| Good article reassessment is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. It also allows feedback to be given for delisted articles or failed nomination when the explanation for delisting or failure was inadequate. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. 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; it is primarily used to reassess the status of current good articles. A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment. In that case, an editor requests a discussion on the good article status of the article, and that discussion is listed on this page. When consensus is reached, the discussion is closed and the status of the article is updated accordingly. edit guidelines | | 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, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request 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 (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination).
- Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article.
- 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: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window.
- Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, please 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. - If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To do this, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and then remove the {{GA}} template from the article talk page.
- To close the reassessment, replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted".
| Community reassessment - When to use this process
- Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved.
- If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises.
- If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
- It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.
- Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. 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.
See below for how to contribute to a community reassessment, and how to close one. Depending on the situation, reviewers may move mountains to list an article as a GA, or they may simply endorse a fail, or suggest the article be renominated. See also: Alphabetical list of previous community reassessments | | 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: please click on the "show" link for guidelines on when to close discussions. To close a the discussion, go to the community reassessment page of the article and replace {{GAR/current}} by {{subst:GAR/result|result=result}} ~~~~. Here you should state the result (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, replace {{GAR/link|GARpage=n}} by {{GAR/link|~~~~~|GARpage=n|status=result}} (five tildes) at the top of the page, where the result is one of "listed", "delisted", "kept" or "not listed"; alternatively, remove {{GAR/link}} from the top of the talk page and add or update {{ArticleHistory}}. If the result changes the GA status, update the 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. edit archiving guidelines | 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 7 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 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." |
[edit] 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 {{GA request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply remove 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 {{GA request}} to the article talk page. See also [edit] Articles listed for community reassessment - Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review and Unsuccessful FAC
- Result pending
Poorly sourced. Of the article's 18 cites (which would be enough considering length), 10 of them are from the mod's main website, and more aren't in the reliable sources list for WP:VG. Asking for a second opinion before I bump this down to C class. I have no idea how it got a GA in the first place. The prose seems fine, but 2/3 of the sources are not not reliable. --Teancum (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - Delist. There are also jargon issues. Who knows what a mod is, for instance, or a source engine, or "swing spam", or force pool, or block stamina, or... you get the idea. Wikilinks are not enough to deal with this sort of issue.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review
- Result pending
Um yes, this is my first GA. Anyway, I really don't think that it's quite up to snuff anymore. Personally, I think that it fails 3a because it makes very little mention of their award wins and critical reception, and 2b since the sources are very thin. As I proved with The Kentucky Headhunters, I can do much better than this — and I would like this to be delisted, because I don't think that it's GA class. (Note: Giggy, formerly Dihydrogen Monoxide, was the promoter, but he has barely edited this year so I didn't bother notifying.) Also, the GAN was placed on the talk page and not in a subpage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC) -
- It doesn't matter too much where the original GAN was placed. I have linked to it above. Geometry guy 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that critical reception and awards need expanding to reach broadness. Also the discography sectionn should list the major works at least (often just the studio albums). Overall, i thought the article passed most criteria, and the broadness deficit could be remedied in a hold period. But if TPH is planning to do this over a longer time, then delist for now.YobMod 11:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
- Well-written: weak pass - No spelling mistakes, most of the article is well written, but there is a lot of unnecessary text that is obviously just filling the article so it looks bigger.
- Factually accurate and verifiable: weak pass - Most of the article is accurate, however there are some invalid sources. This can be easily solved, so it is not one of the bigger problems of this article.
- Broad in its coverage: fail - It addresses the main aspects of the topic, but, as I said before, lots of unnecessary text just makes the article look bigger while in fact there is very little said in it. Also, everything within the Style section is practically useless because it just talks about many different genres associated with the band while not considering their influences and band's sound itself. For this, I advise shortening all the genre talk in a one sentence, just saying: "The band has been critically associated with many genres, including:...", or something like that. And the rest of the section should describe band's sound (and yes, there are many sources for that).
This is probably the biggest reason for delisting this article. - Neutral: pass - No problems here.
- Stable: pass - Vandalism is minimal and controlled. No edit wars.
- Illustrated: weak pass - There could be some more images. But the main reason for a weak pass is that I don't see why should we have a picture of John LeCompt, who is an ex-member, while not having a picture of Terry Balsamo, who is, correct me if I'm wrong, the most important member of Evanescence together with Amy Lee, since they are writing most of the songs. And also the picture of Evanescence performing live should show all of the band members and not just Amy Lee.
