Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Saint Croix Macaw/1

Purpose of GAR

• Questions: I am not exactly certain of the purpose of this GAR. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• 1. Does this GAR discuss how appropriate GA1 was? — If, yes, then I think discussing GA1 should not be confused with article reassessment, because the article has been expanded since GA1. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• 2. Does this GAR review the article again? — If, yes, then I would agree that a community review of the now expanded article might be useful. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The goal of GAR (ideally) is to reach consensus as to whether an article meets the GA criteria or not, and list or not list it accordingly. GAR is not a dispute resolution process, nor does it address conduct. Its purpose is *not* to discuss whether a previous review was appropriate or not, hence it does not admonish nor support reviewers. In reaching consensus on the application of the criteria to an article, it may implicitly endorse or discount some of the views taken in a previous review, but that is not the primary purpose (even if it has a secondary benefit of disseminating good practice).

The most common outcome of a GAR is that the GA status of the article is unchanged. Next most common is the delisting of a currently listed article, and least common is the listing of a currently unlisted article. The reason for this is that an article can be delisted if there is consensus that at least one of the GA criteria has not been met, whereas listing an unlisted article requires checking all GA criteria are met. However, for short or otherwise straightforward articles, with actively involved article editors and reviewers, this last outcome is perfectly feasible within the nominal time scale of a community GAR (10-14 days). Geometry guy 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been confused and I am still confused. Well before making a comment in the discussion, I had read the very first part of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, which says; "Good article reassessment is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed". At the present time I find that the main page is credible. To me, it seems clear that one official role of GAR is to decide if "good article nominations have been inappropriately failed", and GAR policy is not changed by discussion on this talk page. To me, the the GAR nominators request does suggest perceived injustice in GA1, and so I think that it is should be discussed being part of GAR, as indicated in the first sentence of the GA main page linked above. Snowman (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines state quite explicitly "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not." and that a community reassessment is "a discussion on the good article status of the article". If you read further down, e.g., the guidelines for reviewers and for closing discussions, you will find that they do not refer to discussion of injustice, but instead the decision-making is based on the GA criteria.

Guidelines exist to reflect practice, not to determine it, and should be interpreted accordingly. The wording "inappropriately"/"improperly" may be open to misunderstanding: the context is that it is inappropriate to list an article that does not meet the criteria or to delist/fail one which does. The wording is intended to ensure that a time-consuming community process is only used where the individual processes have resulted in disagreement over listing/delisting/failing. You are therefore correct that GAR nominators are usually unhappy about something. This does not necessarily mean injustice has occurred, only that a wider input is needed to achieve consensus on the article.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If in doubt, ask what helps to improve the encyclopedia. It does not help to improve the encyclopedia to point fingers and argue whether other editors did the right thing or the wrong thing. In the 3+ years that I have been contributing to GAR discussions, the issue at hand has been whether the article meets the GA criteria or not, and it is when reviewers depart from that principle that reassessment discussions tend to become unproductive and acrimonious.

I hope that resolves your confusion. The guidelines are rather old, and are very rarely referred to these days: if you think some clarification would be helpful, suggestions at WT:GAR are always welcome. Geometry guy 18:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No wonder I am confused, because the guidelines specifically say that one official role of GAR is to decide if "good article nominations have been inappropriately failed". I have rewritten the guidelines for clarity with immediate effect. Guidelines are there to be referred too. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. One potential point of confusion is that "GAR" may refer to both individual and community reassessment and the former is closer in spirit to a GAN review. Also, as noted above, the listing of unlisted articles at community GAR is relatively rare and rare cases do not make good law, etc. Nevertheless, your edits are helpful and point the way to updating and clarifying the guidelines further, so thanks again. Geometry guy 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I may not get the guideline rephrasing first time and I might make some accidental errors, but I hope I have corrected a major problem there. Please copyedit as needs be. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I and/or others will do so accordingly. Geometry guy 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I may be being presumptive or sensitive; nevertheless, I perceive some criticism in the of GA1 in the nomination of this GAR. I am mentioned and wikilinked twice in the nomination, and I was not the reviewer who failed GA1. If GAR is not meant to make a judgement of the appropriateness GA1, would it be better if parts of this nomination that name previous reviewers are completely removed from this nomination? It seems that it would be inappropriate or off-topic for a Wiki user to discuss the previous GA1 reviewers in the GAR and GAR is not about disputes or disagreements, so why should criticism of GA1 feature in the nomination of a GAR? Snowman (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  In short, because ideals are just that: editors are human, from a diverse range of backgrounds, communicating over a medium with very limited expressive power, so we have to do the best we can. But let me answer further anyway...

  As agreed above, GAR nominations often arise because the nominator is unhappy, hence begin with a complaint of some sort. At the start of the nomination, the most recent review is often the current state of play, hence informative (and is automagically linked by the nominations process for that reason). Those disagreeing with the nominator can likewise argue that the most recent review raised valid issues with regard to the GA criteria. In such a case, discussion of the recent review coincides (at least partially) with discussion of whether the article meets the GA criteria.

  The outcome of a GAR, however, is based upon the criteria, not the reviewer's initial post, nor the edit or review history of the article. If an issue becomes moot because the article has changed, then that is a point conceded (or better, agreed, as GAR, like many Wikipedia processes, aims to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial). That does not require the refactoring of all previous comments.

  It is not standard practice on Wikipedia to refactor comments by other editors unless there is a strong reason to do so, as this generally creates more strife than it avoids. Personal attacks should certainly be removed, but there are none here, as the nomination refers to specific and relevant review comments. However, it is in the interests of all editors to ensure that their comments do not cause unnecessary offense to others, and editors can be asked to redact or modify their comments. Concerns about another editor's comments can be raised on their User talk page. Geometry guy 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)