`/GA1}}  == GA Reassessment still ongoing. ==  I wish to inform anyone interested that this GA Reassessment is still active and that there has been virtually no participation from those who might want to keep the article's GA status.    :Please advise where and how a GA assessment that was closed on December 16, 2009 and is listed above as ``kept`` can still be active. Where is there an open GA reassessment that has not been noted on this page anywhere? I was active in the discussion of the GA reassessment opened and closed in December. Nothing has been published on this page that indicates there is anything currently active.     ::Sorry for not providing a link earlier the reassessment can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment specifically Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Hilary Duff.     :::Thanks for the link,  (I often wonder about the genesis of usernames and yours would be one of those). So the same editor who opened and closed the first reassessment in December, which was challenged for cause and demands of a deadline can come back in, improperly open yet another GA reassessment, fail to properly notify editors on this talk page and fail to post the GA reassessment content on this page and it still be valid? What a questionable practice, I'd say.    ::::Wildhartlivie, the instructions to individual reassessments per WP:GAR are to give editors enough time to respond. Thus, deadlines can be set for that. Also, this reassessment is a community reassessment so the decision to keep this at GA status lies with the community, not me. I closed the individual GAR after much criticism on the grounds that a community reassessment would be opened. No such thing occurred, so I decided to begin one myself. Furthermore, I don't feel a notification here is necessary as there is a message making note of a reassessment at the top of the page. As far as I know, I am not in breach of any policy. –'''''''' )  :::::Perhaps, perhaps not. In my experience here, notification of a GAR is posted both as a message, and not just a template at both the article's talk page and at the main project or projects which oversee the article (WP:ACTOR, WP:BIOG, etc.). That's how a reviewer ensures that the GAR is publicized, since the goal is to preserve the GA, not lose it.    ::::::Chase, it may not be policy, but it is good practice, as, like WHL pointed out, the goal is to improve the article. Besides, you never updated the date. How would we know that you've started a new one?  /contr.   == re: foodfight! ==  can we removed the movie, its been confiremed its not going to be released and many other people whos movies arent released arent put here, so we should remove the movie..    :Nevertheless, it is work in which she appeared. It's been confirm where''?    `