Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Overview

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Good article reassessment resolves the following issues:

Listed Good articles that may no longer meet the GA criteria
Delisted Good articles that may meet the GA criteria
Questionable passes of Good article candidates
Questionable fails of Good article candidates

Articles are nominated, typically with a detailed list of issues, for other editors to review. The articles is compared to the criteria, much in the same way articles nominated at WP:GAN are. Each reviewer makes a recommendation with supporting argument to weigh toward consensus. Once consensus is reached, an archiving editor processes the nomination.

Listed Good articles edit

In these cases, an editor finds an article that is listed as a Good article but does not appear to meet the criteria. They may not be certain, however, so they list the article at Good article reassessment. Editors review the article and typically recommend "Keep" or "Delist".

Delisted Good articles edit

When an editor finds an article that they believe clearly fails to meet the criteria, it is recommended that they be bold and delist it. In some cases, the custodians of the delisted article feel that the article either meets the criteria or that they can quickly improve it, so they nominate it at Good article reassessment. Editors review the article and typically recommend "Endorse delist", "List as GA" or "Improve and renominate". The latter being for articles that can be improved, but not quickly.

Questionable passes edit

Not all articles nominated at WP:GAN receive an adequate review. In some cases, an article is passed despite failing to meet the criteria. When these are listed at Good article reassessment, editors review the article and typically recommend "Endorse pass" or "Delist".

Questionable fails edit

Again, not all articles nominated at WP:GAN receive an adequate review. In some cases, an article is failed despite meeing the criteria. It is not uncommon for some editors to interpret the criteria more strictly than others. Some even compare the article to the Featured article criteria. In other cases, an article fails for reasons that could easily have been addressed if the article had been put on hold rather than failing. In both cases, article custodians will disagree with the result and nominate the article at Good article reassessment. Editors review the article and typically recommend "Endorse fail", "List as GA" or "Place on hold".

An article may also fail after an on hold period despite the fact that issues were being addressed. Although articles are typically on hold for no more than seven days, there can be exceptions. For this reason, article custodians may nominate articles at Good article reassessment in such cases. Editors review the article and typically recommend "Renominate" or "Return hold".