Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Manda Best/1

Manda Best

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

{ Result: Closed with recommendation to renominate at WP:GAN The nominator believes that the GAN review was inadequate. Consensus appears to be that the best solution is to renominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am nominating this article for GAR, because I feel the reviewer was wrong in his decision to quickfail the initial GAN. The reviewer cited the article's lack of references in the lead and plot section as reasons for the quickfail, but per WP:MOSLEAD and WP:TVPLOT, this is not necessary. The reviewer has decided to stand by his decision. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the original nominator for the article for GA, I do feel it was an unfair review, so will be standing behind Eagles24 decision. If this article is worthy of being a GA that is a different matter Mayhem Mario 08:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the guidelines above - specifically: "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it." Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this page then? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, it is used for checking whether existing GAs meet the standards. The note at the top of GAR says: "Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. GAR can also promote articles to GA status, but this has been infrequent occurring occasionally following delisting from GA status or after failing a good article nomination. GAR can sometimes provide more feedback for delisted articles or failed GA nominations. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not."

Generally, it is better to renominate a failed nomination, with a note on the article talk page as to why you have done so. After all, you presumably wish to have a full GA review and GAN is generally faster at doing that. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not list. The article looks like it was written by a teenager or fan, possibly both. That isn't to say the article has no value to WP, it certainly does. But the GAN reviewer was correct in his fail and the reason for the fail, the reason seems to have been muddied with further discussion however that is irrelevant. As already noted it would better to withdraw this GAR, rewrite and renominate. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmit at GAN. Geometry guy may disagree with me, but I don't think there's anything much that GAR can do about a poor review that comes to perhaps the right conclusion even if for the wrong reasons. Having said that though, the nominators do deserve better feedback from the nomination process than they received to help them get the article to meet the GA criteria, so if it's resubmitted then I will undertake to review it and provide that feedback. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that renomination is the best way forward, as Malleus says. If no further comments are forthcoming, I am inclined to close with a recommendation to renominate within the next few days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.