| Revision as of 23:06, 12 August 2013 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,034 edits →Murray Rothbard: GAR is for improving← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:12, 12 August 2013 edit undoRL0919 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators75,590 edits agreedNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| I was hesitant to request this, but the page has been tagged for over two months now with multiple content concerns. Talk page discussions about these do not appear to be progressing to any near-term resolution. As a result there are significant concerns about the article meeting ] #2 (verifiability), #4 (neutrality) and #5 (stability). Maybe this reassessment will be the spur to get these issues taken care of, but if not, it should not continue to be portrayed as a "good article" if it doesn't meet the criteria. --] (]) 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | I was hesitant to request this, but the page has been tagged for over two months now with multiple content concerns. Talk page discussions about these do not appear to be progressing to any near-term resolution. As a result there are significant concerns about the article meeting ] #2 (verifiability), #4 (neutrality) and #5 (stability). Maybe this reassessment will be the spur to get these issues taken care of, but if not, it should not continue to be portrayed as a "good article" if it doesn't meet the criteria. --] (]) 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Note that the ] guideline directs us to try and bring a GA quality level back to the article. The point is not to remove GA status (though this must be done if it does not improve) but to improve it sufficiently. ] (]) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | ::Note that the ] guideline directs us to try and bring a GA quality level back to the article. The point is not to remove GA status (though this must be done if it does not improve) but to improve it sufficiently. ] (]) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Yes, this is my hope as well. I also wanted to let the disputes resolve themselves first, but they seem locked in. Maybe more eyes on the article will shake them loose. --] (]) 23:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:12, 12 August 2013
Murray Rothbard
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
I was hesitant to request this, but the page has been tagged for over two months now with multiple content concerns. Talk page discussions about these do not appear to be progressing to any near-term resolution. As a result there are significant concerns about the article meeting GA criteria #2 (verifiability), #4 (neutrality) and #5 (stability). Maybe this reassessment will be the spur to get these issues taken care of, but if not, it should not continue to be portrayed as a "good article" if it doesn't meet the criteria. --RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the WP:GAR guideline directs us to try and bring a GA quality level back to the article. The point is not to remove GA status (though this must be done if it does not improve) but to improve it sufficiently. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is my hope as well. I also wanted to let the disputes resolve themselves first, but they seem locked in. Maybe more eyes on the article will shake them loose. --RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the WP:GAR guideline directs us to try and bring a GA quality level back to the article. The point is not to remove GA status (though this must be done if it does not improve) but to improve it sufficiently. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)