Fort Towson

A suggestion has been made for a revamp of this page to:

Shortcut WP:GA/D Good article disputes Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at a quick consensus set of good articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power. However, sometimes editors disagree whether an article reaches the good article criteria. This page is for dealing with such disputes.

If you believe an article should be delisted If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it: Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself. If you can't fix it, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and replace it with {{DelistedGA}} or {{DelistedGAbecause}}. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles. If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below.

If you believe an article should be listed If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met.

This would form part of a group of related changes. Wikipedia talk:Good articles for more details. TheGrappler 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pelase see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Straw_poll_on_new_lead -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

With this archiving of the Perl discussion, a truncated version was archived. A fuller version of the discussion can be see here. The truncation was right in the middle of a sentence and Harmil's signature was removed. Only someone in charge of maintaining the Good articles/Disputes page should refactor it, and they shouldn't truncate in the middle of a sentence for being off the subject, and they should post to the thread to explain why they did it, and sign it. If nobody else does, I'll go through the edit history to see when and by whom it was truncated. The Perl good article dispute is currently being held against me in arbitration and if it was improperly truncated (which it was), that could affect things. -Barry- 19:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It was? I thought it was just some random comment :/. Un-archive it then if you were still discussing it, I just saw a bunch of timestamps from May 23rd or something and archived it. Homestarmy 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jakal323 truncated it here earlier today for some reason. The pre-truncated version should be archived. Not sure how to do it offhand, but I'll look into it later if nobody beats me to it. -Barry- 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, is the non-truncate discussion more than a month old now? Homestarmy 17:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody started mass-archiving old discussions without checking them very closely, Perl was re-archived again, and several disputes which were clearly in favor of "delist" were not enforced. I think there needs to be more clarity in the instructions about how to archive, so anyone can do it without interrupting things. Homestarmy 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some preliminary instructions in Archive 4, I hope nobody minds. Homestarmy 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

there is need for an independent editors to take "ownership" of discussions and to ensure the result occurs then archive the discussion. I only archived discussions that had been inactive for 16 days or more one was even 30+ days. Gnangarra 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Perl's latest comment seemed to only be about a week old, and Ethiopia was never delisted, so I decided to bring up the subject :/. It does, however, occur to me now that waiting for too long to archive may result in delisting an article which has been radically changed, perhaps some self-determination for archivers is in order to determine whether or not the article in question is still suffering from the grounds of disputes?Homestarmy 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the archives, BTW? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Their in the box to the right. Homestarmy 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to bring a motion to the floor that we change the number of approximate days until something is archived down to a week of stagnent discussion; especially with articles with a bunch of editors, more than 2 weeks is a very long time for an article, and a discussion occuring more than two weeks ago may not even come close to reflecting the actual state of the article. Plus, since archivers are supposed to enforce the final decision when a consensus or near-consensus is reached, this may become difficult if the article has changed too much. Also, what with all the changes going on with discussing the purpose of the project, and the very large need to do a big sweep of the entire list, I predict this page may become far too swelled with articles if the time limit is too long. Homestarmy 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was wondering why some were sitting there for days/weeks. Lincher 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since there's been no objections, i'll change the instructions on archiving to a week. Homestarmy 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This was my first delisting, so i followed the instructions and just left a topic on the talk page citing my concerns Talk:Harry_Potter#Better_sourcing_is_available. Then I was told that I had to put it on review first? If that is true, I think the instructions need to be made more clear. Borisblue 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't have to put it up for review, if people are asking you to do it though they should know that anybody can open a review. Homestarmy 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Since recently many people have come here thinking that they can get a review here I suggest we change the lead to mention that this is not a place to get a general review but to review the GA status of an article. Here is what I suggest.

The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if a article still merits its good article status. Articles on this list are graded against the good article criteria in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the article assessment scale. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the articles status. This is not a Peer Review Process, for that see Wikipedia:Peer Review.

Feel free to comment or change it as you wish. Tarret 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still think moving the page back to the old name would be better, but the wording here might work, as long as you add in that it is also for contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted. Homestarmy 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose to add the following line

1. Check that you have logged in, anons may not delist articles.

to the current list of instrutctions on delisting an article. Comments? --RelHistBuff 09:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will leave this for a week until the 22nd and make the change according to the result. --RelHistBuff 10:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I wasn't aware that the GA rules do not accept anonymous promotions, but if this is the case then I agree that the rule should also apply to anonymous delistings as a matter of courtesy to those who have put in much time and effort into writing the articles. It would also be easier to detect bad faith delistings. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. I'd like to see some kinda effort made to handle the good-faith case of oops! forgot to sign in! But if there is no easy way to do that, then I will change my vote to unconditional support.--Ling.Nut 02:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Ling.Nut, your concern is easily covered by the individual signing in and then delisting the article again with an explanation of what happened. --tjstrf talk 02:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Change to Support. Yeah, I have no desire at all to make a big deal of this. I was just thinking, what if they don't know they didn't sign in? So I think it can be handled with just a few extra words.. something like what you said "If you forgot to sign in when delisting, then... blah blah blah. So change my vote to Support, on the condition that an extra sentence be added to that effect.--Ling.Nut 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support The GA system is coming along nicely these days I think, a little bit more security from bad delistings probably isn't a bad idea now. Homestarmy 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Can I get people to agree to a second sentence, along the lines of what Tjstrf said? It would add extra emphasis, do a bit to avoid hurt feelings if someone is reverted, etc etc blah blah blah. I think this is a trivial addition and is certainly in the spirit of the first sentence.--Ling.Nut 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I agree there should be no anon delisting as a security mesure to prevent any vandalism, favoritism or such. Even if we assume good faith, it is impossible to trace an IP to a username just by looking at the IP's contribs and such so to prevent any anon making decisions it is legitimate to make a request that users sign in in order to modify change GA's listings. Lincher 04:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The six related articles one needs archiving as somebody has already delisted them. LuciferMorgan 00:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be helpful to put an appropriate template on a page that is up for, or needs GA review - for example, if the article fails 2a, putting {{unreferenced}} - this simple measure may allow editors to bring an article for review up to scratch quickly. I've put together a short list of some templates that might be helpful, arranged by each criterion. If others find it helpful, I'd like to see some sort of 'review is paired with cleanup templates' guideline for each review, ie. incorporating the use of templates in the GA review process.

