Talk:Spanish Civil War/GA3

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Result: Procedural close as keep without prejudice to a subsequent community GAR should one be initiated. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an extensive and important article on the Spanish Civil War, a subject which has been researched by a wide range of academics of varying nationalities. Bonafide copy editors, with the best of intentions, have attempted to extend the article in order to give it a similar length to the very well writen good article in Spanish Wiki. Unfortunately as a result of maintaining the unusually narrow range of sources, the article now appears as though it is the paraphrasing of one main source, Thomas, whose book was written in 1960. After Spain returned to democracy in 1978, when a democratic constitution was adopted, there was significant research into the history of the Spanish Civil War. I cannot see that a topic of such importance can have good article status when it relies to such an extent on one source which is out of date. I recommend that this article good article status be withdrawn until it can reflect a similarly broad range of sources as the Spanish wiki article. Translation from Spanish to English could also be considered. Isthisuseful (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) spanishcivilwar, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. While the article presents a great deal of information, it would benefit & be further strengthened by more (& especially recent) sources, as well as perhaps more clearly connecting its impact to the present. JudyCS (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So do I 84.52.101.196 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

After Spain returned to democracy in 1978, when a democratic constitution was adopted, there was significant research into the history of the Spanish Civil War. - Republic was democracy, it was attacked and declared monarchy, no RETURN TO DEMOCRACY has been. Desde1931 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the good article status for the reasons detailed above. This article depends almost exclusively on two sources for this important historical event. It does not meet the standard required because of the dependence on the two single sources. I had hoped that the article would be improved but this has nt happened. Isthisuseful (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Gday. I have some concerns about whether an individual reassessment really is appropriate here (as compared to a community reassessment) and have posted a cmt at process help needed. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI I also posted a request for advice here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Open_Good_Article_Reassessments. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Since User:Isthisuseful hasn't been active since 2 Jan 15 and there has been no resolution of the issues highlighted after requests to both the GAR project and the MILHIST co-ordinators for comment I'm going to close as a procedural keep. As I indicated in one of the threads listed above my concern is that the initiator of this GAR has probably erred in the process followed here. Specifically an individual reassessment doesn't seem to be uncontroversial in this instance as the article went through two community reassessments in 2013, both of which involved User:Isthisuseful (who appears to have initiated the 2nd GAR), and both of which resulted in "keeps". Given this, if the article needs reassessment, then it would be more appropriate that a community reassessment occur, not an individual one by User:Isthisuseful. Attempts have been made by myself and User:Maralia to address these issues with User:Isthisuseful per the discussions listed above, and to get some determination of a way forward from the GAR project, both without success. Whilst I cannot see any policy that would specifically allow another user to close someone else's GAR (essentially changing the result from delist to keep in the process) as User:Isthisuseful does not appear to be currently available, and as they did not correctly close the GAR before becoming inactive, this review has now been open for nearly one year (open since 1 Feb 14). As such I'm going to be BOLD and IGNORE ALL RULES and close it. If others feel this article is not up to standard pls open a community reassessment per the procedure at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following through on this. My concerns were largely the same: taking it upon yourself to demote the article via an individual GAR is controversial after having unsuccessfully campaigned for demotion in multiple community GARs. I believe the initiator here had good intentions, and we are all arguably empowered to take such action, but it becomes meaningless without community approval behind it: had his delist stood, I would arguably be empowered to simply reassess the article and promote it, and then where would we stand? Maralia (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What a shame neither Another Clown nor Maralia chose either make a comment either on the article talk page or on my talk page? Where an article is of doubtful quality the process is to raise and RFC. On two separate occasions totally independent editors confirmed that the article was not of good article quality. I was cautious about demoting the article so raised a second RFC before demoting the article. I did not unilaterally demote the article or demote it after no response or after an initial demotion was rejected. No one during either RFC suggested it was a good article. Whilst one can call a cat a dog, that does not make a cat a dog. A request to unilaterally promote the article to Good Article has previously been rejected and instead of following the advice given which was to propose the article for Good Article the article is promoted to Good Articel unilaterally.Isthisuseful (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Gday - To be honest I'm struggling to understand some of your comments, possibly due to issues with your English. At any rate you weren't active on English Wikipedia for a period of 2 months (Jan and Feb 15) so I'm not really sure what you felt we can have done to contact you. The issues with your review were discussed here and at the GA Project talk page linked above and there was no response. There was also a post on the MILHIST talk page. My reasons for closing are explained above and there is nothing more I feel needs to be added to those. If you feel this article is not of the required standard I would encourage you to open a community reassessment using the correct procedure. Anotherclown (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)