Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Planet of the Dead/1

Planet of the Dead[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: GAN review reopened (on a new review page) Geometry guy 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was failed for not meeting the stability criterion. I contacted the reviewer in disagreement, and he said that he did see my point and wouldn't be offended if I sought a reassessment, but that nevertheless, he felt it was not stable. I disagree with this assertion as I feel the overall content of the article has been relatively stable for the past month and a half. What should be noted that Doctor Who articles are more popular, and thus more prone to unhelpful original research and unsourced content than most fictional series, and the corresponding WikiProject's members are equally more swift in reverting these. It's been a small, but manageable thorn in the WP's side, and we try to educate newbies as best we can. I feel that an article's relative popularity to readers and new editors should not result in GA failure, and I thusly seek a reassessment. Thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the history does not suggest instability, nor is the topic expected to be unstable (has a US air date even been set?) Removing OR and unsourced contributions from IP or newer editors is necessary in general and not an indication that there's content instability. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 26. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original reviewer and I thought I would explain my reasoning for failing the article for stability. This is was I wrote at the original review:

To clarify my reasoning for the failure, I believe that while repeated reversion due to vandalism should not disqualify an article from GA status, reversions caused by disagreements over whether good faith content conforms with our content policies is another matter. These matters should be discussed on the talk page to encourage consensus building over the article's content. In sum: When it is clear there is ongoing disagreement over good faith article content, I believe the article cannot be listed as a GA until the disagreement is resolved through means other than multiple reversions. Thank you.

Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've looked into the article history over the last two months. I see no instability here, only the removal of unsourced speculation and original research, something which should be encouraged. It is not necessary to open a new discussion every time an editor adds unverifiable material (or indeed any material—see WP:BRD): reversion with a clear edit summary is a first step. With inexperienced editors, it is perfectly reasonable to take the discussion to user talk rather than article talk. More experienced editors will likely comment on article talk anyway if they believe the reversion needs to be discussed (again per WP:BRD). Vicenarian might have a point about consensus building if the issue of "continuity" material were new to the article. However, it had already been discussed extensively in April when there was a continuity section, but it became a magnet for the addition of unsourced speculation. See e.g., this thread.

GAR generally doesn't provide reviews in the absense of a full review of a nomination. Vicenarian could be asked to consider reopening the review, and I would encourage that, but if he is unwilling to do so (as he is entitled), the simplest resolution is to renominate the article. In my view it would be reasonable to reinsert the article into the list of nominations, but that view may not be universally held. Geometry guy 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment would probably be faster; it took five weeks for this to be reviewed. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Community GAR can't provide reviews to list from nothing: such a review would require at least one contributor to the GAR to look at the article in depth, checking sources and evaluating the article against the criteria, raising improvements that need to made, checking they have been made, and then signing off that he/she believes the article meets the criteria. That is exactly the service provided by GAN and the GA process doesn't have the resources to duplicate it at GAR. Geometry guy 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took a look at the article's history, and I must say I agree here with Sceptre (talk · contribs) and Masem (talk · contribs). Stability is not an issue with this article, especially when the only instances seen in the history are of blatantly inappropriate additions of WP:OR, unsourced content, etc. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be very much willing to do a more detailed review. This has been excellent feedback for me as to how the "stability" criterion should be applied in the future, and as to what the consensus is with regards to its application in this case. I will go ahead and do the review here in the GAR, if there aren't any objections. It might be a day or so, as I have some pressing business IRL, and I want to do a thorough review. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vicenarian, this is the best possible outcome for all concerned. I think it would be better if you conducted your detailed review on a review subpage (either the original one or the next one). I suggest you take you time with a detailed review. Start when you are ready, and place the article on hold if necessary. Meanwhile, if you agree, I will close this reassessment. Thanks again. Geometry guy 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, a new review subpage will be fine. Go ahead and close this out. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'd like to pause for confirmation from Sceptre that this is okay before closing. Geometry guy 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]