Archives
2006 2007: January - May 2007: May - December 2008: January -
This page is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to retrieve it from the current archive.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raintheone here is a request for comment. The GAR in question and the conduct in question is my own. Apparently involved parties can comment too, seeing as the main dispute started on a GAR, this seems the appropiate place to notify. The GAR is here at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/1Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC

I've redacted part of the notice here and a reply from another party. Rain, if you're going to notify anywhere else be more neutral. Jake, I appreciate what you tried to do, but it's best that someone else do it since you are the filer of the RfC/U. If anyone would like to see the redacted commentary, it's in the edit history. Otherwise, the RfC/U is the place to post if you're interested in the user conduct, or the GAR if your focus is the article content. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAR on Chlorine was started, but it does not show up in the list here. I do not know enough about the process and the templates to find the problem, sorry. --Stone (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unhappy about the new GAR on Netball. Specifically, we've got an ArbCom case open about the behavior of certain editors around GA reviews for Netball, and it seems to me that opening a reassessment might well be taken as WP:POINTY—or pointy-haired—disruption of the ArbCom case.

Would anyone mind putting this GAR "on hold" until the ArbCom case has at least moved out of the evidence phase? WP:There is no deadline for re-assessing an article like this, and we might get a more impartial review if it wasn't in the shadow of this case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus for puting it on hold then that is fine by me. It won't however make the concerns over the article disappear. I think a number of users who have ties to these netball articles need to realise that the issues being raised come from editors who have not been involved in the ArbCom case and are simply an attempt to get the content improved - Basement12 (T.C) 02:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't expect a delay to remove any real concerns. I am hoping, however, that it would remove some of the needless drama, so that when a reassessment is undertaken, all editors see the article for itself, and not as a pawn in an ArbCom battle.

Does anybody object? Now's your chance—please speak up! WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the notice to request only that involved parties to the arbitration request not edit the reassessment page for the duration of the case. Comments by uninvolved editors are certainly helpful, and welcome. Chester Markel (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it, because I actually do want everyone to stop, and as the individual referred to in the words "an editor has proposed...", the notice should accurately reflect my actual proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started a community reassessment of this article here following disagreement over concerns brought up on the talk page. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping some editors would be willing to look at some of the old GARs (the ones approaching 2 months). I beleive consensus has been reached or is close on Dreamlover (song), Tim Lincecum, Guarana, and Jamie Stuart. I am less sure about Laurel and Hardy and Gery Chico. I would myself, but have commented on each of them and on some have even made quite a few edits. AIRcorn (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Guarana as it I had not made any edits to it and the guidelines say "reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment." AIRcorn (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you or someone else to close Dreamlover as Delist, Tim Linceum as Keep and Jamie Start as Keep. You haven't contributed significantly to any disagreements about these articles, it's been fair comment. There is a backlog and these are obvious close. I'm not so sure about Gery Chico. Szzuk (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have commented on many but an uninvolved editor should close these old threads. --Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I could close Dreamlover without any dramas, but on Lincecum and Stuart I have commented that they should be kept, so think others should really make the final decision for them. AIRcorn (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed Tim Linceum, hadn't commented on that one. Szzuk (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that many GARs are kept open well beyond their sell-buy dates and just add unnecessary clutter. Shouldn't we be more decisive? Why are so few editors prepared to take the bull by the horns and close GARs anyway? GA is supposed to be a lightweight process, yet GARs can get bogged down for months. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're deliberately left open for around two months because a lot of good editing takes places in the second month irrespective of an eventual keep or delist. It's often difficult to determine consensus because it requires a knowledge of the criteria and the subject matter, add in the formatting requirements and its more complicated than closing an AfD, which is often no more than a vote count or checking a ref. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's just crap. Why not keep them open for two years, then maybe those monkeys randomly typing away somewhere in the ether might manage to sort out the problems? Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to close the backlog. Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Apparently it has to kept open for infinity, as in the later months some good work sometimes gets done. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said you wanted to be more decisive and take the bull by the horns. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have been through all of the older ones that I have not commentrd on, and kept or delisted as appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community GARs are only deliberately kept open for about 2 weeks in most cases. The fact that many remain open for 2 months or more has nothing to do with some idea that good editing happens in the second month. Instead it reflects the fact that closing GARs is a difficult responsibility which takes time to do properly - and editors with the inclination and expertise to do so are few. An article should be listed as a GA if it meets the GA criteria and not listed if it does not. Whereas GANs and individual GARs are intended as lightweight processes which don't always get it right the first time, community GAR should, as far as possible, get it right. Consequently, closing a GAR involves not only reading the reassessment discussion, but evaluating the consensus according to the quality of article and the GA criteria.

When I do it, I usually spend an hour or two copyediting the article and spot-checking the sources so that I am familiar with the content. Sometimes this reveals problems which were missed during the reassessment, because reviewers were concentrating on a different issue. It can be very rewarding work, but I haven't recently chosen to spend much of my leisure time onwiki. This is probably good for GAR, as GA is a collective endeavour which should not depend upon any individual for any of its operations, and several excellent editors have stepped up to the plate in closing GARs. Editors (such as Jezhotwells and SilkTork) willing to "take this bull by the horns" should be encouraged and supported, because it isn't an easy task. Geometry guy 23:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]