Misplaced Pages

• ]

The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if good article listed articles still merit their good article status, if former good articles have been improperly delisted, or if good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. It is also allows feedback to be given for delisted articles or failed nomination when the explanation for delisting or failure was inadequate.

If you believe an article should be delisted

If you find an article listed as a good article that does not satisfy the good article criteria, then there is a procedure you can follow to delist it.

1. If you have delisted the same article before, seek another delister, or ask other editors to review it here (see below). If you have been involved with writing the article, you may wish to do the same.
2. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix them yourself.
3. Leave a message on the article talk page detailing any remaining problems. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article.
4. Allow time for other editors to respond. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted.
5. To delist, check that you are logged in (anons may not delist articles), remove the article from the list at Misplaced Pages:Good articles and decrement the good article count. Then remove the {{GA}} tag from the article talk page and replace it by {{DelistedGA|19 January 2025}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.

Remember to explain on the article talk page what the problems were and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review it here (see below). You may also delist, and renominate, which invites another editor to evaluate the article again. Please be sure to explain this fully on the article talk page.

If you believe an article should be listed

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, then it's best not, in general, to take the article straight back to the nominations page.

1. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.
2. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
3. However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfill all the requirements, or that the explanation given was inadequate and you need more feedback, then you can ask other editors to review the article and/or the decision here (see below).

How to list an article here.

To list an article here, click this link, and add {{subst:GAR|Article=ARTICLE.NAME|Reason=RATIONALE ~~~~}} to the top of the list. Replace ARTICLE.NAME with the name of the article, an insert your RATIONALE for bringing the article to GAR. More information here.

Good article review is not a deletion discussion, but many of the guidelines for contributing to such discussions (such as the essay on arguments to avoid) contain useful advice. Any wikipedian can list or delist a good article (see above), but for articles listed here, please follow the archiving guidelines below for closing discussions and changing the status of the article.

Begin by consulting the good article criteria before commenting on whether an article should have its status changed or not.

When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.) Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened. All articles should be listed for at least seven days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 2–3 days old, unless

• at least five editors have expressed an opinion
• the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus.

However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged.

Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining the consensus of the editors, and taking action where necessary. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes: for instance, the article may have changed since being listed for reassessment, and some comments may no longer be applicable. Compare the comments made in the discussion with the current state of the article and with the criteria for good articles.

• If there is a clear weight of argument that a current good article does not meet the criteria, then it should be delisted.
• If there is a clear weight of argument that a delisted good article or failed nomination does meet the criteria, then it should be listed as a good article.

If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, leave notice that you intend to close the discussion, and wait 2–3 days for further comments before closing. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions.