Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓

Good article reassessment

Semi-Automated Tools

Opening: GAR-helper
Closing: GANReviewTool

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request.

Opening a reassessment

To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).

Manual opening steps

Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
- If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

Manual closing steps

Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
  - remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
  - remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
  - add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
- If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
  - remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
  - remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
  - add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
  - blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
  - remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
  - remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74

Articles needing possible reassessment

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

00:01:58, 09/12/2023: Current date for reference

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Articles listed for reassessment

Yavapai

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This 2008 listing contains significant amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liquid crystal

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material (criterion 2b)), while a comment on the talk page indicates that it should be updated to include recent developments in the field (criterion 3a)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal Tunbridge Wells

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, a lack of updates since the mid-2000s, and some instances of excessive detail/trivia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Architecture of Norway

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This 2008 listing contains considerable uncited material, including whole subsections, violating good article criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of private equity and venture capital

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Not only does this 2008 listing contain large amounts of uncited material, but it has not been updated since the financial crisis (!). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super Bowl XLI

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This 2008 promotion contains huge amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Education in Iceland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This 2007 promotion contains large amounts of uncited material, while the data it contains has not been updated since the mid-2000s, making it woefully out of date. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southern Adventist University

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This article has been tagged since September for relying excessively on sources closely associated with the university. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delist: While I am generally ok with university sources being used to validly reference objective material, near exclusive reliance on material from Adventist sources is simply too much. Enough time has elapsed and sufficient notice has been given regarding this issue. A shame, but the article is still decent and useful, even in this less than GA-quality state. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Hawkins (footballer, born 1988)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This article has not been updated sufficiently since its last reassessment in 2016, meaning it fails WP:GACR criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concur. I move for GA status demotion until updates have been made and a reassessment issued. Thank you.

Electricmaster (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plymouth, Massachusetts

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material and a lack of updates from the last decade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NFL playoffs

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, along with a host of other issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bipolar disorder

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

buidhe placed the {{GAR request}} template on this 2012 listing with the edit summary "fails WP:MEDRS due to dated sources. Major updates needed". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was actually promoted in 2020, but some of the sources seem excessively dated. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text has not been maintained current. Some samples from this version:

"Bipolar disorder is the sixth leading cause of disability worldwide" ... See WHO on 2019 disability
However, a reanalysis of data from the National Epidemiological Catchment Area survey in the United States suggested ... cited to 2003, followed by ... A more recent analysis of data ... cited to 2007.

And this confusing bit of "prose" in "Resistance to treatment" wasn't in the GA version; it doesn't appear the article has been watched, updated and tended in the three years since its GA listing, so there could be deeper problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macbeth, King of Scotland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Lots of unreferenced sections, including almost the entire "Life to legend" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Z1720 I will try to find citations for this article and Malcolm II. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danny Deever

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

GA from 2006. This article has many unsourced statements, original research, and uses circular referencing. Spinixster (chat!) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spinixster Thanks for flagging this. I'm recovering from covid at the moment so haven't much spare capacity, but I'll try and have a look over it in the next week or two and see what can be salvaged. Standards have definitely moved on a bit in the last 17 years! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andrew Gray, I can also take a look towards cleanup over the next few days if it would be of assistance? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eddie891 that would be very kind, thankyou! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just added a few citations and removed an uncited claim. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've overhauled the background (though it might need more tweaking). Working on digging up some suitable sourcing for critical commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing