Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Aristotle/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Withdrawing as nominator Psychastes (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Criteria 3 - the article covers Aristotle's biology in quite a lot of detail compared to the other topics in his philosophy. Other sections, such as "Legacy" are not covered, with the strange justification being that there is too much material to include it at all. My concerns raised on the talk page have met with a significant amount of resistance, so I believe that this article should be delisted. Psychastes (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion this reassessment is improper. @Psychastes has an ongoing content dispute in Talk:Aristotle. GAR should not be used to solve a content dispute. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- the "content dispute" is solely an attempt to make improvements to the article to make it meet the Good Article criteria. i certainly could have simply nominated it for an assessment, but i was under the impression that it was appropriate to attempt to make improvements first? Psychastes (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely making improvements first is great. But fighting resistance with process is not great. In a content dispute the next step is to seek more inputs. One way is posting on Wikiprojects like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if engaging on the talk page has poisoned the well, I suppose next time I will simply perform an analysis and nominate for reassessment; that was my original intention, as I hope this early reply on the talk page makes clear. But this still seems very counter to the whole intent of the process to me. Psychastes (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- The "poisoning the well" is the sudden GAR, with no notice whatsoever. Since collaborative improvement work was already in progress, even notice of GAR would have seemed rather out of place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if engaging on the talk page has poisoned the well, I suppose next time I will simply perform an analysis and nominate for reassessment; that was my original intention, as I hope this early reply on the talk page makes clear. But this still seems very counter to the whole intent of the process to me. Psychastes (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely making improvements first is great. But fighting resistance with process is not great. In a content dispute the next step is to seek more inputs. One way is posting on Wikiprojects like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- the "content dispute" is solely an attempt to make improvements to the article to make it meet the Good Article criteria. i certainly could have simply nominated it for an assessment, but i was under the impression that it was appropriate to attempt to make improvements first? Psychastes (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
DelistKeep: Would have nominated myself months ago, but don't have the patience to argue with the steward. Also, just in passing, with respect to WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION, I would rather see the treatment of natural philosophy cut back than the treatment of other areas extended. I don't always practice what I preach, but shorter is usually better on WP. Let's let WP:SUMMARYSTYLE do some of the lifting here. --Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)- Keep The single cited reason is insufficient to delist.
- Johnjbarton (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, no good reason to delist. Both Psychastes and I have already made many agreed changes to the article, and had already agreed further changes before this over-hasty decision to apply for delisting. My understanding is that Psychastes had undertaken to rework and extend some of the philosophy sections. Earlier today I proposed that we use Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a bit more to support those changes, so as to provide both a secure basis for the sections, and to reduce the number of citations that we're relying on. In addition, I yesterday trimmed the whole biology chapter; today I fixed some citations. This strikes me as good collaborative work on a mature article, and indeed rapid and continuing progress, so I find the sudden GAR bizarre, uncollegiate, and ill-judged. Expecting everyone to agree to everything is simply unreasonable, and threatening anyone who disagrees with anything with delisting is straightforwardly inappropriate: discussion is just that, the sharing of opinions to reach consensus. I'll continue to work to improve the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the reactions so far, I have to wonder if the description of the process described at WP:GAR doesn't match the community's current values; i.e.
Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR.
My intention in nominating this was to get more eyes on it and work towards a consensus, which I only did after being told that having a "Legacy" section was "off-topic" for the article, which led me to believe that the getting the necessary improvements would prove intractable. Psychastes (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)- The thing that'd be off-topic was and is a protracted essay on Aristotelianism. Straight legacy is plainly relevant, and indeed the chapter already covers a broad span of that. If all you wanted was more eyes on it, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science is the obvious place. But as several pairs of eyes are already on the case, and progress is actively being made, you are completely free to withdraw the GAR nomination so we can get on with improving the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it, I can't fully withdraw the nomination when there's another vote for delisting, but I've struckthrough my nomination since it seems like enough progress is being made. Legacy, biology, and Life sections are all fine as they are now, I believe the other philosophy sections can be improved more relatively speaking (in density of information more than length), but there's nothing unsalvageable. Psychastes (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- The thing that'd be off-topic was and is a protracted essay on Aristotelianism. Straight legacy is plainly relevant, and indeed the chapter already covers a broad span of that. If all you wanted was more eyes on it, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science is the obvious place. But as several pairs of eyes are already on the case, and progress is actively being made, you are completely free to withdraw the GAR nomination so we can get on with improving the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the reactions so far, I have to wonder if the description of the process described at WP:GAR doesn't match the community's current values; i.e.
- Keep. I don't see anything problematic about the Biology and Legacy sections. Probably someone can help to improve instead of heading to the GAR without saying any specific comments, like how one can search for problems and fix them on their own. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.