-
- There are many usable sources for this article and I am sure that it has potential to become a good or even featured article. But I don't think that it meets the criteria for now, especially when I compare it to other good articles. I think that it is time to fully rewrite it. — Gahonzu (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reply from Huntster The best thing I would suggest is laying out, for example, what sources you feel are invalid so they can be fixed, provide sources for the band's "sound", and begin finding images that you'd feel are more acceptable. Images are a problem, however. There are, surprisingly, very few freely licensed images of Evanescence. A quick search of Flickr and Picasa revealed zero images of Terry Balsamo, so that may simply be impossible to fix. A picture showing the entire group at once also doesn't seem to exist...the one we have is old, but it may be all we can get. I would also disagree with your opinions regarding the Style section. I would also *strongly* oppose culling the section to a single sentence, since that is what currently provides much of its stability. People love edit warring over genre for some reason. And it does a good job showing how varied different persons and sources feel about their musical style. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Reply from NikFreak Well, I agree with most of that. But, as much as I think that this article could be much better, I think that you are judging it too hard for a good article. If it was going to be FA, then all of what you said is in place. Still, there are definitely things that should be better in the article, so I do think that it's GA status is very questionable. I don't think that the whole style section is useless as you said. There should be more coverage on band's musical influences and descriptions of their sound and less about many different genres the band has been associated with. The problem with pictures is probably unsolvable, so we can exclude that from the problem list. There are no huge problems with this article, but there are many little glitches that, in my opinion, make it "unworthy" of GA status. Overally, I would have never nominate this article for GA status in the state that it is in right now. I think that removing the GA status is a good idea, since it might be encouragement for people in charge for this article to improve it further. A good rewrite would be nice, however I don't think it is necessary. Regards… — NikFreak (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC) - Comment I agree the writing needs work - even for only GA level. The information in the style section may be too much detail - we don't need comparison's to bands less popular than the subject for instance, and critics giving very similar detirminations of genre don't have to all have their own sentence here, inless it is backed up with some discussion that gives more inf that "critic xxx called them goth, but yyy did not, but zzz did". Tightening up the writing would go a long way to solving this problem before any information needed to be cut. I think the "In other media" section is mis-titled. It implies work outside of music, not soundracks etc. Is there a re reason this is a separate section anyway? Why not intersperse it with the rest of the career? If the work is only by one band member, is it really suitable for the bands article, rather than the member's article?YobMod 11:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I like the current version where it's a link to the style section where it is "Discussed; see below". If you are going to find out the genre, you shall not have to hunt the info.--Buggwiki (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that that is a good solution for the infobox. I think the problem people are seeing is that the section that it links to is just too rambling. It also implies there is some kind of debate about this in the sources, which there isn't. Different sources just mention a variety of overlapping genres, which, while containing useful information, really does not need so much text to cover it.YobMod 06:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the mess is one problem. Another one is that genre debating does not belong to the style section and all the important stuff is left out. We could make a separate section about the genre (which is not usual), or we could rename current section into "Genre, style and influences", but then also add something about the other two - style and influences. Currently, I think that the title is misleading and a very important part of article (which is present in any other good article about an artist) is missing. Therefore, I don't think that the article meets GA criteria. I don't know how long does the reassessment usually last, but this will have to be resolved sooner or later. If no one opposes to delisting it, I think that we should bring this discussion to an end. — NikFreak (leave message) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The length of the GAR depends on whether editors are working to fix the concerns brought up, but are usually at least a few weeks, so enough independant reviewers get a chance to chime in. I don't see much (any?) work so far, and would agree that in it's current state it should be delisted. But a dedicated editor can do a lot in a few days, so the article could still be improved.YobMod 10:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fair. Let's hope for the best. NikFreak, you can help me to find some sources to improve the style section, than we can present them to the others. I would like to rewrite, but you were the first to ask for it, so I will leave the decision to you. We can also do it together if you want. Let me know... — Gahonzu (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reply from CyberDelia Well, everything has been said. I would like to contribute, but I just don't have much time on my disposal at the time. I don't have time for any major edits like rewriting the style section, but, for what it's worth, I agree that this article needs much work. Until then, I say that we should delist it. --CyberDelia (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Reply from Aaroncrick Delist - Obvious prose problems and not every sentence in sourced. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - Comments from Dana boomer
I would like to point out to Aaroncrick above that GA status does not require that every sentence be sourced. With that being said, there was one spot that I felt could use a reference, and so I added a fact tag there. Of greater concern is the number of dead links in references, see here. Acronyms in references, such as "RIAA" in ref #13, need to be spelled out. Several web references need publishers and/or access dates. The lead could also be longer - two skimpy paragraphs is not long enough for an article of this length. At this point I am leaning towards delisting this article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Comments from Diderot's dreams
The GA criteria seem met to me, except: - The lead doesn't summarize the whole article
- the term "EP" is jargony-- it needs explanation
- The "In other media" section has a dispute that uses "claims" and "supposedly" for one side and "refuted" for the other in violation of Words to Avoid. It needs neutral phrasing.
- There is no description of what Evanescence's songs are generally about, or alternatively what a few individual ones are about. What do they talk about? Also, if you talk about a few individual songs, what do they sound like?
- I agree with Dana Boomer's fact tag-- definitely needs a cite for GA.
- I agree with Gahonzu's comment on the Style section-- it's just a list of different discriptions of the band's style. But culling the section to one sentence is too brief and loses valuable content.
I think the writing is OK at this time, that fleshing out the refs more would be nice but not required, and that every sentence does not need to be referenced for GA. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
|
