Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Nastia Liukin/1

Nastia Liukin

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

Result: Article listed. Clear consensus shown by all comments being in favor of listing. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer has agreed that everything in the article is in good shape. Everything is cited, everything is formatted, there are illustrations, it's NPOV. However, it has been claimed that the article does not meet stability requirements, resulting in the fail, because it is protected from IP vandalism and because the subject is involved in a current news event.

IP protection is not, and should not, listed as a criterion to fail GA. The article is protected so it will remain stable, and because the subject is a visible sports figure who attracts a lot of media attention, and, thus, a lot of visits to her Wiki page. I note that many current GA and FA articles need to be protected for the same reason.
Many BLP subjects are involved in current events, and will need their pages updated from time to time. Again, not a reason to fail.
No edit war has happened; there's simply been a surge of vandalism that has been caught and corrected immediately.
The original agreement was to wait until the end of the Olympics to pass/fail this; the reviewer has changed his or her mind for some reason.

I very much thank the reviewer for the input and help they've given. However, there's no reason this should fail GA, especially for the given reasons. DanielEng (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List. I really think this has been failed due to a failure to read, or a misinterpretation of, the good article criteria.
"5: Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. <footnote>(Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.)<footnote>
As such, this hasn't been failed under any vaild criterion. BLPs will constantly evolve, that is part of their nature and is a product of the wiki model. In terms of semi-protection, numerous BLP FAs are semi-protected, see Barack Obama, for a GA example see Hilary Rodham Clinton. This should be listed as it passes the Good article criteria. Woody (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List. Stability is a measure of the degree to which there are legitimate disputes over an article's content. An evolving current event in which an article has to be updated often does not count as instability. Also, repeated vandalism that prompts protection status of an article does not count as instability, as vandalism is not a legitimate dispute (i.e. edit war) over content. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List per above. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List per above. no content dispute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List. There have been fifteen edits in the last two and a half days and no signs of edit warring or structural instability. Majoreditor (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]