the criteria at WP:WIAGA, you can delist it and remove it from this list immediately. Replace the GA tag with DelistedGA, (NOT FailedGA) and be sure to provide an explanation on the article talk page on how the article fails the Good Article criteria" ought to do it, and of course replace the current wait-before-delisting thing. It looks like we'd just replace steps five and six with one step. Homestarmy 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto, but just be sure to mention that they have the right to WP:GA/R. Yeah I know some will do that even when their arguments are WP:SNOW. But... it just seems too authoritarian otherwise. WP has enough people already who fail WP:TRI based on... similar concerns. My two cents. --Ling.Nut 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Homestarmy. LuciferMorgan 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, does anyone think this is enough agreement to go ahead with the change? Homestarmy 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do yeah, but when failing the failer must be specific in where the article fails, much in the same way one would fail an article at GAC. LuciferMorgan 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lucifer. I know that giving reasons for a fail and telling people they can WP:GA/R invites more arguments, but it's better than the complaints that would arise otherwise. :-) --Ling.Nut 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with said change. The less beuarocracy the better. (I know I can't spell that word). IvoShandor 05:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving reviews
Why don't we archive reviews on the article's talk/subpage instead of the GA/R archives. That way it would be easier to access them for input rather than having to search through a 15 page archive to find a review. Tarret 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, whenever I close reviews and when an article's status changes, I post a message about it and link directly to the archive where the review is :/. Homestarmy 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Still Reigning
Can those who ain't voted please cast a vote at this review so we can close it, whether it be promote or fail? Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Any takers? It'd be nice to get this one closed sometime soon. LuciferMorgan 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Has 5 promotes thus far, and no failure endorsals. LuciferMorgan 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And no reply in 2 weeks, how long does this take :S M3tal H3ad 11:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposel to change time until archive
This page is certainly picking up more editors, and thusly, it seems to me that from the size of this page, waiting about a week until the last comment or so has been said appears to be going a bit too slowely now. How about we add onto the archive instructions that debates can be archived after the votes for one side reach a certain critical mass, so say, if there's over 7 votes on an article and at least 6 are for one side, (And there doesn't appear to be any real argument going on) it can be archived right then? Homestarmy 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Convergence of GA-requirements and FA-requirements?
Is is just me or do I see FA-requirements being applied to GA candidates, and being failed on not meeting those much higher requirements? It is my perception that GA-class is in better than B-Class and going in the direction of A-Class. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Delisting instructions
The delisting instructions should warn people to look back through the article history, in case they are viewing a vandalised (eg. truncated) version of the article, or to check whether the article has been reverted by a vandal back past the GA promotion point. Otherwise delisting just makes baby Jesus cry and the vandals cackle. Pace WP:BEANS. Carcharoth 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most vandalism like that is sort of obvious though, and i'd hope someone wanting to delist an article would look at the history or something just out of trying to determine faults of the article.... Homestarmy 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delists
I've been going through a couple categories of good articles, and I'm surprised by just how many articles were warned about a lack of inline citations back in 2006, but haven't been updated. Is there any way that we could establish a rule where we can speedy delist and article if it has been warned for, say, three months about not having inline citations? I'm just thinking that all of those articles are going to clutter the main GA/R page, and they'd almost without exception be deleted anyway. I'd like to hear what some of you other guys think. Teemu08 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have always thought that delisting should be as non-beuraucratic as listing. If you think an article doesn't meet the criteria, just go ahead and delist it.  I have done it once or twice.  Simply cite which sections of WP:WIAGA are in violation, delist the article, and encourage people to fix it and renominate.  If there is an objection to delisting it in its current, unfixed state, then THAT is what GA/R should be used for.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, inline citations are not strictly required. It is possible, for example, where a short, though comprehensive, article is written from one or two sources where inline citations become moot.  However, I have checked the articles YOU nominated on GA/R, and I would agree that these need more inline citations.  