1. any of the Cleanup templates would suffice.

2.

a){{unreferenced}},

b){{citation style}}

c) Sources of articles - esp {{Primarysources}}

d) {{Original research}}

3.

a. {{sect-stub}}

b. {{Importance-s}}, {{toomuchtrivia}}

4.

{{POV-check}}

5.

doesn't really seem to have a tag you could use.

6.

a. {{Wrong-license}} - there's nothing really for captions, though, unless you want to have a cleanup template.

b. N/A.

- Malkinann 07:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This topic came up with the review of the Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell article. I would propose another clarification to the review instructions. Again, the idea here is to avoid having a bureaucrat and allowing reviewers to take action. Here is a proposal:

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors for a second opinion.

1. Leave a message in the article's talk page stating that the article is under review and the reasons why.
2. If needed, put an appropriate template on the talk page.
3. Add the article to the list below.
4. Once consensus is reached, take the appropriate action.

Any comments? --RelHistBuff 09:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to insert "Wait for an appropriate length of time (a week?) before listing the article in Review - revisit the article to see if it has improved in that time." between step 2 and step 3. The week's grace would give time for the article to be improved (finding citations etc.) before it is reviewed, possibly even allowing for a reviewed article to keep its GA status. Did I miss any appropriate templates? - Malkinann 10:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I didn't think it was a great idea to "hardcode" an amount of time, since under current GA rules, the article could be delisted at any time. But it's a good idea to advise on checking on the progress of an article. How about this?

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors for a second opinion.

1. Leave a message in the article's talk page stating that the article is under review and the reasons why.
2. If needed, put an appropriate template on the talk page.
3. Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article.
4. Add the article to the list below.
5. Once consensus is reached, take the appropriate action.

--RelHistBuff 11:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be tagged immediately so that people know it needs work, just like the FAR tag. It's unfair for a delist to occur when no notice has been provided. In the Baden-Powell case that started all this, it was GAR'd 8 Nov, but no one put any tag at all on it unitl yesterday. It already has 8 new tags in less than 12 hours; once some notice was put on the page. IE, we need a GAR tag similar to the FAR tag. Rlevse 11:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You could say in the allow time step to check the recent edit history for either a 'time idle', or a major contributor to leave a message with. Explicitly saying in the step, make sure you monitor the article's progress, would be good too. Maybe a GAR template would be less work in the long run - "Such-and-such-an-article's Good Article status will shortly be put up for review, with special concern about criteria 2a, 4d and 6a. Please read these criteria over, and try to improve this article to make it meet these criteria. Thankyou!" How does that sound? Hopefully not too inhuman. -Malkinann 11:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If a GAR template is created for the review process, then I would predict that the delisting-by-individuals process will be superseded by a new add-template-and-review-by-consensus process. It would become like the FAR/FARC process, which is quite heavy. Articles that ought to have FA status removed for rather obvious reasons take many weeks to remove. I believe the idea of GAR was to deal with exceptional cases and the everyday promotions/delistings are still based on individual decisions. Love it or hate it, it keeps the GA process light, fast, and informal. Wouldn't leaving a message like the sentences you just stated be good enough warning to the editors? Just my thoughts. --RelHistBuff 12:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch out for that slippery slope there.  ;) It'd quite possibly be enough to add a comment to the talk page and an appropriate template(s) to the main article space. When delisting for a reason such as referencing issues, appropriate templates should be added to the main article, too. Big templates on the main page get noticed sooner than a note on the talk page. -Malkinann 12:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that a general corrective template on the main page is a better attention-grabber. But then, one could argue that if one were to require a warning and template for initiating the review process, one could equally argue for a warning and template before the delisting process. These are in any case, common sense steps to take and would perhaps reduce the number of articles coming under review. So how about this?

If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:

1. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
2. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
3. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s).
4. Put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates.
5. Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article.
6. If the problem(s) is not resolved, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
7. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
8. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please implement items 1 to 5 first before listing the article.

I can't wikilink to the Category page. Does anyone know how to do that? here --RelHistBuff 13:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikilink now done (put : in front of cat). I'm just passing through, I haven't been involved with delisting GAs, but your process sounds workable. Walkerma 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the current articles on review

• Talk:You're Still the One - delisted, by one editor, relisted by another, I've now taken this to review.
• Talk:Bolivia - no mention of review on the talk page.
• Talk:Berlin Wall- no mention of review on the talk page.
• Talk:L. Ron Hubbard - listed, delisted, relisted, no mention of the review on article talk page.
• Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell - no mention of review on the talk page.
• Talk:New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway - review mention on talk page.

So there seems to be a bit of activity going on without using this page, and also little mention on the articles page.

