Talk:Return of the Jedi/GA2

The following is an archived discussion of a Good Article reassessment. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:GAR. No further edits should be made to this page.

(non-admin closure) No attempt was made to get the article back to GA quality in the substantial time this page was open, despite multiple Wikiprojects having been notified, and there were barely any responses at all. Unfortunately, there's really no option but to delist. Hopefully one day, it will get back to GA standards. Closing as nom. DarkKnight2149 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

---

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I actually have been meaning to nominate this since 2016. Quite frankly, this article doesn't come close to meeting GA quality anymore. Between the high traffic editing and the addition of excessive amounts of disruptive editing, poor grammar, uncited material, original research, ETC, all of which has earned the article pending changes protection (I would argue that it was worthy of indefinite semi-protection). One section has been templated since 2017, others are lacking in citations, and I am scratching my head as to why someone didn't nominate this for reassessment a lot sooner. DarkKnight2149 18:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The main reason it's pending protected is because a roaming IP from Costa Rica keeps performing the same edits they have for 3 years. Perhaps it's time for a rangeblock on them. Canterbury Tail talk 23:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait, that's what finally did the article in? That's even more surprising, given the history, persistent disruption, WP:OR, and the other stuff I mentioned above. Then again, it probably shouldn't be; it took me this long just to nominate it for reassessment. Over the years, the page has proven unstable, and has had problems in terms of unsourced material, poor writing, inexplicable additions and massive unexplained rewrites from IP editors, ETC. It definitely doesn't meet GA criteria anymore, which is unfortunate. DarkKnight2149 07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: About a week has passed and the article is still having the usual problems with IP editors, no one has tried to get the article back to GA standard (which it hasn't been for a really long time), and so far the only response has been someone pointing out that there is also a persistent WP:SOCK issue that might require a rangeblock. At this point, is there any reason it shouldn't be demoted? DarkKnight2149 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oddly enough, this page also isn't showing up at WP:GAR, which may explain the lack of responses here. I'm thinking about just doing a full, formal re-review using the GA criteria. DarkKnight2149 05:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Darkknight2149, while community reassessments show up at GAR, since the community is expected to comment, individual reassessments like this one do not. It is hoped that the notifications made to the involved WikiProjects and significant contributors to the article (including the original GA nominator) at the time the reassessment was opened will get some response, but sometimes it doesn't. A formal re-review will give potential editors things to work on, but you may want to do it in stages so that you don't spend a large amount of time on a full review should no one show up to address the issues you initially raise. Or you could just close this as unsuccessful; the issues you mention are sufficient to show it is not currently at GA quality per the criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: First, I'll send a notification to the Wikiprojects WP:STARWARS and WP:FILM, and then wait another week, just to give everyone some extra time. I'm trying to avoid closing the page as "Demoted" prematurely. DarkKnight2149 19:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's always the goal of GAR to reassess so that the article has the chance of being restored to Good Article quality, meeting all the criteria; having to delist is sometimes necessary and always unfortunate. Thanks for waiting another week to see if work can progress on the article, Darkknight2149, and it sounds like you'd be willing to work with any editors over a longer period so long as they're making good progress on the issues, which is great. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I notified the Wikiprojects and waited an additional month. No responses or attempts to revise the page :( DarkKnight2149 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.