Archives |
---|
|
This page is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to retrieve it from the current archive. |
Information on maintaining the GAR page and archives |
Consensus elsewhere to delist a GA.
What's the process if there is consensus that an article shouldn't be a Good Article, but not via this process? WP:VG had a discussion whereby the consensus was that Flappy Bird does not satisfy the GA criteria. Can someone just delist the article, or does this process need to be followed? Samwalton9 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- A delisting should always proceed via this process. In the circumstances, I suggest one of the editors involoved in the conversation at WP:VG initiate an individual review, as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. When they open the individual review page, as well as leaving comments about why they do not think it meets the criteria, they should also provide a link to the discussion at WP:VG (just as you have done above), so the GA community can see that discussion. Let the original GA nominator, major contributors and the original GA reviewer know on their talk pages that the review has been initiated. If nothing substantial is done to fix it then the reviewer can de-list the aarticle themselves, which isn't too onerous a process. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Diary of a Wimpy Kid i think someone should put this in GAR (and fail). Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Set up an individual GAR giving below GA-level prose and structure as the reason. If there is no opposition after seven days, which I predict is the most likely scenario, you can close it as a fail DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Diary of a Wimpy Kid i think someone should put this in GAR (and fail). Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Option to speedy delist?
I brought Wildrose Party to GA a few years ago when it was a small party - basically as it was low hanging fruit. Over the passage of time, the party has grown into the official opposition and retains a position as a major player in regional politics. However, I've never maintained an ongoing interest in maintaining the article, and as noted at Talk:Wildrose Party#Updating there is a significant amount of overhaul required. Would there be any objection if I simply speedy delist the article rather than go through the dog and pony show of a GAR? Resolute 22:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The GAR process may bring in an editor who wishes to overhaul the article, therefore I wouldn't be in favour of a "speedy delist." Szzuk (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Closing
For GA's going under community reassessment, should there be a certain point when they need to be closed? There are GAR's for Ben Affleck, Amanda Bynes, and Justin Timberlake that have been open since October with only "delist" votes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Usually an uninvolved editor closes them after four weeks if no improvements have been made. If no one does, I'll get to it two weeks from now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the process is these days, and this is a tricky situation-- could GA regulars please have a look in here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Pseudo-GAR; process help needed
While fixing Articlehistory errors, I came across Talk:Spanish Civil War. It appears that User:Isthisuseful has decided to remove the article's GA status, through a somewhat abortive GAR subpage that he created in February 2014 and closed himself a few days ago. This GAR was listed on the article talk page, but was archived off the talk page in May. I know that individual reassessment and delisting are valid options through GAR, but this appears to be the second or third GAR initiated on the article by the same user. An individual GAR, by an individual who campaigned unsuccessfully for delisting in two previous GARs within the last two years, seems to lean toward subversion of process, so I bring my concern here for GAR folks to address. I have no involvement with the article itself; I will only be correcting the articlehistory so that actions previous to this GAR remain recorded properly. Maralia (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- His arguments did not seem valid, after looking at how his July reassessments reasons were repeated. I don't even remember seeing this on the GAR board even though I cleared out older submissions recently, and this has apparently been up since February 2014 which is odd. Anyways, I'd say fail it since there was a general consensus and not a single person came to its defense. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by Pseudo GAR. I requested two GAR on two occasions over a long period of time. My hope was that someone with an interest would step forward to do the necessary work to bring it up to standard. You will see that all comments have been negative. It is an important article which is why I have listed as requiring translation from the spanish article. All these notes are included with my edits so should have been available to you. if there was anythig you wanted to ask me I would have been only too happy to reply. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Where are we at with this? I also just happened across this article and noticed the GAR has been outstanding now for nearly a year. That said I have some concerns about the process that has been followed here. Specifically an individual reassessment doesn't seem to be uncontroversial in this instance (to me anyway) as the article went through two community reassessments in 2013, both of which involved Isthisuseful (who appears to have initiated the 2nd GAR), and both of which resulted in "keeps". Given this, if the article needs reassessment, then I personally think it would be more appropriate that a community reassessment occur, not an individual one by Isthisuseful. Isthisuseful - no offence to you, I can see you can about this article being the best it can be and that is a good thing, but I don't think the process you have followed here really has been the best one. That said I'm no expert on GARs so I'm wondering if one of the volunteers here might be able to give some advice on the way forward here. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- FYI - I've also posted a request for advice here too: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Open Good Article Reassessments. Anotherclown (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- In the absence of any response here or on the MILHIST co-ordinators page I've gone ahead and closed as a procedural keep. My justifications are here [1] if others wish to understand my reasoning. As I said I'm unsure of whether this is correct per policy but the GAR had been open for nearly a year so some action was req'd. If this was not correct pls contact me on my talkpage or discuss here, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- FYI - I've also posted a request for advice here too: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Open Good Article Reassessments. Anotherclown (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)