I'm slowly developing User:WillowBot which is cross referncing the various GA pages, see User:Salix alba/GA table. A specific Review template would make things a bit easier. --Salix alba (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I really like the idea that templates are really needed, if people really want it, why not just say that you have to leave a note on talk pages when you open a GA review on an article? There doesn't really need to be a message so detailed that templates are needed. On slowing down the delisting process, I definently don't like that idea, most articles which are immedietly delisted these days are very sub-par and certainly would not be improved to GA status in short notice. One reason for the review page to be around is to critique decisions on articles delistings, and in my experience, very few articles which are immedietly delisted are ever disputed by anyone, and even less are actually restored to GA status. (Partly because delistings are often very easy calls to make due to clear violations) While its sometimes the case that articles which have several editors frequenting it challenge decisions, as is the case with the article which appears to of started this debate, these articles are very few and far between, and its even less often that somebody who immedietly delists an article is overturned. Most of the times that i've seen reviews that overturned somebodies immediete delisting was due to bad faith delistings or improper delistings that had no explanations, (Particularily by new users or anons) and I don't see how mandating an unclear waiting period will help stop that. However, leaving delistings as a quick step will keep the list from being bloated by articles which are on probation so to speak, won't create instruction creep, and articles which clearly deserve to be kept will likely be speedily kept, not creating much of a bother. Homestarmy 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Which kind of template do you have an issue with? Using the cleanup templates, like the ones I listed above, or the possible creation of a Good Article review template? Using the former shouldn't be a heartache (as if you feel strongly enough to review/delist, you should feel strongly enough to look up a cleanup template), and the latter would make it easier for bots (as well as people).

As for the detail of the notice, no matter what form it takes, I think that it should name the criteria that are of concern to the 'spotter' - if more come up during review, then they can be dealt with later. Naming specific problems (needs more citations etc.) is generally more helpful than a "I'm not so sure this is a GA..." message. I'd say that the easiest way to do that would be by adding a big cleanup template to the top of the article, with a 'GA 2a needs review' in the edit summary, but that's what's under question here.  ;)

In regards to the wait, perhaps reviews should have the courtesy improve-this-article wait (as the reviewed articles are usually better quality than the clear-cut delists), but for clear-cut delists, skip the wait and add the cleanup templates and start the review.

The editors of the Lord Baden-Powell article, myself included, haven't merely challenged the review, we've taken the suggestions and run with them. (like good Scouts should!  ;) ) The problem is that we weren't aware that the article was up for review, or why, until yesterday, when I happened along the review page. If another issue with BP's prose comes up, we will try to deal with it.

A point I raised before is that notes on the talk page aren't as obvious as a cleanup template. An editor may not read the Talk page regularly, until something big happens to the article page (eg. a big template). Also, over time, notes on the talk page are archived, whereas cleanup templates can stay on until they are satisfied. I think this would be more helpful in improving both current GAs and sub-par 'GAs'. In BP's case, I just put on unreferenced, and linked to the review in the edit summary. I didn't write a note on the talk page, because I hoped that the article's status could be improved quickly without too much fuss. (Plus I hadn't put the article up for review myself.) In the process, we've highlighted a flaw in the review process - editors of an article don't know either that their article is being reviewed, or what needs fixing, before it's too late. Letting editors know that the article needs help could be the difference between a keep and a delist, and it would improve the quality of the articles in the GA delisting and review processes, regardless of their post-review/delist status. - Malkinann 22:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to make it part of the culture of WP:GA/R to do two things:

1. immediately note an article review on that article's talk page, including at least some brief details of the reasons for the review. There should be a standardized message for the edit summary ("This article's GA Status is being Reviewed"), and the edit should not be marked "minor."
2. Include a "Notice put on talk page" (wikilinked to the actual talk page) as the first words of the actual review verbiage, very much as we do for "article put on hold." In fact, the template used there works well; why not adopt it for use on the review page?

But as for templates on the article's talk page.. hmmm.. I see both sides of the argument. but the details are hashed out in the review itself; putting a long list of them in template form on the talk page would be redundantly redundant redundant.--Ling.Nut 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I made an example of the sort of template I mentioned above:

{{User:Ling.Nut/GAReview|Arabian Horse}}

Note that the above may be deleted at any time; am changing to "nowiki". --Ling.Nut 15:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But now that I think about it, I think it would be more useful as something that could be placed on the talk page of the article, or more likely, of the person who nominated the article. I'm gonna go alter it accordingly. OK, it's done {{User:Ling.Nut/GAReview|Arabian Horse}}

--Ling.Nut 04:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That kind of thing looks ok. Maybe add the glyph of a GA, or a GA with a piece coming out, so that people get the idea. Would it go on the top of the article, or in the talk page? Specific criteria should be named on the talk page - and, after all, isn't it 'brief' enough to write 'Criteria that are in question are 2a, 3b and 4c'? ;) - Malkinann 07:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have the template use be optional so people could write their own messages? What if the criteria in dispute isn't clear, or the nomination for review doesn't understand the criteria? (That has happened sometimes) Homestarmy 15:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In my mind, details of the discussion go on the discussion page. It is the responsibility of the person bringing an article for review to state them clearly in the opening sentence of the review. Putting details on peoples' talk page is redundant, and can lead to misunderstandings (as Homestarmy just pointed out).

I do, however, strongly support the idea of mandatory notification of someone, somewhere, that the article is up for review. This could simply be a message on the article's talk page, esp. if no one has worked on it in a while.

--Ling.Nut 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being a bit paranoid, but I do believe that if we require a GAR template to be put in the article page for a review, then our current easy delisting process may disapppear and we will move toward the bureaucracy of the FAR/FARC process. GAR should be the exception rather than the rule for delisting management. I agree that one ought to notify people on the article talk page which is why I made the proposal to leave a message on the article's talk page (rewritten below).

If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:

1. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
2. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
3. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s).
4. Put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates.
5. Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article.
6. If the problem(s) is not resolved, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
7. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
8. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please implement items 1 to 5 first before listing the article.

