Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Churchill Machine Tool Company/1

Churchill Machine Tool Company

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

Result: Kept No action needed, as there is no dispute about maintaining the GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I carried out the original WP:GAN review and awarded the article GA-status. I also suggested WP:PR as I believe that the article may have the potential to go forward, at a future date, to WP:FAC. My review can be found at Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company/GA1.

A certain editor is challenging the article and I believe that that editor is engaged in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. He regraded the article to C-class without going through WP:GAR (see [1] and Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company#Demoting to C - class); is attempting to have the article renamed (see Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company#Requested move; and has also made a Notability Noticeboard referral (see Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Churchill Machine Tool Company).

His statement at the Notability Noticeboard states: "I edited a lot of the unimportant information from the page, but the page's editors have expressed feelings of ownership over the work. There is a lot of ego connected to the page because it was rated GA class by means of a speedy, uninterested group of reviewers. The history and talk page discussions show that emotions ran high when previous edits were made to remove unimportant details.--Screwball23 talk 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)" and my reply reads: "That statement is certainly untrue. I carried out the WP:GAN assessment it was my 365th assessment (see User:Pyrotec/GA reviews) and it took me the best part of two days to carryout. The editor making this comments has never ever completed a WP:GAN review, he started work on one (see here Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2) and was Proded by an Admin (Wizardman), the reply was was "Sorry, I read your message, and I think the #1 issue about the article is its style. It is not engaging or fun to read. I didn't gain any new insights or interesting details. The minute details about it's omissions are irrelevant; it is just a really boring article, and I can't put myself into the mood to edit it anymore. And truth be told, this lack of interest is what is killing its GAN, and will continue to do so. --Screwball23 talk 03:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (it can be found at User talk:Wizardman/Archive32#Codex Vaticanus and was copied by the Admin to Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2)".[reply]

I am referring this article to WP:GAR for Community Reassessment. I beleive that my assessment of the article as GA-clas was fundamentally correct. Pyrotec (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this review is closed as no change required to current status. The user whose comments spurred this review in the first place does not wish to seem to discuss them further. A peer review of the article has been conducted which is complementary about the depth and scope of the article, in these circumstances I see no point in prolonging this review. NtheP (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for the review to be closed and that would provide the article with some "stability"; but as I opened it, it would not be appropriate for me to close it. Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]