User:EyeSerene/Sandbox/essay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Article reassessment and delisting
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. The most common problems with older articles are referencing, lead and prose issues: articles that passed GA prior to 2006 are sometimes under-cited; and articles that have been on Wikipedia some time and have been expanded since their initial review can be uneven in quality, with leads that may no longer adequately summarise the extended content. Non-free image issues, depreciated sections (like Trivia lists), and dead weblinks also regularly crop up.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold: the editors did not request or expect your reassessment, may have other projects taking up their time, and may not have worked on the article for months or years. At worst, the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about article delisting. Communicate the final decision on the article talk page (even where there was no response to the reassessment and hold), and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unecessary, we will ensure delisting is the last resort, not the first.