I would like to ask, what would need to be improved on the above proposal? --RelHistBuff 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• No particular template should be mandatory. The template I whipped up in 2 minutes (above, but I think it should be bigger) could be offered as an optional means of notification.
• However, notification that an article is on review should be mandatory, IMO.
• The virtue of the optional template is that:

1. It's quick 'n easy to type. If it gets adopted, we'll move it into template space, then it would be simply
   {{GAReview|Article name}}
2. It actually lets people know their article is currently being reviewed. I don't see this in your proposal above.. your proposal says "leave a message stating the problems" but does not say "and stating that the article is on review (if it is)".
3. It offers a link to the precise spot on the GA/R page where the review is (if the article name is spelled incorrectly, it will still go to the GA/R page, just not to the correct subsection).

--Ling.Nut 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I add a clause to the final line. How does it look now?

If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:

1. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
2. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
3. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s).
4. Put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates.
5. Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article.
6. If the problem(s) is not resolved, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
7. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
8. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please implement items 1 to 5 first and notify the editors in the article's talk page that it is under review before listing the article here.

Could we go with that as a first step? After voting on that, we can get consensus on your template and then modify the instructions again. --RelHistBuff 18:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm cool with this. I just want people to have at least some way of knowing their article is being reviewed. Everything else is extra. Oh.. wait.. please add the words "providing a link to WP:GA/R". Is that OK? Add the link, THEN I'm totally OK with it.--Ling.Nut 18:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to change the delisting instructions on the main GA page, since the instructions are copied there too. Homestarmy 20:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me!  :) Thanks for being so nice about it. If people assume good faith when their articles are being reviewed, then it should really help. - Malkinann 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the final draft before it goes to the main GA and review GA pages:

If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:

1. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
2. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
3. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s).
4. Put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates.
5. Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article.
6. If the problem(s) is not resolved, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
7. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
8. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please implement items 1 to 5 first, notify the editors in the article's talk page that it is under review, and provide a link to the GA Review page before listing the article here.

--RelHistBuff 14:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I personally am OK with this as it stands. Some people might argue about having to wait before delisting a really flagrant violation. But I think this can be worked out without too much fuss or mess.--Ling.Nut 17:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like having to wait for immediete delisting either, but its no trouble for me to interpret the instructions as "an active editor will see a note within an hour or two" and then delist it :D. (No, seriously, an active editor in my book really does need to be active active). Homestarmy 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

They could also be asleep, you know.  ;) That thing you do when you're not editing Wikipedia?  ;) I still think a week, or even just a full day (24 hours) would be fair, but leaving it open to interpretation is ok, I guess. RelHistBuff, the newest version that you wrote sits fine with me. :)- Malkinann 03:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sleep? What's that? ;) The new text will go in along with the anon delist text above on Wednesday unless there are some strong objections. --RelHistBuff 09:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT I don't see what the big fuss here is. The FAR process puts a notice template on the articles up for FAR, so why do some of you think it's so bad to have a GAR template? Rlevse 02:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not a fuss. Pleasant chatting. And I don't think people are against having a template, per se, though some may be against mandating the use of a template. It seems that the lack of bureaucracy around WP:GA/R is a cherished feature. :-) --Ling.Nut 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The thing is though, the proposed change doesn't just affect GA/R, it slows down ordinary delisting as well :/. Homestarmy 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The current proposal is a compromise, but it solves the problem. The editors are notified and have a chance to correct a potential delisting at the expense of slowing (a little bit) the delisting process. Concerning FAR, I would not recommend copying that process here in GA. I nominated a FA article that had no citations to FAR. It took one month before FA was removed. Admittedly, FAR does serves its purpose in FA. FA is a difficult status to get, so FAR gives the editors every last chance to improve an article before losing FA status. --RelHistBuff 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• BOTTOM LINE is that the editors have a right to be notified and delisting, GAR, whatever should not be done behind closed doors by a secret cabal. Rlevse 19:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Bottom line is that we've already pretty much agreed to that. :-) Though it isn't quite bona fide and certified just yet, it will be very soon. --Ling.Nut 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:GA/R updated. I took a look at WP:GA and in fact I don't think that one needs to be modified as there is a wikilink to WP:GA/R. -RelHistBuff 08:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of making a separate template for this why not just make it an "extension" to the current {{GA}} template such as the ones that wikiprojects use to grade articles. This way people know that its associated with the GA system, and it won't clutter talkpages as much. It can also be adapted to other purposes such as archiving review discussion on talk page sub page (eg. Talk:Arabian horse/GA review). This way the GA review page won't fill up with a long archive box with about 25 discussions on each page. Tarret 02:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I note that an article was put up for review early January, and it had no mention of it in the articles talkpage. The article is William Shakespeare. The article on arguably the most famous playwright (if not Englishman) in the world, and it was going to be delisted without any opportunity for the contributing editors to take part in the review, or sort out any problems identified. This is supposed to improve Wikipedia? I saw it and have now mentioned it over at Billys speechplace, but then I do have my own agenda! Seriously, notice of GAR should be made at talkpages of said articles. LessHeard vanU 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Archived as NO CONSENSUS. The discussion that was still going on was, unfortunately, mostly bickering (of which I was a part... mea culpa. Actual discussion of the article was more than a a week old. --Ling.Nut 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, whenever the status of an article or is under review, it is traditional to place some kind of notice either on that article or on its talk page. Some articles that are my within my Wikiproject's scope have been recently listed, and while I agree entirely with the delisting, I'm a bit taken aback by the process. You see, there was no warning whatsoever aside from the discussion on the "review" page, a page that few editors take the time to watch. It seems to me that the absence of any kind of visible notice makes an article's presence on a "review" page entirely pointless: it could have been simply immediately delisted with approximately the same level of warning. Second, given a week of warning, the project could have been notified, and the shortcomings could have been easily resolved, and now we have to resolve them post facto, and ask for relisting. Am I the only person struck by the inefficiency? – ClockworkSoul 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your timing is impeccable. We are in fact discussing/dealing with that very issue at this very moment. If you'll look just two subsections above this one, the issue is getting near resolution: Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Review#Using templates in the GA review.3F. Sorry for the inefficiency you noted; hope we can correct it in the future.--Ling.Nut 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I seem to have missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. :) – ClockworkSoul 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See above threads "Using templates in the GA review?" and "No notice?"--these obviously had no affect. WHY IS THIS CONTINUING TO HAPPEN. It just happened again with The Scout Association of Hong Kong, and others I'm sure no doubt. This practice needs to CEASE IMMEDIATELY. It is not too much to put SOME SORT OF NOTICE ON THE TALK PAGE. Yes, I'm shouting and I don't care because that's the only that looks like will cause anything to actually happen. No wonder the GA project doesn't have the status of the FA project. The next time I find this happening, I will simply delist the GAR and not notify anyone thereof since they don't have the common decency to do the same. Rlevse 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. (I normally took the time to notify articles when other people didn't, but so many are being listed today its annoying to keep up :/.) Homestarmy 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the talk page notice, but the problem is editors who list GARs--they should be the one doing that, you shouldn't have to follow up behind them. Mopping the water up only goes so far, the spigot needs to be turned off, in this case that was LuciferMorgan. Rlevse 03:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouting won't do you any favours Rlevse, and this requirement hasn't even been in 2 seconds. In other words, it's actually people like YOU who don't keep their GAs up to current standards that are the problem. When they're then listed for GAR, they start complaining. Personally, I frankly don't care, because if the article was kept up to standards in the first place I wouldn't have needed to list it. LuciferMorgan 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

