Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

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)

No objections on my part. If we don't like it we can always undo the change. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, do you mind changing the configuration at User:AnomieBOT/CategoryLister/Categories per User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 14#GAR page? It's inaccessible if you're not a template editor/admin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you confirm that Special:Diff/1152490585 was right? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, seems to have worked right. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Have we thought of a way to mark old GAs as still meeting the criteria?

There's a huge quantity of old GAs which haven't had a reassessment in a long time. We could run them all through GAR, but that would use up a tremendous amount of time, and there are many old GAs that have been maintained and don't need GAR. Have we considered some way of marking old GAs as ok without a full GAR? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's probably possible to pull a list by date via bot, much like was done for WP:URFA/2020. We could then theoretically run some sort of a sweeps, although that would come with its own difficulties (editor burnout, low participation, overloading GAR which was almost completely dead until recently, etc.) I've been informally looking over certain sections of the WP:GA/W list, and recently ran into Eagle Cash which I would say is certainly problematic from both a sourcing and updatedness perspective, but given that there isn't exactly scads of sourcing for that topic, left it be for now to wait for a time when I'm not running low on energy and motivation. Hog Farm _Talk 21:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I occasionally have a gander at this 2010 link to find GAR-worthy articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know but I have used (this list) to determine which articles have issues that have been tagged. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If there is some potential for a more organized effort, I think it would be helpful to take a more organized approach by creating an overall list where things that have been looked at can be check off, or to sort by category or something. Not sure what the best way would be, but something that would reduce duplication of effort and help with focus has potential. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

For archival purposes

For archival purposes, I've moved the GAR rewrite draft and the associated discussion from my userspace to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/GAR proposal. Noting it here so it gets archived in this talk archive and will be searchable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian submarine Nerpa (K-152)

This article was promoted to GA back in 2008 but has a number of cn tags including the opening sentence. - Indefensible (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortinet

Hi there! Apologies, I don't know how to use scripts yet, but I wanted to raise Fortinet for GAR. Comparison between where it is today (puffery and NEWSDEPTH violations everywhere) and where it was ([1]) makes it stark, but specifically:

• Well written - no - puffery and NEWSDEPTH violations
• Verifiable - yes - I didn't spot any violations
• Broad - no - legal issues either removed or dispersed through the article, making it difficult to concisely understand without reading the entire article in detail
• Neutral - no - puffery and undue balance
• Stable - yes - relatively inactive and no ongoing disputes
• Illustrated - yes - the logo and a photo of their product is there, and I don't see what else is needed

Please let me know what you think. Couruu (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

On the "puffery" point you raise, do you have an example of "exaggerated praise" from the article that we can look at? A lot of people (including several admins) have looked at that article over the past couple of years. See Wikipedia:Wikipuffery - Wikipedia and Puffery - Wikipedia for references, explanations of puffery as used on Wikipedia.

I've looked at a number of corporate articles on Wikipedia and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to how they are structured. Many of them have warnings about self-promotional content, conflicts of interest, etc. For its part, Wikipedia doesn't provide much precise guidance to the business community on what is and isn't acceptable. It's hard to define when people ask you what's allowed. On the one hand, these articles about businesses - enterprises that provide goods and services. On the other hand, Wikipedians sometimes get upset or express outrage if a company article lists its products or services. I can see not providing lists of awards, but it's part of a company's history and notability if it sponsors sports events or wins awards. Even so, Wikipedians often object when these details are added to the articles.

So I don't think the article is too biased. How do you talk about a company without describing what it does, what it sells, what it's accomplished? What's the point of these business articles? Any GAR needs to take into consideration the purpose of the article and how it fits into what Wikipedia is trying to do.

As for the legal issues, as I mentioned above, there's no specific template these articles are supposed to follow. Why does there have to be a specific legal issues section in order for the article to be considered "Good" by Wikipedia standards? Other technology company articles usually lack specific legal issues sections, but they mention lawsuits sporadically. I don't see that this applies under "Broad".

Nothing wrong with reassessing a Good Article status after a few years, but I think this article is pretty clean in terms of the puffery and broadness points. Michael Martinez (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Good Article Question

Hi, would editors please check if Neri Oxman article still meets GA requirements and if not what needs to be done to improve it? I think it is still very strong, and from my understanding it does still meet GA - I'm not sure about the promo-type quotes in the article and would appreciate feedback on that. Thank you LWu22 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)