Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rand Kannenberg/1
Rand Kannenberg[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: No action. No sense in continuing discussion here at this time. Geometry guy 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Did not follow Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. -- Ϫ 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to not be a GA, and is still listed at GAN? So no reassess needed, a (proper) GAN would be better.YobMod 09:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Was a self-assigned GA, see WT:GAN#Re: Rand Kannenberg and possible impropriety, process not followed for explanation. This could probably be closed now. -- Ϫ 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with Yobmod (talk · contribs), a proper GAN process would be best here. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- With a case like this generally I would agree with User:Yobmod & User:Cirt. A few further relevant developments have arisen since those comments were made. A quick timeline of events:
- "Promoted" as Good Article by those working on it. The wikiproject banners were just changed to GA status, no review page was made.
- An uninvolved user added a request for reassessment
- A GA reviewer did an individual reassessment (GA1)- 23:46, 7 July '09; quickfailed: multiple problems
- GA nominee tag added again by article editor 18:09, 8 July 2009 (removing {{ArticleHistory}} in next edit). So, as it stands the article has a concurrent community GAR and GA nomination.
- Clicking on the nominator's contribs shows the article is now also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Kannenberg (not to mention the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard thread brought by the nominator, and an AN/I thread about sockpuppeting). Given the above I agree this GAR should be closed. It is not practical to do an assessment while the article's deletion is being debated, so removing the article's 2nd (3rd?) GAN nomination is also appropriate. –Whitehorse1 19:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)