Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed on this page for discussion and are closed according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, and community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a previous delisting or fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.
Before attempting to have any article de-listed through reassessment, take these steps:
- Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
- Tag serious problems that you cannot fix, if the templates will help reviewers find the problems. For example, it may be helpful to add a
{{Verify credibility}} tag after a source you think is dubious. Do not tag bomb the article.
- Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing.
- Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
|
Individual reassessment
- When to use this process
- Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria.
- Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
- If you have delisted the same article before, are a major contributor, or delisting could be seen as controversial consider requesting a community reassessment.
- Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself.
- How to use this process
- Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page.
- Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page.
- Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number.
- Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script), relevant WikiProjects for the article and, if recently GA reviewed, the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. (replace ArticleName with "the article name" and n with "1" for community reassessment, or with "2" for individual reassessment)
- If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at Wikipedia:Good articles, remove {{Good article}} from the article, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page (see example). Also change any project assessments on the talk page.
- If you decide the article has improved enough to now meet the criteria you can keep it as a Good article. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page.
|
Community reassessment
- When to use this process
If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, first consider trying to reassess the article yourself (through an individual reassessment). However use a community reassessment if
- you are not confident in your ability to assess the article or believe that delisting the article will be seen as controversial.
- you disagree with a delisting by another editor.
- you disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. However, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate.
Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.
- How to use this process
- Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
- Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
- Please notify the most recent GA reviewer, major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script) and relevant WikiProjects for the article. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} on talk pages. (replace ArticleName with "the article name" and n with "1" for community reassessment, or with "2" for individual reassessment)
|
Guidelines for reviewers.
Please consult the good article criteria before you comment on whether an article should have its status changed or not.
|
All suggestions for improving articles are welcome, but criticisms not based on the good article criteria do not ordinarily disqualify an article from good article status. Note also that if an article is listed here, it almost always means that someone considers it to be of good quality, so if it does not meet the criteria, an explicit explanation is more likely to be appreciated than a general comment that the article is inadequate. Furthermore, reviewers should feel free to fix problems with articles under review if they wish: this is not regarded as a conflict of interest, and may encourage regular editors of the article to engage more actively with the reassessment process.
Good article reassessment is not a deletion discussion, but many of the guidelines for contributing to such discussions (such as the essay on arguments to avoid) contain useful advice. Any registered user can list or delist a good article (see above), but for articles listed here, please follow the archiving guidelines below for closing discussions and changing the status of the article.
|
Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion.
When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user:[1] please click on the "show" link (above right) for guidelines on when to close discussions.
To close a discussion, go to the community reassessment page of the article and replace {{GAR/current}} with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Here you should state the outcome (whether there was consensus, and what action was taken) and explain carefully how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. On the talk page of the article, remove the {{GAR/link}} template and add or update the {{ArticleHistory}} template.
If the result changes the GA status, update the article and article talk page templates and the good articles list accordingly.
The reassessment discussion will automatically be removed from the good article reassessment page and added to the current archive within an hour.
- ^ Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.
|
Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 2–3 days old, unless
- at least five editors have expressed an opinion
- the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus.
However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged.
Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining what the consensus of the reviewers is, and taking action where necessary. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes: for instance, the article may have changed since being listed for reassessment, and some comments may no longer be applicable. Compare the comments made in the discussion with the current state of the article and with the criteria for good articles.
- If there is a clear weight of argument that a current good article does not meet the criteria, then it should be delisted.
- If there is a clear weight of argument that a delisted good article or failed nomination does meet the criteria, then it should be listed as a good article.
If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, leave notice that you intend to close the discussion, and wait 2–3 days for further comments before closing. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions.
|
Articles needing review and 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 an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete the template from the article talk page.
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. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.
See also
Articles listed for community reassessment
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
This was listed as GA back in 2009. The content since then is not horrible, but sub-par, and leaves out important information. Also, references should be looked into. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Caution: Since I messed up and wrongly opened an individual assessement first, the "Most recent review" link leads to the wrong review! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- Delist per Zwerg Nase and a few other reasons:
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Link "convulsions"
- "risky surgery" seems slightly non-neutral, maybe "high-risk surgery" would be better
- 2013 section needs some expansion
- Numbers less than ten are represented with words
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- three dead links
- I'd recommend that you elaborate upon the Bare url references.
- "2010 section" requires more adequate referencing
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Note birth date in body.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
![Pass](https://web.archive.org/web/20150918003610im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/16px-Symbol_support_vote.svg.png)
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
![Pass](https://web.archive.org/web/20150918003610im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/16px-Symbol_support_vote.svg.png)
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]] b (appropriate use with suitable captions): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
![Don't know](https://web.archive.org/web/20150918003610im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Symbol_question.svg/16px-Symbol_question.svg.png)
--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Tomandjerry211 (alt), since The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it., part of the goal of a community reassessment is to show what needs to be improved for the article to attain or retain GA status. It would help a great deal if you could elaborate on what issues you found—for example, what major details you felt were lacking, and at least a couple of places where you found problematic prose, very much like you would do in a normal GAN review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset:Elaborated upon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
According to this SPI, Fvalzano and JSwho may be technically related. That is a problem because Fvalzano's only real contribution to WP was to heavily edit this article, and JSwho's first (and only major) contrib was to GA review this article. Therefore, the review may have been in bad faith. MSJapan (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- A further rather superficial review of the article as it relates to the criteria indicates many missing citations, and much citing of sources only at the end of paragraphs, which may mean the paragraphs were lifted verbatim from the sources (which are generally print). There are some flow problems as well, where material is alluded to at the end of one section and then picked up in the next (thus becoming "narrative" instead of encyclopedic." MSJapan (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Comments below were copied from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Wyangala GA?
-
- I applaud MSJapan for tracking down sock puppets. However, as much as it pains me to do so, I must remind them that the reason to initiate a GAR is if they have read the article and believe that it does not merit its good article (GA) status according to the GA criteria. It truly has nothing to do with sock puppets. I am absolutely cheering what they've done for this SPI, don't get me wrong, but I must admit that it is possible for sock puppets to follow the GA criteria. If all they can say in this GAR is that the article could have been reviewed by its nominator, as much as other editors despise the sound of that, they will still judge the article solely on the GA criteria. This GAR appears to have been initiated purely for punitive reasons.
- From WP:GAR:
- "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not."
- "The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it."
- It may be true that this article needs fixing. I have done what I needed to do by posting this reminder. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, a cursory lookover indicates it is missing citations in several places where GA claims they are needed. There's a lot of "paragraph-level" citation that might as well be copied verbatim from the books if it's really only from one page. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Did you check to see whether the citations at the end of the paragraph actually covered the full paragraph (as is allowed in the citation rules), or did you simply add "citation needed" tags after particular facts without checking? For that matter, did you check those sources to see how closely paraphrased the article is, instead of assuming it must be? You're as much as saying the article is approaching copyvio, and I'd want examples of the places where at least close paraphrasing exists. If you want me to set up a community reassessment for you—which basically means I'd have to start it myself and put my name on it—I'll need to feel more comfortable with what you believe is wrong with the article. My initial inclination was to support the doing of a reassessment, since the circumstances of the original passage were clearly irregular, but you haven't helped your cause here. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Comments below were moved from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Wyangala GA?
-
- Sorry, as I said, I'm not realy at all familiar with this process, so I wasn't sure what I had to do myself. As an example, here's the first major paragraph where I found the need for citations.
-
- On 27 May 1815, Deputy Surveyor George William Evans was the first European to discover the headwaters of the Lachlan River, naming it in honour of the NSW Governor, Lachlan Macquarie[citation needed]. Two years later Lieutenant John Oxley, with Evans by his side, explored the Lachlan from its junction with the Belubula River to the Great Cumbung Swamp, a distance of 1,450 km (900 mi). As Oxley progressed down the Lachlan, he had friendly encounters with the Wiradjuri people, noting that the language they spoke was distinctly different from that used by the indigenous population on the coast.[1] By the time Oxley had reached the Cumbung Swamp, he could advance no further due to the presence of 'impassable' marshland, eventually being forced to abandon the journey and to turn back. Oxley believed he had reached a marshy inland sea, concluding that the interior of Australia was 'uninhabitable' and unfit for settlement.[2]
-
-
- First sentence - The material on Evans wpuld appear to be cited from from source 9, as it is closest. Oxley doesn't refer to Evans as a European. This has been synthesized from elsewhere. This does not appear in the news rticle either.
- Oxley refers to the river as the Lachlan River right from the beginning - he never states it was named after the governor. Again, it probably was, but that information isn't from this source. It's also not from the news article.
- The 27 May 1815 entry indicates Oxley met a native, not that he discovered something. It's the news article that uses this date, but it must be using a different source.
- The "two years later" appears to be three - Oxley's second expedition appears to be 1818, and is Part II of this source. So despite the fact that this is unpaginated, there's a citation issue insofar as we don't even know what part of the book the material is from. There are dated entries, so it would be really easy to do it that way.
- A text search in both sources for the 1450 km statistic stated and "Great Cumbung Swamp" returned nothing.
- The news article says Evans discovered the Lachlan on May 27, 1815. It then refers back to the April 27 entry, and after that minor historicity, it becomes wholly modern.
-
- This is the first major paragraph in the history. I have no idea where the majority of the material is from, but it's not from the sources cited based on the information given. I'll disassemble the rest of it if need be, but it will take a very long time.
-
- Another shorter ;line earlier I should have tagged, but didn't know how to inline tag OR and SYNTH:
-
- "The name 'Wyangala' (pronounced )[3] originates from a Wiradjuri word of unknown meaning.[4] However, similar sounding words in the Wiradjuri language indicate it may mean troublesome or bad (wanggun) white (ngalar).[5]
-
- The GNB source for the name is speculative about the name (it uses "said to be"). The article states it as fact.
- "The similar sounding words" is entirely OR quite literally taken from an online wordlist.
-
- So there are major sourcing issues within the first three paragraphs of the article. MSJapan (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I have added OR and clarification tags in accordance with my previous comments, with any other sources I checked, and also to the usage of "European" in the first part of the article. Evans the surveyor was from England, and New South Wales, as part of the eastern part of Australia, was wholly claimed by the British. The British do not, never have (and likely never will) refer to themselves as Europeans. Unless the settlers are clearly coming over from Europe (as the Dutch did), anyone from that area should be presumed to be British or Australian-born British citizens. MSJapan (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Some of the tags that have been applied to this article are frankly ridiculous, and whoever applied them was really straining to plaster this article with as many tags as possible. I have no particular stance on whether this article should remain a GA, but I would urge whoever did that tagging to rein their efforts in and delete the sillier ones themselves because it looks pretty questionable from here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- That's because the article is questionable. What I don't understand is why I find a problem, bring it here, and the first person dismisses it, the second claims I didn't do due diligence, and now a third claims that my tagging exactly the due diligence I did here and explained here is "questionable". I've shown that this article meets none of the basic sourcing criteria needed to be a good article within three paragraphs, and I'm sure it's earlier, but I can't access Australian newspapers from the 1920s. When I find OR, SYNTH, and outright made-up stuff, of course it's going to look silly. Blame the SPA who wrote the article and his sock who passed the GA for the questionability of the article, not me. The questionability here is why this isn't immediately being delisted. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- MSJapan, as it is stated at WP:GAR, we raise issues here because we have a motivation to to improve the articles we report and personally see them through to GA. We are not here with a motivation to delist articles because we have reason to punish the editors of those articles. GAR is not a natural extension of SPI. I hope this explanation was helpful to you. Prhartcom (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- (edit conflict) A community reasseessment is a deliberative process, and is only closed by an uninvolved editor when the community has had a chance to review the article, and to give interested parties—authors, previous reviewers, and members of the associated WikiProject(s)—the opportunity to do remediation. I've only just done the notification of the interested parties, so we need to give them their chance. The delisting will have to wait. The primary author, Fvalzano, when notified of this reassessment, wrote I would if I could, but I have no time right now :( good luck with it, so we shouldn't expect or wait for any edits to address issues raised from that quarter. I frankly think it's up to the WikiProject: if they take on improving the article to bring it up to GA standard, then it might stand a chance. If no editors decide to start the extensive needed work on the article in the next week or so, then based on your findings, I think delisting will be the final result here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- MAJapan: you certainly can access Australian newspapers from the 1920s, considering that they're all digitised, searchable, and even show up in Google results. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The Drover's Wife, it is not up to MSJapan to do the (apparently extensive) work to fix the identified problems with the article. At this point, with the primary editor of the article, Fvalsano, having said that no fixes will be forthcoming from that quarter, it's up to someone or several someones to take responsibility for addressing the many issues raised so far, and the ones likely to be found in the rest of the article, which has not yet been examined. The likeliest source of people with the interest in doing the edits are members of the associated WikiProject; if you're one of them, then perhaps you can let us know whether you think it's going to happen. If no one has been found to make the needed improvements by the end of the month, I don't see that there would be any alternative but to delist. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delist: unfortunately, no one has stepped forward to edit the article, and the issues MSJapan has noted are germane and sufficient that the article does not currently qualify as a Good Article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
- Result pending
This article is written about an "incident" which almost certainly did not occur. The claimants of the incident wrote a book on the topic and we currently have a suggestion to move the article to that book. However, the reason that the reassessment is in order here is that the article simply is not very good in terms of the high-standards we expect for articles relating to fringe theories. The article does not deal substantively enough with the fact that the events did not occur as described by the claimants and gives a false undue weight with an equal validity to ideas which are not verifiable facts. In short, the article fails GA criteria number 4 rather plainly and arguably criteria 2c as it pushes a particular narrative with respect to this story -- namely that the "incident" occurred and that the debunking of the alleged incident is just another person's opinion rather than the fact that we should simply assert -- that this is a fabulist claim. jps (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The history of the article is that it was first written based on credulist sources and was given a GA based on that (in my opinion unwisely). I rewrote it on the basis of more objective sources and in my opinion it is now better than it was when it got the GA. However, it is now a different article and I would have no objection to the GA being removed because of that, although I find the reasons that you give to be spurious. Of course the incident occured! The women went for a walk in the gardens at Versailles and wrote a book about their experience. That was the incident. There is no problem with Wikipedia having articles about fabulist claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC).