But the lack of inline citations should not ALWAYS be an "autofail" in all cases.  Each article should be ajudged of its own merit as to the need for inline citations.  They are USUALLY needed, in a great majority of cases, but not always.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but am puzzled as to why you don't think this reasoning applies to Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848) and the Schuttern Gospels just added to the review pages. Surely there could hardly be clearer examples of the point you are making? Both are individual manuscripts, neither really famous, with the articles wholly sourced from the British Library (which of course owns them) descriptive catalogue entry. The works in the further reading sections, also obtained from there, are very scholarly, half of them in French & German.  Few other sources of information are likely to be available.  The articles are highly factual; which facts should have inline cites?  You could add them to every sentence.   Johnbod 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand your concern about those two articles. I mainly included them so that I don't set a double standard for articles that don't have citations and were warned. Given the amount of external sources included with those two, they could certainly be kept. Teemu08 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How long do articles stay on review, there are a bunch that have been up for awhile with no additional comment. Is there some special procedure to clearing them out or can I just do it? IvoShandor 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a procedure, the instructions are in the archives, all you have to do is copy the dispute into the latest archive when its stale, (Say, about a week or so after no really new commentary) and then enforce the decision, if applicable. Homestarmy 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish to know from other editors here why Jayron32 decided to warn me about my GA/R listings on my talk page. I've been using GA/R for several months and disappreciate someone coming on my page and sermonizing to me on a process I already am aware of. GA/R covers ones backside when the odd editor comes along, even when things are clearcut, of accusing the delister of unfair play. I prefer listing articles here instead of readily delisting them since this is a democracy and it's best to gain consensus on these things. LuciferMorgan 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish to humbly and publicly apologize for any ill feelings I have caused by any message I left. I wish to formally say for all to see that LuciferMorgan is in the right and I am in the wrong on this issue, and can only say there is no excuse for my actions.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I overreacted (WP:DICK applies to me here), so no worries. I apologised to Jayron32 for being a clown, so all is cool. LuciferMorgan 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review template
What happenned to the GA review template? It should be back in the instructions for listing a GA/R. Sumoeagle179 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know we had one anymore, I never even remeber it being in the instructions.... Homestarmy 16:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about this: GAReview, for use on the GAC page, it is still there. I don't think I have ever seen any other GA review templates. IvoShandor 07:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy
Is there a policy on the clear cut GARs which rack up a quick amount of fails, and the outcome seems rather obvious? Are they delisted after a week or something similar? Just wondering. LuciferMorgan 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone around here said that one week without comment should result in archiving, I think it was Homestarmy... IvoShandor 12:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Without comment? Even if a GAR racks up five or six fails? I dislike the "without comment" part in those instances. LuciferMorgan 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said several days ago, (before the bot archived me, i've reposted my comment below) I have proposed a rule change considering this, sort of an extension of WP:SNOW. The prior rule, (Which I modified down from like three weeks wait time) which worked more or less fine for many months when the page didn't have much activity, is clearly not working out efficiently anymore. Not all reviews are exactly WP:SNOWable, even when there's like a 7 to 1 in favor of a decision, otherwise, I probably would of archived a bunch more reviews far earlier. Homestarmy 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It's just I've been placing up a few train related GARs now, and nearly all of them have been a foregone conclusion straight from the bat. LuciferMorgan 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to change time until archive