2 seconds HUMBUG, it's been in effect for weeks, plus you should have a common courtesy to notify people, so what's YOUR problem. I guess you like do things in the dark and behind people's back. Actually, it's not my GA, I just felt like working on it. I don't care what you think either. People like you are why GA has such a sorry reputation anyway. Rlevse 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It actually hasn't been in place for weeks - I usually hang around here. I'm not going to respond to your other comments - let's put it this way, they'd be heavily censored. LuciferMorgan 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it's been in place since Nov 22nd, that's 19 days and almost 3 week on my calendar--not to mention the talk here prior to that and the common sense of notices on the talk page. With actions like yours, we have every right to complain. I guess you haven't hung around for 3 weeks.Rlevse 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not responding anymore to you - find someone else to whine to, or shut up and improve the article to GA standards. LuciferMorgan 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is to GA standards or you'd have to delist at least 40% of the GAs. Rlevse 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if that many GA's were still so clearly lax, we had a pretty big sweep a month or so ago and I think we've gotten most of the clear cut fails out of the way. (Plus, Lucifer has removed even more which wern't really compliant either in that time) Homestarmy 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just picked 10 at random, 3 had more than 25 (which the HKSA has right now), most had 10-15, and 1 had only one ref. That's 70% by sheer ref count. Rlevse 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not being a master of Wiki formatting myself, I was wondering if perhaps anyone knows how to change the list of archives to a two rowed table or something else more compact, I think at this rate its going to start bulging into the page soon :/. Homestarmy 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there have been times when anonymous people have come here to dispute a page, and sometimes some of them bring up good points. Since a person asking for a review isn't actually delisting an article immedietly, I don't feel there's very much of a risk of bad faith abuse, since an anon who actually makes it to this page probably isn't some speedy vandal person or they wouldn't take the time to read the instructions. Second, since this is a page for disputes, what if somebody just wants to be sure about an article that their on the edge about? Then it would be difficult to choose maintenance templates, since problems would be unclear to discover. (and, furthermore, it is probably not easy to choose templates at all if some of the violations arent as clear cut as maint templates make them, for instance, an article may be very well referenced indeed, yet have no inline citations, and there is no "There are too few inline citations" template that I know of). Then there's the last one which I really don't like at all and it appears to be a mistake that it was written this way, the entire intent of the discussion about delisting was so that single-handed delisting couldn't be done immedietly, I recall no discussion about slowing down the process for actually filing a review, and I really don't think any article which can be improved in time needs the time it takes to discuss the article, the week after the discussion grows stale, and then a little bit more to top it off. Can that line just be removed concerning reviews? I just plain don't see the benefit to having to go through all that to list a review. Homestarmy 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Going to review isn't even a rule, that's the ironic part of it. LuciferMorgan 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The instructions are for persons interesting in delisting an article. Item 1 is to not allow anons to delist. I believe we reached consensus on this and I think this should be kept. Unfortunately the way this page has been constructed, both the delist instructions and "nominate to review" instructions are in the same block of text. Concerning item 5, I propose a tweak by merging it with item 4:

4. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates.

As this is minor, I will be bold and change this right now. Concerning the "allow enough time" clause, I was not so keen about this either. If you look at the discussion above in "Using templates in the GA review?", someone suggested "hardcoding" an amount of time and I proposed an undefined amount of time as a compromise. Item 6 could be dropped. I have no problem with that, but some editors may have other preferences. Comments?

Finally, we really should be clear what this page is for. An article named on this page has the potential of either retaining or losing GA status. I think that's why anons should not be allowed to place an article on this review page. They may bring up good points, but they should login and state their case openly. --RelHistBuff 09:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah wait... you are referring to the last paragraph (not the instruction set). OK, I made tweak to that paragraph. That should not be controversial. Sorry for the confusion. --RelHistBuff 09:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone double-check to see if articles are actually delisted after having been voted DELIST and then having their discussions archived? I was thinking that I didn't check when I first started archiving things not too long ago...--Ling.Nut 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I normally delisted them as I archived them. I'll check the archive and finish any of them you may of missed. Homestarmy 01:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any which were not delisted right or something :/. Homestarmy 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was told off recently for forgetting to put notice on the article's talk page, but there's recent GARs on the talk page without notice. LuciferMorgan 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I put a new note on the page:

• Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting.