- "Incident" in this context clearly leads the reader to believe that something eventful happened. The purported event is an "episode of time travel and haunting", not merely a walk in the garden. If their walk was the essential bit of importance, we would call this Moberly–Jourdain garden walk but it is not. If the title is to be accurate and relay what is essentially important about the subject, we could call this Moberly–Jourdain allegations or Moberly–Jourdain haunting and time travel allegations. Better yet, since this is a story from their book An Adventure, let's call it An Adventure (book). - Location (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- We should not be taking our cue from sensationalist and fringe sources that treat the topic as a paranormal Fortean "incident" when high quality scholarly sources rightly identify the book (and reaction to the book) as the primary basis for notability. Wikipedia as a serious mainstream encyclopedia should follow high quality sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that a book has been published by Oxford University Press does not automatically render it higher quality source than a book from a different publisher. Terry Castle's critique is rightly quoted and referenced in the article as it stands but his critique is a critique of the ladies' claims, which happen to be contained in their book, "An Adventure". But it is the claims that have notability. Michael Coleman's analysis is at least as thorough but reaches a different, but equally sceptical, conclusion.Liverpres (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Terry Castle is a literary scholar and Oxford University Press is the largest university press in the world. Who are Michael H. Coleman and Aquarian Press? Even so, that's not to say that Coleman cannot be used. The question is about how best to structure the article. - Location (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there are at least three interlinked, but different, rational explanations of what the ladies said they experienced in the article. On the basis that the simplest explanation probably works best, Coleman's suggestion (on the basis of a close study of the original papers which are housed at the Bodleian Library, one of the world's greatest academic repositories - they wisely did not throw them away as credulous nonsense as some Wikipedians might) that they mostly made it up, having come to believe that something odd had happened to them on a hot thundery day after a long and tiring walk (though their original accounts differed both from each other and from the first published version), seems more likely than a lesbian folie a deux which is Castle's invention in the absence of any other evidence, or stumbling into a gay fancy dress party which may well not have happened on the day on question. I'm aware that that's a synthesis so can't go into the article, but the way it's presented here does need to take account of the fact that the reason the whole thing is still known about is because it was originally presented as a true account of a supernatural experience, not as a work of literary fiction.Liverpres (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Here's Michael Coleman. Always more interesting, I feel, to have a possible "believer" coming to a sceptical conclusion, than someone who has already made up their mind http://weiserantiquarian.com/Dr.M.H.Coleman/ One of the things that makes Mike Dash's contributions to similar subjects so much more stimulating than some others Liverpres (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. Coleman was a member of the Society for Psychical Research, which hurts rather than helps his credibility if we are attempting to build an article upon reliable sources. Even that bio states: "he contributed a volume of his own to the literature of Psychical Research: 'The Ghosts of Trianon,' a book length study of Moberly and Jourdain's 'An Adventure,' their famous account of a haunting or 'time-shift' said to have taken place in the grounds of the Petit Trianon near the Palace of Versailles in 1901." The emphasis is mine, drawing attention to the point that he wrote a book about a book. Stories, fiction and non-fiction, are part of books and we title our articles after the book. That is why we have The Catcher in the Rye and not Holden Caulfield's journey to New York. - Location (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, he wrote a book about their claims, which he examined and debunked. It's also the only single volume to contain both the published versions of "An Adventure" (in fact, it's the most recently-available paper version of the text), and simply being a member of the SPR does not make someone unreliable, I see that in the Enfield Poltergeist article, the views of SPR members who were sceptical are boosted as being better than those of members who weren't.Liverpres (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Liverpres, no need to worry that structuring the article as An Adventure (book) will cast the book as a work of literary fiction. It will only help us clarify that Moberly and Jourdain wrote a book which purported to be a true account of a supernatural incident. Right now, the article structure has it backwards: i.e. a supernatural incident happened and Moberly and Jourdain wrote a true account of it. Also you need not worry that all the whimsical detail will be lost, a nice "Summary" section can house a neutral description of all the fanciful claims contained in their book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure that "An Adventure (book) covers, as a title for the article, the way whatever happened is seen now, it is more easily found by the names of the protagonists. And that being the case, the possibility of English-speaking Wikipedia users with an interest in the subject finding the article must be reduced. It is difficult, but from my own interest in this, it appears that the names of the protagonists are more likely to be looked for than the name of their book. French Wikipedia goes with https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fant%C3%B4mes_du_Trianon the "Ghosts of the Trianon". Liverpres (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- People who come from GodlikeProductions.com, GhostTheory.com, or Doctor-who-is-real.tumblr.com searching for "Moberly-Jourdain incident" will be whisked to our article via a clever little thing called a redirect (similar to people who now search for Ghosts of Petit Trianon get redirected to the article). Any other concerns? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. There does seem as I look around to be a small clique of Wikipedia editors who want all paranormal articles to be relocated to places where the paranormal element is removed, even though it may be the most important (not most believable) factor. The removal of Timeslip being a case in point.Liverpres (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see no good reason to move the article from where it is, the suggestion it should be moved appears to be unfounded, when one reads the reasons originally advanced for a move, they are just one user's prejudices. Liverpres (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we have a few options to solicit feedback on whether the suggestion to move is unfounded (e.g. Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books). - Location (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- In terms of this being a "Good Article", which is what this page is about, I'd compare and contrast with, for example Talk:Borley_Rectory/GA1/ - Moberly-Jourdain incident really doesn't require the scepticism that is being pushed by the original nominator, for example. Nor does it require a move to a less accessible title.Liverpres (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see you've gone straight to Borley Rectory to start pushing a sceptical view there.... Liverpres (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The only view I'm pushing is that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not familiar with that article, so you must mean LuckyLouie. I don't see that the title of the article is an issue there. - Location (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
I'm not sure how this got past a thorough review, but the article at many points violates WP:MEDRS and problematically pushes a lot of WP:FRINGE notions such as the existence of qi, the claimed benefits of alternative health, and general pseudoscience surrounding the perceived benefits of this practice without addressing the notable mainstream criticisms of yoga from a variety of perspectives. Thus, it fails criteria number 4 of the good article criteria rather spectacularly. jps (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
- Result pending
I'm nominating this article for reassessment because of several reasons:
- the sourcing is poor: most of the references are primary sources (the band's own website), unreliable blogs (Live-Metal.net & Rock Something), or social media (myspace.com)
- the article hasn't been updated in eight years (the last information is from 2007)
- the musical style doesn't seem well researched
- I know GAs back then weren't as demanding as today, but this page hardly seems like a good article to me.--Retrohead (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
I'm nominating this article for reassessment because of several reasons:
- It hasn't been updated in five years.
- 90% of the sourcing is from Hot Press, which makes me assume the topic is not broadly covered.
- the music style is not well researched, in fact it is explained in three sentences.
- I know GAs back then weren't as demanding as today, but this page hardly seems like a good article to me.--Retrohead (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
- Result pending
The article has not been taken care after it was promoted in 2008, thus the biography since is so badly worded. Reading the music and lyrics section, I get the impression that the prose isn't GA level. Nominating for demotion.--Retrohead (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article was promoted to GA in early 2010, and the article has changed radically in the meantime, due to the dramatic chanɡes of political circumstances in the subject's and her country's life. Much of the editing appears to have been done by tendentious advocacy accounts with poor English skills (a sentence like Yulia Tymoshenko stand for eliminating corruption, the fight against oligarchs and the "russian aggression" stood right up in the lede section and failed to get corrected for over a month.) The results of this agenda editing need to be investigated and the entire text reassessed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- all the information that was added contains authoritative sources. In addition this information already checked Wikipedia administrators. Information is correct and is similar to the Wikipedia in Ukrainian and Russian languages.--Lidaz (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
- Result pending
This article was promoted to GA status in 2007. I am requesting a community reassessment because I see many unsourced sections and paragraphs in the article, thus failing WP:GACR criteria 2. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
Since being promoted to GA status in 2009, many things have changed about the subject. Content about newer generations of the device has been added, but a lot of it is poorly sourced, poorly written, or just plain WP:Fancruft. I do not think that currently this article meets the GA criteria. sstflyer 13:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delist An article with an "outdated" template shouldn't be considered a good article.--Retrohead (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delist Article fails requirements 1 and 3, should be delisted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
|