As part of a group of related potential changes, I have suggested rewording this to:

FailedGA is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Good articles for more details. TheGrappler 03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a revision because it adds ugly subst messages and ignores inputted dates that have been applying the new date feature. Not to mention it makes it harder to editors to change the GA date for those many articles that didn't have the date stamp on it.

However, can someone more familiar with the code change it so that the current date feature remains the same (i.e. no hard typing) and hides the error message? Since there are still plenty of older Failed GAs that have this template from before it had the feature. --SevereTireDamage 23:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone tried that sort of thing before (see Template talk:GAnominee). Are there any example templates we could steal code from?  -- Run!  13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Template:Nsd, coupled with Template:No source. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those templates still require input in the calling code though, don't they? That's not exactly the 'automatic' I was thinking of.  -- Run!  16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that if you don't name the variable specifically, i.e. ({{if:{{date}}}}) you can't make an if statement on a general variable ({{if:{{1}}}}), if I understand it right. It's unfortunate, but the date capability is so useful, I'd live with the ugly error message to keep it. --SevereTireDamage 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually bold but a change in this template would affect many pages, so I thought I'd post here first. The first sentence is awkward; a better phrasing would be "FailedGA was once a good article candidate." Does anyone else agree? Xiner (talk, email) 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing the following replacement text for the template.

FailedGA was a good article candidate, but did not to meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.

Please provide feedback. Thanks.

Xiner (talk, email) 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing the template since there's been no opposition to the idea. Xiner (talk, email) 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a typo in that proposed wording. It's been corrected now. Carcharoth 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any way these can be linked to by adding a field to link to the suggestions section on the talk page? Richard001 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Template:DelistedGA it has been suggested to use a different image from here. On the other hand, unvote seems a more appropriate image for delisting than for an unsuccessful GAC. Should the image here be changed instead? One possibility is the neutral vote, but there may be better options. Geometry guy 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]