Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/1

Messianic Judaism

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

Result: Disagreements over content are best dealt with on the article talk page or in other fora such as WP:RFC, if necessary. If there are still quality concerns after content disagreements have been resolved, a new GAR discussion can be initiated. Geometry guy 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admin that delisted the article did so without rationale, and only on suspicion that the article needed a second review. inigmatus (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The delisting was completely against process, so I have reverted it. If other editors think this GAR needs to continue, please comment here, otherwise, I will close it. Geometry guy 20:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My error, the delisting process needs the full GAR, so the article should remain a GA as of now. However, there are inaccuracies and improper POV extrapolations that made their way in to the article, and the article should be delisted and reviewed before re-listing. -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in discussing any POV issues with the article with you Avraham on the talk page. inigmatus (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples on the article's talk page and there was the restoration of the full Harris-Shapiro quote that somehow got lost, to name a couple. -- Avi (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought more examples on the talk page. -- Avi (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Geometry guy is correct, the delisting was contrary to policy. However, I suspect that it was an honest mistake on Avi's part; let's face it, not everyone is familiar with the new GAR process. That said, the article has several major shortcomings which merit community discussion at a GA review. It needs additiona citations. The re are some problems with the quality of the prose, and there are far too many stubby sub-sections and lists. I am agreeable to either continuing that discussion here or speedy-closing this review and allowing editors to decisde whether they want to open another community review. Majoreditor (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close The delisting was the result of a content dispute so it is rather unsettling to allow it to continue under the circumstances with one side of an apparent POV dispute determining the outcome. As you say, it is completely against process and sets a very bad precedent. If someone wants to put it up for review through the proper process, then let it happen that way. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's close and have the editors discuss issues on the talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, although if the issues are not worked out, we may bring it back for delisting (properly this time). -- Avi (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]