--Ling.Nut 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

List ideas for possible changes you have here:

• I think there should be something listing acceptable recommendations. There's been much discussion regarding the arguably inappropriate use of "Speedy delist" and the like. I think it would be helpful to list those that are appropriate, for consistency sake. Possibly this is going into pointless specifics, but this is a pet peeve of mine. If no one else is bothered, I suppose I'll just suck it up, but it does bother me that one discussion will have recommendations such as "Endorse delist", "Keep delisted", "Endorse the delist", "Support the fail", etc. Then there's the random use of terms never before used that leave one wondering exactly what the recommendation is. For example (sorry to call you out like this Geometry guy), "Agree: work needed". Last, there are the extreme yet vague votes, for example "VERY VERY Weak Keep and cleanup". I personally don't like the "in-between" recommendations. I understand having a "strong" opinion one way or the other, but I don't feel a "barely keep" is appropriate. For the previous two examples, "Conditional keep" seems like an appropriate alternative. I would just like a set format of bulleted, consistent recommendations. It looks better and it's much easier to determine consensus for processing. LaraLove^T/_C 05:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(Posting here as there are so many unindents below, this message would get lost.) But, Lara doesn't like "VERY VERY Weak Keep and cleanup"---I think I'm the one who she copied for that ;-) But I do. I think there are shades of grey, and indications of strength of support help to analyze the consensus process. By saying very very weak, you know that I could go the other way...Balloonman 02:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I should note, that my "VERY VERY Weak Keep and cleanup" was immediately followed by a detailed explanation as to my concerns. Your note of conditional keep would not be accurate. A conditional keep implies that action must be taken to get the keep, I thought the article was good enough to stay as is... but the person who brought the issue to the table had legit concerns.Balloonman 04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that it could be personal interpretation. "VERY VERY Weak Keep and cleanup" just doesn't seem productive. While a keep vote, it's almost insulting to the custodians of the article. At least, were I a custodian of an article which received such a vote, I would be offended. With two "very"s in all caps followed by a "Weak", I can almost picture that "Keep" hanging by a thread over an "Endorse Delist". Dangling precariously. Regardless, I just don't think that is an acceptable recommendation. A vote so weak it could be simplified to "Barely keep" seems more offensive than the notorious "Speedy delist". That's just my opinion, though. LaraLove^T/_C 05:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The speedy delist is says that we are going to delist the article without giving the primary editors a chanceto salvage the article. It says, the article is so bad that we aren't going to respect the editors enough to give the article a chance. More colorful comments, however, can help to clarify where a person stands---but the comment has to be taken in context with the rest of the statement. People's positions are NOT the mere pieces highlighted in the bolded section, they are the entirety of the comment.Balloonman 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(This has become confusing with new comments in the middle of old ones... let's try to keep comments in order of posting, I think they more easily get lost this way.) I know what speedy delist means. I also, as I've stated a few times in the past week, know that recommendations are more than the emboldened portions, and I would appreciate it if people would stop throwing that comment at me as if I were oblivious. I think if I weren't aware of the necessity of detailed arguments, I wouldn't spend hours on reviews of these articles detailing their issues for my supporting arguments.

Now, with that out of they way, hopefully for the last time, my point is that the wording and emphasis of "VERY VERY Weak Keep and cleanup" is more insulting than is "Speedy Delist". Noting again that speedy delists are for articles which fail multiple criteria and could not easily be brought up to standards. It is my opinion that one should not have a vote so weak. It doesn't make sense to me. If the article is in such a condition that your keep is so weak, it seems more appropriate that it would be a "Weak Delist" rather than a keep so weak you have to scream two "VERY"s before it. If it requires cleanup and its quality barely attains your support, it just doesn't come off as up to standards to hold GA. Keep votes should be reserved for those articles with a quality deserving of GA. If an article is close to that quality, but in need of a little work, that would be a conditional keep. It is to say, "The article is good, but just not quite good enough. If these minor changes are made, you have my keep vote."

You're saying that your vote was not a conditional keep. I'm saying that it comes off to me as the epitome of what a conditional keep is. You stated, "...overall I thought it was a pretty good article. The problems that it has are easily fixed by somebody willing to make any effort whatsoever at cleaning it up." Valid claims to disqualify GA, but easy-to-fix ones. If they can be easily fixed, then the article can easily be brought up to standards, in which case it would earn a keep vote. So keep, if the changes are made. That's a conditional keep. That's all I'm saying. LaraLove^T/_C 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lara, I beleive that the nature of GA/R, which should not be a vote, but rather a discussion, is well-reflected by the use of varied phrases. There are a myriad of situations, each one different. By no means should a discussion be processed just by checking the headigns. However painstaking and tiresome it might be, a close has to be administered by carefully reviewing the discussion, and preferably the article and its talk page (whenever relevant). Just trying to make one's life easier by forcing people to take an either/or stance is not something I would recommend. I believe that, for example, the close of Chicago Theatre was improper - judging by the number of bolded phrases, it might have seemed clear, but there were some valid arguments raised that still merited further discussion at least. PrinceGloria 09:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with PrinceGloria's general comments here, and am pleased to be singled out for my imaginative style :) Consensus is usually only difficult to determine in contested cases, where the article is close to the standard and there is some subjectivity involved in whether it meets it. In this case, my opinion is that it would actually be easier to reach consensus if more reviewers didn't take up an initial position, but began with a comment. This would also reduce the number of occasions that crossing out votes or a consensus check was necessary. See also my comments at the bottom of this archived section.

Of course this is just my own opinion, and I accept that most reviewers have a different approach. Everyone has their own style, and so I think we should minimize prescriptions about how to comment. Apart from the archiving, this process is much like an AfD, and so a reference to WP:ATA ought to cover most of the issues.

