Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓

Good article reassessment

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

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. 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.
2. 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
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Manual opening steps

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. 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.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. 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.
6. 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

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. 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.
4. 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).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. 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.
4. 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

1. 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.
2. 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)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. 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.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. 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.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment Talk notices given
Wisden Trophy 2024-03-21 Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division 2024-05-03 Pokémon Diamond and Pearl 2024-05-04 Siege of Szigetvár 2024-05-05 Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow 2024-05-07 Portland Trail Blazers 2024-05-24 Davenport, Iowa 2024-05-24 Joe Rice 2024-06-03
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project

See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

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.

• 18:15:02, 26/04/2024: Treehouse of Horror VI
  

• 18:25:41, 26/04/2024: Who Shot Mr. Burns?
  

• 02:09:18, 01/05/2024: Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease
  

• 03:57:17, 05/05/2024: Siege of Szigetvár
  

• 22:15:15, 16/05/2024: Aang
  
• 14:01:01, 04/06/2024: 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

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

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

Result pending

Citation needed tags and after a quick skim you will see other places that aren’t tagged but deserve cn tags. Also there are 2 maintenance tags but both are about expansions. 48JCLTALK 01:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

---

SSC Napoli

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

Result pending

19 CN tags. Whole sections unsourced. How has this not gone noticed? 48JCLTALK 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

---

The Sims Online

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

Result pending

Self-nomination for feedback and review. With all respects to the efforts of the reviewer, the GA process was faulty. The FAC nomination prompted comments that the article had "significant" issues. Therefore it is probably worth checking where along the journey this article is at from experienced editors. Thanks in advance for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Priory of Sion

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

Result pending

Not sure about the main banner (unclear citation style), but lots of uncited paragraphs and statements; no longer seems to meet the recent-ish standards for citation at GA level. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

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

Result pending

Back in April, I expressed concerns on the article's talk page about outdated demographics information and significant uncited text. As these issues with the GA criteria have not be resolved, to GAR we go. Hog Farm _Talk 00:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Winter Olympic Games

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

Result pending

As noted on the talk page by Slgrandson and myself, the article contains significant material lacking inline citations (e.g. most information about the last three Games) meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Tranmere Rovers F.C.

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

Result pending

GA from 2011, and hasn't been reviewed since. Currently looks more like a Start-Class article than a GA. There are tags (mostly citation needed) EVERYWHERE, every section needs major work and cleanup. Article needs serious changes to remain a GA. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The tags were added by a single user over the span of about an hour, who has similarly spammed several other football articles. I'm not saying they're all unjustified, but there's certainly way more than needed. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that the tags were all added by Untitled740, who also added the tags on the 3 football GAs delisted in the past month (Hull City, Middlesbrough, and Bristol Rovers, the latter two I nominated), as well as SSC Napoli, another GA that may potentially have problems. Agreeing with you, not saying that these tags are wrong, but they seem disruptive. Still saying that the article should be delisted unless work is done, but the tags on all five of these articles should be looked at as well. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that many (most?) of the tags are of little value. Checking a couple, they aren't always true: with that said, some have a point. I'd suggest that a proper review of those tags would be a good (vital?) first step before making any decisions as to delisting, but maybe if nobody is forthcoming to do that review, the default should be to delist. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Galatian War

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

Result pending

An older GA from 2007, with a bevy of primary and old sources (the most recent author died in 1905). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Iazyges, I am willing to work on this. What is your expected timeline for resolving the major issues before we can take on the specifics? I believe I can get done with the former in 5-10 days. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: Thanks! I don't have a specific timeline as long as progress is being made; the 7-day close is meant to be an accelerant for articles that attract no interest, not a hard deadline. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Mario Kart: Double Dash

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

Result pending

On 5 March, Sergecross73 tagged this 2012 GA as needing cleanup, noting on the talk page that the article was "well below GA standards" and contained "unsourced content, trivia, sloppy stuff, etc." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's in terrible shape - a victim of a decade plus of people slow degrading it into a worse status. I originally intended on cleaning it up myself, but I've lost interest and am focusing on other projects now, so that cleanup effort probably won't come from me anymore... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Roll back Why not just roll back the article to the last "GA-quality" version? It was fully-sourced at one point before a lot of cruft was added. The only part relevant to the modern day is a Kotaku listicle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm open to that if someone wants to present a certain version to revert back to. Not much has happened with this game over the years - it hasn't been re-released, found a cult following, had much in the way of a retrospective commentary, etc. So there's probably not much concern about it being "outdated" if we were to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  The article was listed as a GA on 2 May 2012, and the adding of unsourced content began less than ten days afterwards. If rollback is needed, it would have to be to the version promoted to GA, which does not satisfy the current criteria (criterion 2b), for example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, fair, even the GA version is a bit light on sourcing. (Sorry Salv.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed the gameplay section on a whim, so there's that chunk of work done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sergecross73 do you think the fix is good enough to keep the GA status? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Fallout 3

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

Result pending

There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm working on the good article reassessment for Fallout: New Vegas right now, and after that's done I intend on getting to this article. Outside of the gameplay section, it seems to be in much better shape than the Fallout: New Vegas was, so it shouldn't be too bad. But in case I don't get to this article in time, I agree with Greenish Pickle!, this article does not meet the GA requirements as is. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Famous Hobo do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon this and began a copyedit pass. It'll be next week before I can really sink my teeth into it, but I'm happy to do some work on it. This should be a salvageable article. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: @DrOrinScrivello: Sorry for the delay, but yes I do plan on fixing up this article, been working on other stuff. Ironically this is my favorite Fallout game, but it's been a bit of a struggle to work on this article. I did start working on it on my sandbox page. I've shortened the plot section and began work on the development section. Due to the extreme gameplay similarities between Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I asked the Video Games Project if it would be okay copying nearly entire paragraphs over from one article to another. The general consensus was yes, so long as the paragraphs that were copied are properly attributed in the original article they came from in the edit description. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: your working version looks like you're doing the same sort of paring down that I started and you're much further along, so I'll pause my efforts for now. Feel free to ping me if you'd like a second set of eyes on anything. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

---

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