Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef/1
Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: kept. With one supporter (the nominator) and one opposer, this reassessment went nowhere, and should really be regarded as no consensus (defaulting to keep). I will note that while being a couple years outdated would perhaps be adequate to demote an FA, it is not a serious enough problem to remove a GA. This could become grounds for demotion in a couple more years if it remains unfixed, however. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I am hoping someone will update the article as I think it is no longer good because it is out of date. But I don't know the subject. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood Thanks for your comments about Sea surface temperature. I know this is a long way from your sea but have you time to also comment in this community reassessment? No Australians have commented yet so I wonder if I have messed up something technical with where I put this. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately no one has come here from the Australia and Queensland projects. If no one else comments I will very soon delist as out of date so no longer addresses the main aspects of the topic. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Chidgk1 What information is missing that is sufficiently important to justify a delist? Why would you expect Australians to be aware of this reassessment? Please try to fix before threatening to delist good articles. It is fair enough to delist if there are multiple issues that you cannot fix, but this is Wikipedia and we all should try to fix what we think is broken, particularly since you appear to have specific references which you consider should be used. If you are not confident in your subject knowledge, propose the changes you think should be made on the talk page, If no-one responds to that after a week or so, leave a message on the talk pages of the associated projects, If you still get no response, fix the problem as you see best, and explain in an edit summary, referring to the talk page proposal. If you don't know what should be changed, you probably shouldn't be delisting. Also, this is a GA, the criteria for completeness and up-to-dateness are less stringent that for FA. Ideally, you would fix what you think needs fixing, and then take the article through GAN to make sure you have done a good job. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not going to fix this article. However my comment above is wrong because this is a community reassessment so I cannot delist myself unlike an individual reassessment. I notified Wikiproject Australia some time ago. If you (or anyone else who would like to comment) would like to say whether you think it is still good or not then I would be interested to hear. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is delist because the lead is relying a lot on a 2014 report and a 2016 article, whereas a lot more recent info is available. And nowadays there should be more info added about the recent politics e.g. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/great-barrier-reef-election-battle-brews-amid-fears-of-more-coral-bleaching-20220107-p59mmj.html Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)