This page is certainly picking up more editors, and thusly, it seems to me that from the size of this page, waiting about a week until the last comment or so has been said appears to be going a bit too slowely now. How about we add onto the archive instructions that debates can be archived after the votes for one side reach a certain critical mass, so say, if there's over 7 votes on an article and at least 6 are for one side, (And there doesn't appear to be any real argument going on or something) it can be archived right then? Homestarmy 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: Are we really getting enough comments to say seven. I have seen several reviews sitting around for awhile with only a few comments and votes. Perhaps the regulars should just make sure they chime in on what looks like a big fat snowball. Me included. : ) IvoShandor 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If its still not fast enough, I don't think going down to six would be a problem, but if its still not fast enough then due to not enough reviews being that close to unanimous, at that point, that probably means we have enough commentors on reviews so that it would probably just be best to institute AfD rules. Homestarmy 14:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it but seven seems a bit much, how about 5? M3tal H3ad 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Five sounds better. IvoShandor 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that if the number gets too low like that, the six or seven people who most frequently watch this page might get accused of being some kind of cabal, because we'd be delisting many articles probably within the space of a day or two, and people might accuse us of not giving people a chance to even fix the articles :/. If the number is low like five, I think that all reviews should also be up for at least two days from the time of the nomination. Homestarmy 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Three days maybe? Unless the article was warned on the talk page long ago.... IvoShandor 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. The dreaded Good Article Cabal. Fighting the citeless Nazis since 1910, or not. ; ) IvoShandor 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So far, it looks like the rule will say something to the effect of if there are at least 6 votes and an 80 percent majority for one side (that's five votes) after two/three days from the time of the nomination, the nomination instantly closes in favor of the majority stance. Anyone have problems with this? Homestarmy 03:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Three days, not two. Otherwise A-OK. --Ling.Nut 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fair to me. IvoShandor 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If nobody else has any further things to add, i'll try to add in these instructions sometime tommorow, ok? Homestarmy 19:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm writing the instructions in. Homestarmy 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

hard coded speedy delist
I haven't been up on all details lately. I wonder whether it's worthwhile to encode prima facie speedy delist criterion as follows: These should be delisted with absolutely no need for WP:GA/R. Maybe a note/warning should be left on the article's Talk. --Ling.Nut 02:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Article PASSEd by editor of same.
 * 2) Article never reviewed; never WP:GAC.
 * I've delisted articles for this many times whenever I catch it, (Though mostly before speedy delisting was removed, I handled Charmeleon though) but whenever it ends up in a review, I just let the review takes its course, since sometimes people give some helpful feedback anyway. Homestarmy 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK :-) Ling.Nut 03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as articles that were made GAs before GAC existed aren't delisted because they never went through GAC. Quadzilla99 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * well yeah, but of course those same articles can be failed by today's quality standards, even tho the standards were looser then... :-) --Ling.Nut 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then they should be put up for review not speedy delisted. If an article doesn't violate any of the candidacy procedures I don't think it should be speedy delisted. I'm not in favor of speedy delisting except in rare cases, like the first two you mentioned with my clarifications. This only refers to article that passed from roughly October 2005 to December 2005 anyways. Quadzilla99 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Mmm-hmmm. I should have qualified/clarified my use of the word "failed." --Ling.Nut 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Former featured articles and GA
When articles are removed at FAR, they are normally reassessed as B, even if the article had GA status prior to featuring. This was questioned at Talk:Torchic. Generally if an article is removed from FA, it is removed for substantial reasons which would also justify delisting from GA. Comments? Gimmetrow 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, maybe they can be put on GA/R but I would just say that they should be re-submitted to GAC. Quadzilla99 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the FAs delisted are that poor they would need substantial work for GA. In fact, I've never seen a GA quality FA delisted from FA. I'd just leave them at B. LuciferMorgan 09:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur that very few articles delisted at FA meet GA standards. They usually need some fine tuning, and can be re-submitted to GA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA award
I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reviewer
I was browsing around and out of curiosity I clicked on the user name in the talk page of an article I work on. I was shocked to find out that the article, which I had nominated for GA, had been reviewed and passed by a confirmed sockpuppet. I listed it here for review (see WP:GA/R-William Fuller (football player)), here's a list of list of the other reviews done by the sockpuppet:
 * Talk:Prompt book: failed. Sock didn't add the failed template to the talk page apparently.
 * Talk:Russian-Circassian War: passed.
 * Talk:Seri language: failed.
 * Talk:2006 Cleveland Browns season: passed.
 * Talk:Original Stories from Real Life: passed.
 * Talk:Shunga: passed
 * Talk:Battle of Gythium: passed.
 * Maybe the best idea is to put all these up for review. He also went around rating articles, voting on rfas, and nominating articles for deletion see his contribs. Not sure what to do about that. As far as I can tell the sockpuppeteer was banned for things relating to middle eastern articles see here:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. So maybe those are the ones that bear the most scrutiny. Quadzilla99 11:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For a confirmed sockpuppet, that particular name doesn't appear to of been very abusive at all. Homestarmy 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So we're going to let these be? Quadzilla99 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Archived reviews - April 2007
I archived about a dozen reviews, took care of the talk pages and listings and put a notification on each talk page with a link to the archived review. I based my decisions on a combination of what I saw as consensus and time elapsed since review nomination. If anyone has any questions or concerns about my rationale please don't hesitate to contact to me for further explanation. Check the edit histories too, for some of them I was a bit more detailed. IvoShandor 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus I would say this page is backlog free, if it ever had such a problem, it was quite cluttered. IvoShandor 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well admittedly I'm surprised that Champagne (wine region) is still sitting here after 3 weeks. If there was an obvious problem with the article's GA status then you would have thought in this time that some of 28 different editors who have posted on this page since March 31st would have said something. You would think that an article with clear GA failings would be so apparent that a consensus to delist would certainly form in less then two weeks. But if there is nothing the article that moves editors to talk, one way or that other, then what? Of course it is presumptuous to take silence as endorsements but I think this shows a kink in the process that is a bit unfair to editors who have sit around anxiously waiting while their article's GA status is in limbo with little or no feedback on what they can do to ease anyones concerns. Right now even the two comments sitting there are vague and unspecific and don't point to any particular item on the GA criteria that is failing. So still, I have to sit and wait. AgneCheese/Wine 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't archive it because there was a recent comment, thought I'd give it a couple days. IvoShandor 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally a GA Review doesn't necessarily mean that an article is destined to be delisted, just that an editor had problems with it concerning the GA criteria, a lot of times this can be sorted out here, other times it requires additional work so a delist is best, at least temporarily, to preserve the integrity of the status. Sometimes GA review is a slow process, because it is a demanding one. It requires editors to put in time taking a first, second and often third look at articles trying to sort out issues. In a way its better for the article than the original review because it brings so many different perspectives on the criteria to the table, in many cases the result of a GA review is a much improved article that remains listed. So if commentary is sometimes slow just chalk it up to the sheer enormity of the backlog at WP:GAC and the general large number of GA reviews posted here, more than anything else, if a lack of comments persists rest assured I or someone else will archive it appropriately, and a few comments usually results in a no consensus default keep unless it is really one sided and obvious. IvoShandor 08:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As concerns being quiet, ALCO FA is quiet in its GAR and could do with some response. LuciferMorgan 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Archival instructions still unclear?
I think the current version of the instructions on the archive page are too unclear, I will attempt a rewrite below the current version here. Let me know what you think.

Current version To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary (this part seemed extraneous to me, too ambiguous). For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.''

My new version This is my new version, the paragraph break isn't necessary I just thought it needed one.

To archive an article from the review page, check over reviews for listings with consensus for action. For instance, if a discussion results in four editors for delisting an article based on the GA criteria and one editor for keeping the article because they like it, then delist the article as you archive it. In reviews where consensus is unclear, such as two editors for delisting and two for keeping, try to make a new comment rather than archiving to see if the review should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, as a general rule do not archive any review that has a comment less than a week old, unless a rarely posted resolution is present.