In the specific case of Chicago Theatre, yes, the discussion could have continued, but I support LaraLove's decision to archive. If I had done it, I would have archived with a comment like "Several concerns were raised about the article but the consensus was that these concerns were not sufficient to merit delisting", but this is not a criticism of Lara's approach: the point is that she took responsibility and made a decision, and I fully support that. Geometry guy 13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote - the article was not proposed for DELISTING. It was proposed for promotion, and I believe a decision to promote has to be made more carefully. I still believe we cannot accept articles with major structural and content flaws, however strong the pressure from the authors might be. PrinceGloria 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This concept sounds more like it should belong in an essay somewhere else, rather than in actual GA/R guidelines, that would really pile on the complications towards discussion :/. Homestarmy 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Actually, in the case of Chicago Theatre, it was nominated for relisting because it was improperly delisted. Considering that you, PrinceGloria, did that delisting, I can understand why you would be displeased with the outcome of the discussion, but the archiving instructions clearly state that if it's been three days and there are at least six votes with an 80% or greater consensus, that the discussion can be processed. It had been three days, there were 8 votes, and it was 100% consensus. As far as my wording for the results in the archive, I agree with G-man (I hope you don't mind if I call you that, let me know if you do), and I have amended the results to reflect his thoughts.

Going back to my proposal. I'm not conveying my thoughts as well as I'd like. I would like there to be an either or situation between certain terms, not stances. Meaning either "Endorse" or "Support". I suppose it doesn't matter. Looking at it from a open POV, this is totally ridiculous. I just bugs the hell out of me that three or four people will hold the same stance in a discussion, but every emboldened term will be different. Sounds like a personal problem to me. That's what I'd probably say to someone else if I were not the one making the proposal! Nevermind. I'm too much of a perfectionist about certain things, I think. Time for work. LaraLove^T/_C 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with Lara's point of view. In deletion processes, preferred wording has essentially been set by precedent, whereas here a variety of different terms are used for the same opinion. GA/R basically deals with three issues: a contested failed nomination, a contested delist, and a request to delist a current good article. In all cases I strongly support a variety of comments and views, but when the view is to list or delist, it may be helpful to encourage a common mode of expression such as Endorse fail/List as GA in the first case, Endorse delist/Relist in the second, and Delist/Keep in the third. If this is to be done, however, I don't think it should be done using guidelines, but essays/examples.

I rather like Homestarmy's idea to write an essay on this. Malkinann is writing an essay to help regular article editors with this process, so why not an essay for reviewers? This could of course, be written as a compromise, but since Lara and I have some different views (although I think we agree on many points), it might be fun to write an "Opinion A/Opinion B" type of essay (I know this idea from Easyjet magazine, but I'm sure it is widespread) - in a very friendly spirit of course - so reviewers can decide! Well, it is just a thought. Geometry guy 20:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC) PS. No problem with G-man, though my preferred contraction is G-guy.

Lara - the article was properly delisted. It has rather major failures and other than a few invectives directed at myself and assertions that the article is "good" I haven't seen any sensible counterarguments, some people went as far as to say that my reservations are well-founded, but they still voted for promoting the article (hmm...)

Secondly, this example goes to show that a closing procedure based on percentage of votes and such is flawed. This review was closed because emotion took precedence over content. WikiProject Chicago is pretty active and has many members, they can easily "win" any GA/R that way. And this is why I believe the number of "votes" should be disregarded, as well as the bolded word. If there is a valid argument, this is what should be taken into account. If there are no valid counterarguments to a valid argument, this is what should have the decisive impact, not the number of "votes" and whether somebody wrote "delist", "keep" or anything else. PrinceGloria 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. I never read essays, I really don't have time for that. And I guess I am not the only one. This is just a pendant to what the G-guy ;) said above. I think the original instructions by the same author were very clear and concise, and fit to be put on the main page.

Perhaps what really happened is you, PrinceGloria, overstepped your bounds. You failed to respond to people's criticism of your "delisting" in a coherent way, and you got your handed to you. Speciate 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This kind of comment is unhelpful, Speciate. What is done is done. Members of WikiProject:Chicago were entitled to comment at this GA/R and their views were heard. PrinceGloria was equally entitled to articulate his point of view. And reviewers such as Jayron32 and LaraLove expressed their opinions too. The review was closed on the basis of all this information. But everything in wikipedia is subject to re-examination and consensus can change. Geometry guy 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that sometimes the only way we learn is to be told in a less-than-kind way. PrinceGloria still claims the delisting was "proper", and I felt that some additional edumacating was required. I view this object lesson as helpful. Speciate 22:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(cutting back indent) I actually think I have responded in a very coherent way, enumerating the article's flaws, and also highlighting the ones that I found inacceptable in a GA article. There was little if any substantial response to that, the discussion (if we can call it that way) was rather unsubstantial and focus on either personal stuff or irrelevant issues. PrinceGloria 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the person bringing the review to the table was very nice about Gloria's totally non-vandalizing reasons for immedietly delisting the article, but I doubt I would of come to a different conclusion that Lara did. I would of counted PrinceGloria as part of the discussion though, but that still would of been nearly unanimous anyway. Technically, anyone could of let the review sit longer to see if anything else might of happened, archiving something according to the new rule is optional, if you read how its worded right :D. Homestarmy 23:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I considered archiving based on the proposed rules, but I thought it better to wait until they'd been approved. I did not include PrinceGloria's part of the discussion towards consensus because there was no official recommendation made by him/her. If this is incorrect, please amend the archive results. Regardless, I still feel that the delisting was improper. The article does not have a myriad of issues that would be time-consuming to correct. Delisting should only be done to articles that cannot be quickly brought back up to standards. While some of us agreed with issues you, PrinceGloria, brought up, none of us agreed that those issues warranted delisting.

As far as emotion, my personal opinion would be that the quality of this article would not even warrant it being brought to GA/R. Issues should have simply been brought up on the talk-page. Although those are my feelings on the issue, emotion had nothing to do with the archiving and relisting of the article. I did those based soley on the fact that it was warranted by current GA/R procedural policy, or whatever you want to call it. Considering the backlog, we need to resolve and process discussions as quickly as we can with our current manpower. LaraLove^T/_C 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewer guidelines

I made a first shot at reviewer guidelines now: see, as usual, Wikipedia:Good article review/guidelines.

• I've change the current sentences to emphasise that all suggestions for improvements are welcome, even if they are not covered by WP:WIAGA. I think this reflects a common issue expressed by reviewers.
• I've added links to deletion debate guidelines: I didn't think it was right to link only to WP:ATA, so I linked to a couple of other relevant places.
• I added a comment about "speedy"'s: this is easier to handle with a lighter touch now that the archiving guidelines are on the same page.
• I've added a sentence corresponding to the "please don't say articles are bad" concern, but have tried to word it in a more constructive manner (no more "schoolroom" nonsense!).
• I've ended with a sentence about fixing problems with articles, but without being at all prescriptive.

I think I've done it in such a way that each of these five suggestions can be discussed and modified separately. Please do challenge or reword each of them. Any which are unlikely to receive consensus support are best fixed now, or they will simply be challenged later. Geometry guy 20:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but by trying to please everybody you have made it too long and vague. The original version was near perfect, while I actually object to this version. PrinceGloria 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Was that a comment or a vote PrinceGloria? Just kidding ;) Thanks for all your comments, and see below... Geometry guy 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit too long, G-guy. I like the information regarding "speedy" recommendations, but I think it needs to be reworded. Something I can help with tomorrow night. I also like the fact that a statement is included informing that we are not required to make any corrections ourselves, although, again, I think it needs rewording. Past that, regarding the archiving instructions, I think they should be linked rather than included on the main page. This has been previously mentioned, I believe. All together, it is way too much for the main page.

Reading over the delisting instructions, I think they can be trimmed and clarified. Instruction 4, for example, isn't even really an instruction. Such information should be noted before the instructions. I'm too tired to really consider options right now, but I think this can be cleaned up. While we're making changes, we might as well clean up everything. I have a *l o n g* workday tomorrow, but I'll try to work on it when I get off. LaraLove^T/_C 07:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Puh-leeeeeze, do we really need to play nanny to all potential participants and make sure they do not hurt others' feelings? I mean, the speedy instuctions. There are also many other instances where we could expand on how GA/R is similar to, but not identical to sumfink or nuffink. I think the speedy thing was incidental and the only proper way to deal with it is just to keep that in mind, and when people start using it en masse, have a boilerplate text explaining why they shouldn't to paste in their talk pages. PrinceGloria 10:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people, when they first come to GA/R as a result of a message on the talk page, don't know a lot, if anything about GA/R. Therefore, they are newbies to GA/R, and shouldn't be bitten. Btw, boilerplate texts are generally felt to increase the bureaucracy of GA/R too much. -Malkinann 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that by cutting instructions to the minimum and allowing people just to express their mind we minimize the bureaucracy and allow for easy entry for the newcomers. Newcomers here are likely to be unfamiliar with AfD either, so there's no point confusing them further with references to the latter process. I really don't know what you have against biolerplate texts - good boilerplate texts can be very informative and help explain more specific issues without taking up too much of anybody's time... PrinceGloria 16:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think I have something against boilerplate texts? I'm just telling you what's been said before on the matter. -Malkinann 01:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all the comments and offers to improve my poor attempt! Ironically, given how some of this started from my perspective, I am coming to agree with PrinceGloria that there isn't much point in mentioning "speedy delist" any more: if the proposed archiving guidelines are agreed, and there seems to be some support for this, then referring to them already makes the situation pretty clear. I'm quite happy for the proposed reviewing guidelines to be shortened accordingly. I also agree in principle with the idea that the archiving guidelines should not appear on the main page. However, this does represent at least a shift of emphasis in our modus operandi, so I would suggest that, once we are happy with them, we keep the archiving guidelines on the main page for a couple of weeks to see how they bed down, then review the situation. Geometry guy 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a short summary with a link to the full text? LaraLove^T/_C 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe - it might be challenging to write though! The full archiving text probably needs to be on a separate page anyway (so it can be used on the Archive page), so I'll replace it by a transclusion for now. Geometry guy 15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another idea is to use collapsible tables. I've demonstrated this on the /guidelines page. Geometry guy 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that a lot, but I fear that new users may not notice to "show" it. I like it, though. I think it's definitely worth trying. LaraLove^T/_C 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a couple of "Click to show/hide" sentences to make this more obvious — although personally I can't imagine anyone not wanting to play immediately with the show/hide feature :) Geometry guy 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now attempted to shorten the reviewer guidelines, although I hope that putting these guidelines in a collapsible table has addressed some of the concerns raised above about brevity. As suggested above, I have removed reference to the "speedy" stuff. Also, partly in response to an earlier comment by LaraLove, I have reorganised the delist procedure into more coherent steps. Let me know what you think to the new version. Geometry guy 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has commented further on this, or made any additional edits to the guidelines. I'm sure my efforts are far from perfect, but perhaps it is now time to roll them out (tomorrow, Saturday?). I don't know whether it is better to replace the contents of /instructions by the new contents at /guidelines, or to replace the transclusion of /instructions on GA/R by a transclusion of /guidelines. These alternatives have the same effect, but leave a different edit history. Geometry guy 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now done this, using the second method, although I've left comments so that the edit history is clear. Geometry guy 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)