Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

FYI: I've tweaked the GARMessage template

See Template:GARMessage. It now contains a title. Should make notifying ever so slightly faster :). If you use "New section", you can just subst in the description and leave the title empty. Of course feel free to revert if this does not make life easier. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there any individual reassessments still open? Asking because if not, I'd like to remove it from GARMessage's documentation. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just closed the last one (OP was inactive), so there shouldn't be any more individual reassessments open. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I've removed the individual reassessment option. Also, if you forget to enter the page number, it now defaults to 1. (Previously, it linked weirdly to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Example]].) Let me know if you'd prefer a different default. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It can now automatically find the latest page number, so feel free to leave out GARpage if you wish.

E.g. {{subst:GARMessage|Apple}} links to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple/3]] Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:GAN § Idea: Good article save award, akin to WP:FASA

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GAN § Idea: Good article save award, akin to WP:FASA. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Poll now open for the election of Good Article Reassessment coordinators

A poll to select coordinators for the good article reassessment process is now open; please contribute to the discussion and !vote if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Manual GAR instructions

The current GAR closing instructions are missing some steps.

• "but it will have to be manually added to the current archive" is present in text, but there is no indication on what this archive is or how to add the GAR to it.
• "update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page" needs to be split into more specific steps. These instructions are from the earlier process, but it is now more difficult as {{GAR/link}} formatting mimics the GAN pages, and as all GARs are now on their own subpage system linking to the GAR page can no longer be done just copying the existing template text.
• For failures: "restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were)", I don't think this makes sense. An article coming off GA will be very different to its pre-GAN state. We should suggest adding a class based on the issues identified in the GAR.

As an aside, I believe we had consensus to consolidate some talkpages so I am posting here instead of at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/guidelines (which should redirect here?). CMD (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I vaguely remember there is a page with the current archive counter, so that we can make a link to that archive. I don't remember what that page is.. @Novem Linguae: do you happen to know?
• I don't really understand. I've changed the example to a delist from a community reassessment (rather than individual reassessment), as this is the same format as we're using for the merged reassessment. Does that address your issue?
• I've replaced the sentence about project assessments with: "remove the GA assessment from the Wikiproject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment"

I've been wanting to implement the redirect of the guidelines talk, but I'm not quite sure what to do with the old messages there. Copy them to a seperate archive? The close stated that we would get rid of this page too, but I don't think that's justifiable with the increased traffic here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

We redirected a handful of talk pages to WT:GA and WT:GAN a few years ago, you can see how we dealt with the archives by looking at the archive boxes of those two pages (basically we archived the old pages to their own archives, redirected the current talk pages, and linked to those old archives from the archive boxes at the target pages). Ajpolino (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

To add to this, WP:TALKCENT has step-by-step instructions. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• The archive counter page is Template:GARarchive. But I think the instructions and CMD are talking about adding the GAR to the log page itself, which is done with an edit like this.
• Sure, I could expand the "update article history" instructions a bit. Need to remove GAR/link template, remove the "GAR request" template if present, merge in GA template if present, change |currentstatus= to DGA, and add an article history entry for the GAR. Like this.
• My GARCloser script just blanks all the article rating fields. So for example |class=GA would be replaced with |class=. Then the WikiProject gnomes swing by and give it a rating at their convenience. Perhaps we should change the official instructions to also suggest that.

I can make these changes to the manual closing instructions if everyone is in agreement with these bullets. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggested changes. Regarding bullet 2, the use of GA pages meant that for adding the GAR to article history, you just copy the original GAN link and increment the counter by 1, no need to go out of the edit window. Now, either you memorise the GAR path and which number GAR it is, or you have to exit the window to copy the page title. A little bit of extra work that didn't exist before. (Normally of course the script does this, but the script also forces you to notify people which is not always wanted.) CMD (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding scripts forcing user talk notifications, GAR-helper (used for opening GARs) lets you turn them off if you hit "preview" (there's some check boxes of users at the bottom of the preview), and GARCloser doesn't notify at all (since it's not part of the GAR closing instructions to notify users). –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah thanks, top tip I shall have to remember! CMD (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Note for new coords

@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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Ping template

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

GAR pages no longer move with talk pages

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)

Ontario Highway 11

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)

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

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)

@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)

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

Page order

@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)

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