An exception to these rules involves reviews which have a clear outcome in all of these ways: there is at least an 80% majority of comments to do something with the article, there are at least six votes and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review. IvoShandor 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think clear cut consensus would be an extremely bad idea, "clear cut" means it can't even be a supermajority, so there would have to be a 100 percent decision one way or another. While a consensus is most commonly seen as at least a supermajority, technically speaking, a consensus means compleate and universal agreement, and "clear-cut" means that the most technical definition would probably have to be the main one in case someone goes all literal about it. (Obviously, if consensus was interpreted literally throughout Wikipedia, it would grind to a screeching halt) Also, I really don't think your example is as good as mine, what happens if four editors oppose an article based on the criteria, and one editor votes keep because of a less stringent interpretation of the criteria? (The criteria is ambiguous on purpose, "the prose is clear" for example can mean many things) That's not a no-consensus decision in my book, and while one editor may delist 120kb of prose for a single citation needed tag, most other editors probably wouldn't. I also definently don't like the idea of only archiving a no-consensus review after an entire month, especially with controversial reviews, a 4 to 5 vote for example would just maybe turn into a 6 to 8 vote over the course of a month, and would be an extremely long wait for not much of merit to happen in many cases. Also, many reviews are not for articles which are currently GA's, many reviews have occured after someone has delisted an article, and a few recently have been over articles which a reviewer simply has no idea about. If the default result is written as keep, that sort of implies no GA/R can start out without the article being a GA, since a non-GA article can't "keep" its GA status, and an article with no status just keeping no status means it would just sit on GAC forever. Homestarmy 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't mean 100% I meant that there was no confusion over where the discussion was headed, you could interpret it either way, just remove those words, which I did. The focus on voting is not good at all in my opinion, as WP is not a democracy and should focus more on the substance of discussions. I have altered my proposal accordingly, not much different but clearer to a reader. IvoShandor 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't voting per se for awhile, people discussed the issue, i'd tally up who was on which side, and generally there was already a decision anyway, its just that very few people generally talked about discussions, and there was no point in having votes at all until recently when so many more people chime in. Also, nowadays, there's many more people writing in these reviews, and not so many decisions are unanimous anymore, and when people dissent, they don't normally say "Keep, interesting article" but often have serious, yet not always well accepted, arguments, and that's why I don't think your new example for the instructions is very fair. Finally, what's with the rarely posted resolution thing? If a resolution has already happened, there's not a terribly pressing need to archive a review right away since nothing new will happen, and somebody might object to the resolution yet not be in time to say something in the review. Homestarmy 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never seen a resolution posted at GAR, maybe on the article talk page, but not here. I still say the current version is way too unclear. As for archiving not be pressing I think it tends to clutter up the page, especially if there is an active discussion below several dead discussions, I think you'd be surprised how little people want to scroll down sometimes ; ). At least make it clear that all three provisions are necessary. IvoShandor 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes people will say that they've done something in the review, but there's never actually been a rule that says you have to tell an article of the result, it just seemed extraneous because I always notified an article talk page when the status changed, and for many months, I was the one who archived everything. (Plus, people often do it now anyway, it is sort of common sense when you think about it....) Recently, the number of reviews has skyrocketed, probably a consequence of the total GA count rising and the number of people looking over articles increasing as well, in addition to many more GAC disputes from people who don't like the way a review is going or did go. Also, when you archived all those reviews recently, I had let those pile up on purpose because I didn't want to do anything while we were debating the 3 day end thing :/. Homestarmy 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Roger that, its not a big deal anyway. IvoShandor 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Marquette Building
The GA Review for Marquette Building needs more input, many of my comments have gone unaddressed and the user involved told me he would be making no other changes, others have voiced a want to add to it but I haven't seen much yet. IvoShandor 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Death
I was going to list this article as it contains almost no citations but then I noticed an edit war on the talk page. Apparently a few editors are fighting desperately to keep citations out. I'm clueless as to what to do and don't really want to get in the middle of this. Help or advice would be appreciated. Aaron Bowen 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify the majority of editors seem to want citations but a few are intent on keping them out. Aaron Bowen 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess I'll do it in a day or two, prepare for fallout. Aaron Bowen 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * List it, if you feel that's the appropriate thing to do. It's seem likes it's only one very vocal editor objecting to providing footnotes. The overwhelming consensus on the talk page seems to indicate footnotes should be included. Vassyana 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Railroad
