Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment: Difference between revisions

Archives

Information on maintaining the GAR page and archives 2006 2007: January - May 2007: May - December January 2008 - April 2013 June 2013 – September 2021 October 2021 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

@Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings:, for the past few weeks I've been closing GARs on this process:

1. If there is no response from any editor on the GAR page, and no substantive improvements on the article itself, close the GAR after a week.
2. If the GAR page has been responded to, but any improvements to the article have stalled or not started, give two weeks from the last indication of intent (on GAR or article) before closing.
3. If an editor is continually working on the article but not finishing, up to (length of time to be agreed on; perhaps three months?) will be given before closing.

These are obviously not applicable to WP:DCGAR articles, and nothing has lasted long enough for step 3 to be applicable, but I think it's worked well enough over the past couple of months. Hope everything goes well! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure strict timescales are helpful, I do think after a week if someone has added one and not added to it, there should be a ping. I've had many GANs which last longer than this before the actual review. Real life sometimes gets in the way. I do agree that after a ping, give it a couple days then close the GAR with no prejudice against opening a new one if there is valid criticism. As co-ords it's a good idea for us to bring discussions over exacting prose details and obscure parts of the MOS (which are still valid, but not part of the GA criteria), and push the discussion back to if the article (or more importantly, which parts of the article) fail the criteria. I'd much prefer an article to become a GA, get delisted, and then renominated than have a belated GAR that runs for a long time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the GAR coordinator position would not replace the ability of individual nominators to close their GARs, so I hope you continue! CMD (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The co-ordinators are just here to make sure the GAR process goes well. There is nothing stopping (nay, it's encouraged) individual users from closing items if they are happy there is either no way to quickly address issues, or the article meets the criteria. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Don't worry, I don't intend to stop; but I do want to focus more on my content work, so I might not be so active here. Also, I did want to know what people thought of the process, so Lee's comment above was very helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings: have you all set up a template so you can be pinged? See {{@FAC}}, {{@FAR}} and {{@TFA}} for samples. You might also add that to the instructions, similar to WP:FAC, WP:FAR and WP:TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea, but I am clueless as to how to implement one myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If none of you can figure it out, I can do it ... just really really busy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been done by User:AirshipJungleman29 at Template:@GAR; I'll add it to the guidelines. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the recent change to have all GAR pages as subpages of the project page rather than talkpages, GARs no longer move with talkpages. Happily this should not affect the article history template, but will matter for ambiguous titles. (For example, I just moved Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/My Hands/1 to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/My Hands (Leona Lewis song)/1, as My Hands is now a different song.) Presumably this would have been an issue for previous community GARs as well, so something to keep an eye out for when looking at previous GARs. CMD (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GA review for Ontario Highway 11, by a user since blocked for sockpuppetry, includes such gems as But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel. The entire thing reads like ChatGPT. I'd say this should be grounds for rapid delisting, since no actual review was done. But I don't know community procedures in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Reviewer blocked. CMD (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily accept it being relisted at its previous place in the queue. I very much loathe fly-by reviews. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floydian, I have deleted the review page and reverted the talk page; I hope that restores the page to the correct nomination age (even if that is not currently visible in the sort order). It does look like a decent article, unlike the review... —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen dank! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: , would the page work better with the oldest at the bottom, instead of at the top? This is how things work at FAC and FAR, and it would somewhat alleviate the problem of the Joseph Dart DCGAR overwhelming the entire page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objections on my part. If we don't like it we can always undo the change. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, do you mind changing the configuration at User:AnomieBOT/CategoryLister/Categories per User talk:AnomieBOT#GAR page? It's inaccessible if you're not a template editor/admin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you confirm that Special:Diff/1152490585 was right? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, seems to have worked right. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge quantity of old GAs which haven't had a reassessment in a long time. We could run them all through GAR, but that would use up a tremendous amount of time, and there are many old GAs that have been maintained and don't need GAR. Have we considered some way of marking old GAs as ok without a full GAR? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably possible to pull a list by date via bot, much like was done for WP:URFA/2020. We could then theoretically run some sort of a sweeps, although that would come with its own difficulties (editor burnout, low participation, overloading GAR which was almost completely dead until recently, etc.) I've been informally looking over certain sections of the WP:GA/W list, and recently ran into Eagle Cash which I would say is certainly problematic from both a sourcing and updatedness perspective, but given that there isn't exactly scads of sourcing for that topic, left it be for now to wait for a time when I'm not running low on energy and motivation. Hog Farm _Talk 21:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally have a gander at this 2010 link to find GAR-worthy articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but I have used (this list) to determine which articles have issues that have been tagged. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some potential for a more organized effort, I think it would be helpful to take a more organized approach by creating an overall list where things that have been looked at can be check off, or to sort by category or something. Not sure what the best way would be, but something that would reduce duplication of effort and help with focus has potential. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]