Talk:Famine in India/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Famine in India was nominated for good article status. It failed to achieve GA status for failing criterion 5 of good article criteria (article stability). A discussion regarding the issue can be found on the good article review page of the article. I am renominating because the article history shows it is stable. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A very basic starting point for GA and then FA articles is that editors work collaboratively and attempt to build consensus for changes. As at least one editor here persistently does not do that but constantly re-introduces contested material and operates with an un-consensual spirit, I suggest that any GA approach at this stage would be fraught with difficulty. Simply put, the ball is in your court Zuggernaut - pre-discuss changes you intend to make - obtain consensus and them make them. Otherwise, we will just go round and round in circles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with James in that a GA/FA would materialise only when editors work consensually, however quality shouldn't be sacrificed at the altar of GA/FA, Z has done fantastic work on the need to incorporate the sources which he seeks to. The ball is in the community's court that they accept them. Just as Hitler gassed the Jews, Churchill starved the Bengalis, that is what Z's source says, that too at a similar time, the source is as sound as any as Z has painstakingly demonstrated.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)