I archived the above article even though discussion was only a day old since there were 7 delists. I felt WP:SNOW applied, and consensus wasn't going to change in another 2 days. LuciferMorgan 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling articles
I have quick failed several wrestling article GACs per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Some of the other wrestling articles might need to be looked over. Quadzilla99 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the referencing system was the same in all articles. Quadzilla99 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work Quadzilla. The GAC nominator should listen to concerns and not ignore them. LuciferMorgan 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that many WWE and related Pro Wrestling articles suffer from the same problems. Mainly, that they deal with an ultimately scripted (read: Fictional) endeavour and thus should be treated with the standards set out in WP:FICT.  However, many of these articles take a decidedly IN-UNIVERSE persepctive, such as assuming the interchangability of the characters and the performers that portray them, and reporting as though the article was a true "sport", without a predetermined script and outcome.  The articles also, as noted above, generally suffer from the same poor referencing (not NUMBER of references, but QUALITY of references) as The Undertaker article does.  Good and featured articles CAN be written about wrestling, but the fan-ish nature of many wrestling articles means that are not really up to snuff yet.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a good summation of the problem, and it's a bit unfortunate since there are many books available which treat it from an out of universe perspective. Montreal Screwjob is a wrestling related FA which I hope will give others something to follow if they turn their hand to wrestling articles. LuciferMorgan 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Terry Wogan
I delisted this mess of an article. I'm planning to do a full review, which should have been done to begin with, and I'm leaving a lengthy message on the talk page of the "reviewer" (for lack of an appropriate title). -- Lara Love T / C  16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this prompt action, and've archived the GAR you removed to the archive for you. The reviewer must have been inexperienced with the process - hopefully your lengthy message will show him the ropes so to speak. LuciferMorgan 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Train articles
There have been several train articles (almost a dozen) that have gone through the GA/R process and all have been delisted with a clear consensus without any (by my recollection) garnering even a single "keep" vote. It looks like many of them were named GA a LONG time ago, before the current set of standards, and most if not all are obviousl well below the current criteria. I propose that any further train articles which are largely similar to these be speedy delisted without any further discussion. Lets put the burden on the editors of this group of articles to bring it up for review if they feel the delisting was inappropriate. If you delist one, simply leave a note on the talk page as to WHERE it is deficient, and maybe direct them to Archives 17, 18, and 19 where most of the reviews on these train articles occured so people can see that they ALL have the same sorts of problems.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of all the train articles I feel need delisting without review per Jayron32's reasoning, and I've summarised why;


 * 1) M-10003-6 has zero citations and stubby in places. LuciferMorgan 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) M-10001 also has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Trent Valley Line only has two citations, and has an inadequate lead. LuciferMorgan 10:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC) - (Delisted at GA/R)
 * 4) Beep (SWBLW) has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) CF7 has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Control car (rail) has zero citations and is extremely listy. LuciferMorgan 10:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Coupling (railway) has zero citations and is extremely listy. - (Delisted at GA/R) LuciferMorgan 09:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Danske Statsbaner has four sporadic citations, way below the requirement. LuciferMorgan 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) El Gobernador has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) FM Consolidated line has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Gas turbine-electric locomotive has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) General Pershing Zephyr has zero citations and no sectioning. LuciferMorgan 10:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Inverclyde Line has four sporadic citations, well below GA standards. LuciferMorgan 10:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC) - (Currently at GA/R)
 * 14) Maglev train is extremely listy and needs a cleanup, below GA standards. LuciferMorgan 10:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway has seven sporadic citations which fail to use a citation template, and the article is below the standard. LuciferMorgan 10:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Novelty (locomotive) Zero citations and an inadequate lead. LuciferMorgan 10:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) London Paddington station has four sporadic citations and is stubby in areas. LuciferMorgan 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Pere Marquette 1225 has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) PRR M1 has zero citations and no sectioning. LuciferMorgan 10:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Refrigerator car has six sporadic citations (below standard), and is stubby in areas. LuciferMorgan 10:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) RER has two citations, below the current standard. LuciferMorgan 10:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Rugby railway station has only one citation. LuciferMorgan 10:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) San Diegan has seven citations (inadequate) and is extremely listy. LuciferMorgan 10:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) SD26 has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Stourbridge Lion has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Tay Rail Bridge has three sporadic citations (below standard), and has an inadequate lead. LuciferMorgan 10:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) The Canadian has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Timken 1111 has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 10:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can freely delist these per Jayron32's reasoning, and strike through the article in the list to show it has been delisted. I'm currently busy and cannot undertake this task, though I feel it's in the best interests of the GA's reputations these are delisted asap. Thanks for your time everyone. LuciferMorgan 11:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delisted 4 of them, brought up Trent Valley Line for GA/R.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I delisted 13 of them. -- Lara Love T / C  05:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

More wrestling articles
I had to quick fail two more wrestling articles, Brian Adams (wrestler) and Nora Greenwald per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Wrestling editors should take note. Quadzilla99 07:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Color
Coloring is all very well for boilerplate. But instructions should be visible. In this case, the existence of instructions for speedy delisting, which should be normal, has been concealed by color tags. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I never saw the colors as obscuring, and the boilerplate seemed quite nice looking, was consistant with the WP:GAC one and everything. I've already commented on the additions you seem to of made the delisting criteria there on its new talk page. Homestarmy 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This needs to be changed back. The page looks terrible now. I'm sure any issue with concealed information could have been corrected without removing the boilerplate. Lara Love  T / C  04:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. The boilerplate should be returned.  If there was a problem with color, it could be fixed in other, less drastic, ways.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

PMAnderson's edits to the rules
I strongly oppose both, per the discussion we've had. Therefore, there's no consensus for this change and IMHO, it should de reverted. The "disputed" tag should be reserved for bits that HAVE previously been agreed upon before, but are up for discussion now. This way, anybody can add a pile of rubbish, add "disputed" and the innocent by-passers can only be left confused. PrinceGloria 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I made two tweaks:
 * One says that the delister should not have been involved with editing the article. Since this is same requirement that is made for the initial review of a nominated article, it seems harmless, and it should keep down the problem Homestarmy brought up of an disgruntled editor of the article bringing his quarrel here. (He can of course request review; but he could do that yesterday.)
 * The instructions have always included a line saying that if you can fix an article, you should do so, rather than delist it. The other tweak recommends only that you make half-a-dozen edits to improve the article even if you do delist it. This is a recommendation; it can be ignored, or you can bring the article to review instead of delisting it. (If an article is genuinely hopeless, put it up for AfD; you can delist it when it's deleted.) But it also seems harmless, and would greatly decrease the adversarial tone of GA delistings. Please remind me what arguments have been made against this?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, someone very familiar with an article may be more aware with problems an article has than the standard GA reviewer. While it is true that this freedom has been abused, that was only one time to my knowladge, and it was a very long time ago. By modifying the "if you think an article should be listed" instructions to say that consensus will be reached here, we solved that situation where the only problem we had was caused by the same person repeatedly delisting an article, since repeatedly violating consensus would violate other Wikipedia policies. (I think it was written more clearly the first time though.) Basically, the net result was that an article could be delisted immedietly one time, then it could be optionally reviewed, and then the decision reached in the review then shouldn't be immedietly overturned by someone else trying to immedietly delist an article, if the result of the review was to have an article gain or maintain GA status. However, any number of reviews could be asked for, and I think WP:POINT already covers people trying to repeatedly make more and more reviews abusively. (Technically, POINT probably covered the first problem too, probably part of why the user causing the problems was banned from the article for a year, though it was much more involved that the user just repeatedly removing GA status)


 * The vast majority of articles that I have seen delisted immedietly wern't for silly little things that could be fixed in like 5 minutes, editing such articles half a dozen times really wouldn't improve most immedietly delisted articles much at all. I really don't see the usefulness of this recommendation, someone genuinely trying to remove a terrible article that shouldn't be on the GA list shouldn't have to feel obligated to take extra hurdles to be bold. Homestarmy 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it sounds like the first point could be replaced by don't delist the same article twice; also a good idea. By the same token, don't evaluate the same nomination twice?


 * The second point is largely explained by the sentence included with it:
 * Demonstrate what you mean; if the article needs footnotes or more headers, make some.
 * Be helpful where you can, instead of adversarial. (See for example, the evaluation of Bratislava, now archived. The evaluator said he didn't like a half-dozen sentences as bad writing, he said nothing about what he found wrong with them; many editors would have said "Tough!". Fixing the sentences, and including a diff, ("I had to do some rewriting to accept this; this is what I changed; if I introduced some mistakes, please fix." would have been faster and more collegial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any more problems with immedietly delisting articles since the biggest one, I really think WP:POINT is enough already to deter anyone who is thinking about immedietly delisting an article 10 times despite whatever decision is made here.


 * Making footnotes isn't always an easy task with articles people don't know much about, and immedietly delisted articles often require not just footnotes, but large chunks of the articles to be re-written to actually conform with the references given. Also, many references are books or offline material, which a GA reviewer will almost never have available to consult. The review you mention specifically sounds like it should of been put on hold instead of failed if around six sentences were the reviewers only or main problem with the article, but things like that are what GA/R is there for... Homestarmy 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was (eventually) passed; but the reviewer really should have edited to suit his own taste; GA reviewers are not schoolmasters, they're just other editors. If he's going to fail an article, he should edit it anyway, as a service to WP.
 * As for difficulty; that's why it's a recommendation. Although it should be fairly easy to find something to rewrite in an article that bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose both.
 * I've delisted an article that I've contributed to. Not because I wanted to bring my wrath down on anyone, but there had been significant changes since it's promotion and it no longer met the criteria. I know I can bring it up to standards, but it will take time. I prefered it be delisted and renominated when ready, so I did it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I don't think that should be against acceptable procedure.
 * I also find the addition of a half-dozen required edits completely ridiculous. Most of the quick-fail articles, as mentioned above, can't be fixed in 6 edits. If they could, they'd either be fixed or brought to GA/R, depending on what types of edits are necessary. And as I've mentioned in other converstaions regarding these changes, GA/R is not a dumping ground for editors to drop off their articles so others can bring the article up to standard for them.
 * I'm also not keen on changing the name to something sugar-coated. I'm not worried about people's reaction to the name. Anyone offended by "speedy delising" or "quick-fail" needs to toughen up.
 * Basically, I don't think the problem is with the procedure. It's with editors who don't understand the criteria or the process, and who don't do a thorough review. Changes need to be made to the section of the GAN page that says anyone can do reviews; Reviewing good articles needs to be expanded into more of a guide, or something that shows them exactly what is expected of them before they start. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  07:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read and consider WP:PRO. Your response is deeply worrisome, and suggests this process cannot be fixed. I will also note that Reviewing good articles says both that anyone can review, and that you should not review articles you have edited. (The second is of course not intended to discourage people who have left an article for some time from noting that it has decayed.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The advice against reviewing articles that you are a major contributor to only applies to the candidacy step, and not to articles that you want to delist immedietly, or at least, that's what that reviewing guideline should say, that's how GAC was formulated beforehand. Homestarmy 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There has been nothing, until your rash edits, that said anything about it not being proper to delist and article for which you are an editor. I would never review an article I work on for GAC. I do, however, do informal reviews for articles I work on to bring them up to standards. Should that also not be allowed? Lara Love  T / C  19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would "disinterested" be a better word than uninvolved/impartial? Geometry guy 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What problem exactly is this trying to solve anyway? Homestarmy 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)