Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment

Reviews

@Hurricanehink: Wanted to make you aware of this. Planning to start this thing up in February sometime. Noah, AA^Talk 15:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Good call. It might be faster delisting practically everything at this point, considering the amount of link rot, but we'll see how much of the project still holds up. I'll help with the reassessment, now that my life is in a much more normal place (finally have a computer desk again!) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Tables are set up and ready to go on the project page. Everything is ready for the start! Noah, AA^Talk 14:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink and Hurricane Noah: just checking that you are aware that WikiProject Weather cannot unilaterally decide on whether an article remains a GA? Delisting an article has to come through the main good article reassessment process, same as how all GA promotions have to go through WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: We are using this to organize GARs and keep track of the progress to ensure that individual nominators are not overwhelmed by having several of their articles at GAR. This is very similar to the 2020 FARs process. The only time articles will be delisted without a GAR would be if there is consensus to either merge or delete which would automatically negate the GA status. @Hurricanehink: Please make sure that when you determine a GAR is needed that you are opening an actual GAR rather than leaving a section on the TP. The scripts I sent you should help with opening and closing GARs. Noah, AA^Talk 23:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that Hurricane Noah; I was concerned by Talk:1949 Texas hurricane (which seems to be under the wrong line in the table), but I assume that was in error. I wish you all the best with this reassessment programme. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

My plan wasn't to initiate a proper GA reassessment until one week after I wrote my initial review, but thanks for the reminder. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess you can just give it 2 weeks from the date listed on your signature timestamp. I went ahead and opened both of them given the comments from AirshipJungleman29 here. Noah, AA^Talk 23:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend giving an initial brief notice of issues with a few examples rather than doing a full review on the talkpage right away. That's how it was working for the 2020 FARs. If the creator or someone else engages at the notice, it can proceed from there without a GAR. If not, go ahead and do a full review. Noah, AA^Talk 23:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I did update the process part to be less ambiguous (trying to work all the kinks out of this before we get too far into it). The minimum time from notice to delist is 2 weeks, although that time should be extended if progress is currently being made or an editor has expressed interest to save the article. I also procedurally delisted Jerry '01 using one of the scripts which honestly made it a lot easier to do since it performs all required edits on my behalf. Noah, AA^Talk 00:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Tranches 4-5 were reviewed for notability reasons. The rest have to be gone through some time. Noah, AA^Talk 14:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts

"Only two articles from the same nominee may be up at any given time" - does this apply to informal reassessment or formal GAR? I suppose it should be the former, since I'd imagine it'd be a bit of a shock to suddenly be informed there's issues with several articles you've written, especially for editors who haven't been around for a while. Such notices create some level of pressure on the original nominator to come back and fix those articles, even if it's not a strict deadline.

I was also thinking a one-week grace period may be a bit short, and there's not much opportunity/advertising for other editors besides the nominator to intervene. A sizeable amount of the articles listed were nominated by people who are pretty busy these days (and have inactivity gaps of weeks to months). Under the probably safe assumption that they aren't able to resume previous levels of productivity, I don't see the rate of content improvement keeping up with the proposed maximum rate of reviews.

TBF, I'm not sure myself how to magically summon content writers capable of quality work, and I'm well aware of the need to update old GAs to current (higher) standards. Perhaps there isn't any good solution and we'll see a whole bunch of articles drop to B/C-class and languish there. Now I'm just thinking this is probably a broader issue with WPWX no longer really having enough editors interested in GA and FA processes. Maybe something to do with shorter attention spans?

Btw if any of the articles I've brought to GA status have issues, I can safely say I won't be able to work on them until mid-March at the earliest (and if that doesn't work, it'll be July). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 00:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@KN2731: No... it would be the latter. A reviewer may notice an unlimited number of articles but can only take 2 to GAR at once for a specific nominee. This is how it works with FAR except there is a review cap not dependant on nominees. The standard for GARs is much less than the standard for FARs btw. They simply move much faster than a FAR does. The standard between notice and FAR is only two weeks. The requirement to stop a GAR from occurring is simply leave a message at the notice stating you intend to fix the issues within a given timeframe. If work doesn't commence by one week after the given timeframe/last update, then a GAR would occur anyways. If the nominee is working on one article, I would hold any other GARs and not initiate new ones. The delist/keep ratio at FAR is over 2:1 so I'd imagine a similar result would occur here tbh. Noah, AA^Talk 01:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)