Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/County Route 149 (Sullivan County, New York)/1

County Route 149 (Sullivan County, New York) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No action. Renomination at GAN recommended. If further disagreements arise please bring them to community GAR. Geometry guy 09:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article about a few hours after I originally wrote this. Its about County Route 149 in Sullivan County, New York - a former state highway too old to receive a state title. I nominated it, along with 2 other articles. User:Rschen7754 failed it claiming three things:

Questionable notability - not a valid reason to fail - I've already proved its notability
Way too much detail - that's an opinion, not a true fact, because all my GAs usually look like that.He also cited that how he writes it, in a form that would seem very opinionated.
No links in the Route description - I fixed this one, but its still not a really good reason to fail. Holding it, I understand.

Now - Other than these, the review was improperly done, as he never filled out an actual page for it, see above my post for that, and also, kept me quiet on it failing. As a bonus, recently at the U.S. Roads' Project Wikitalk, he took about 55-60 GAs that we as a project had accomplished and threatened to GAR them over stupid little things. I don't believe that failing over links, lead issues, notability, and too much detail. None of which are quickfail criteria, None of which are even a reason to fail an article in the first place.

I want to get County Route 149 a valid review, because it was just another victim in his rambling on about it. It feels very bad when he's already criticized about 25 of your already passed GAs and then goes and fails a nominee for the same reasons. I want the community to look this review over, along with the actions going on on Project space that may end up involving this page.

Thanks. Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a beef about my GA audit, this isn't the forum. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is precisely the forum. However, as the article has not received an in-depth review, reinsertion of the nomination at GAN is likely outcome, and it may be easier to cut to the chase if parties agree. Geometry guy 20:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"along with the actions going on on Project space that may end up involving this page." - I think Mitch is trying to do something greater than the reassessment of one GA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy: I figured it would be, but there is a major problem. This page is going to have a flood of Good Articles wanting review just because of an opinion. I don't think delisting 35-50 articles is really necessary over stupid little things, that is my beef with the GA audit. It is really really unncessary to give people a week and threaten them that its coming here when you, Rschen, blatantly have no support. Especially from me. Scream as much as you want at me, my opinion won't change, and I'll make sure those articles aren't coming to this page.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 21:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say one thing, and let me say it now, in bold and in strong language: the GA process does not, a priori, give a fuck about arguments WikiProjects are having about what makes a GA within their project; the only thing that should matter to GA reviewers is whether the article meets the GA criteria.

These criteria are universal, and apply across Wikipedia. They are not subject to the whims of individual WikiProjects, and are not negotiable. The meaning of the criteria can be informed and elaborated by advice from WikiProjects, but no additional criteria can be imposed. If this is unacceptable to any WikiProject, then that WikiProject is free to disengage from the GA process and not use GA-Class (or invent its own use if it feels bold).

Conversely, if a WikiProject would like to audit its articles and send some for reassessment, it is welcome to do so. Such reassessment will be against the GA criteria, not the reasoning of the WikiProject. Geometry guy 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my viewpoint will not be given a fair hearing in this forum; therefore I will reluctantly agree to this nomination being relisted, with the caveat that this article will most likely not remain a GA for long due to it not meeting the standards or it being deleted or merged within the week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fight that too, and prove you are <removed> me. What don't you understand. I have already proved its notability. If I wrote it as New York State Route 284 (1930s) - then the article would be even shorter than this. So think about it.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article be renominated at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]