Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport

Reviewing initiatives:June backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesPledges

Good article nominations

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN), good article reassessment (GAR), and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the FAQ above or search the archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

ChristieBot error reporting -- where to look

I've recently made some changes to the way ChristieBot handles errors. Since I know there are some editors who help out by fixing various kinds of GAN error, here's a summary of how it is now supposed to work, and what can usefully be monitored. My hope is that this is a lot simpler and easier for editors to monitor than it used to be.

There are five different ways that errors can show up:

• Individual GAN entries on the main GAN page. Some issues will appear directly next to a nomination entry (in red text). These come from the {{GANentry}} template and may be further tweaked in the future. These usually indicate something editors can fix on that specific nomination.
• Article talk page. Thanks to Prhartcom, who has enhanced the {{GA nominee}} template, if there are errors in the GA nomination template they will now show up on the article talk page in bold red text. These are typically formatting or parameter issues that the nominator (or any editor) can correct. Note that you can also watchlist Category:GAN error to see these, since anything that creates an error in the GA nomination template will put the talk page that category.
• GAN errors page. User:ChristieBot/GAN errors will list all current nomination/template issues. These will be similar to the problems identified on the GAN page and the article talk page, per the above. If you're interested in helping fix GAN errors this is a good page to watch. For example, it will list nominations with missing or invalid parameters, and nominations in an inconsistent state. Note that the "Errors" section on the GAN page has been eliminated. All editor-facing errors should be listed on here; and if the edit summmaries on the main GAN page start with "Errors listed!", that will be a link to this page.
• ChristieBot bug messages page. User:ChristieBot/Bug messages will list internal bot errors (unexpected failures, database issues, etc.). These are not generally fixable by editors, but may be useful for awareness or reporting. Most editors will not find it useful to watch this.
• Operational status page. User:ChristieBot/Operational status will show a summary of the operational state. Sometimes there are temporary system issues that are not bugs or GAN errors; this page will (when possible) show the status. This page is transcluded onto ChristieBot's user page. This may be worth watching if you want to know, for example, why ChristieBot has not run in a few hours; this might tell you why.

This separation is intended to make it clearer which issues might benefit from editor attention and which are informational only. If you see any errors that don't fit this pattern, or if there are any questions, let me know; it's entirely possible I have not yet converted all the messages to fit this plan. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thank you for improving the error handling and reporting in ChristieBot and honored to work with you on the GAN templates. OK, good plan: Watchlist Category:GAN error, User:ChristieBot/GAN errors, User:ChristieBot/Bug messages, User:ChristieBot/Operational status, as well as vigilance for any red text appearing on the main GAN page or on the article talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Nominations of RabidTuberculosis

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Problematic references in multiple DYK nominations by same nominator where multiple instances of severe source-text integrity problems and close paraphrasing were found in articles created by User:RabidTuberculosis. I note that User:Dclemens1971 has failed Talk:Maria Olenina-d'Alheim/GA1 and User:WhaleFarm has failed Talk:John W. Townsend Jr./GA1, in both cases for similar close paraphrasing problems. WhaleFarm has placed two other nominations on hold, Talk:William Sirignano/GA1 (on which I happen to have a COI) and Talk:John A. Manke/GA1. Beyond those four, current nominations include Livia Accarigi, Chieko Hara, Amadu Bansang Jobarteh, Eduard Langer, Cold spot (astronomy), Joshua Bandfield, Carl Grillmair, amd K-RadCube. Given the significant issues maybe we should have a wider discussion to head off a potential repeat Doug Coldwell situation? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I failed the one article, and put the other two on hold. I belive they are all fixable, and should be, as the subjects are important to cover. The writing shows, I believe, a rush to turn out articles, and insuficient care. There are a lot of good references in all three articles, but not always lined up appropriatly with the matching text. I'm hoping User:RabidTuberculosis addresses these issues, I'd love to pass the GA. WhaleFarm (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that Rapid tuberculosis has been active on wiki in the days since being pinged here and on DYK talk without really addressing anything while actively removing requests from their talk page. Therefore, this is feeling like an increasingly intentional WP:NOT HERE situation. TheBritinator (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheBritinator- In the past 4 days, I have worked with Rabid on 3 articles, he has made major improvements to all three. From our interactions to improve those articles, I beilve Rabid has acted in good faith, and is tyring to be a good author. Let's give them a chance and the benifit of the doubt. They have been very welcoming to changes, criticism, and advice.

Please look at the edits made to John W. Townsend Jr. John A. Manke for example.

now - the Wikipedia:NOT HERE is a strong claim.

Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business

? hard to figue out self interest served in historic NASA figures

General pattern of disruptive behavior

None observed

Trying to score brownie points outside Wikipedia

again, inconsistent with the data

Treating editing as a battleground

Very accepting of indeas and input

Little or no interest in working collaboratively

I have observed the oposite

Interest in gaining as many user rights or "awards" as possible (or overly focusing on rights in general)

no sign of any advantage, does seem very interested in getting articles to GA, but is that bad?

I'm going for Wikipedia:Assume good faith WhaleFarm (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

While I am happy to observe that they are making improvements to articles, I have to disagree with your overall point. Consistently having big issues with your articles could be considered a breach of care and actively ignoring requests to comment, like on this and DYK, is very much leaning towards a lack of interest in working collaboratively. If we're going to compare this to Doug Coldwell like David Eppstein has, then Coldwell also nominated articles that had glaring issues, got failed, fixed some (debatable), and barely ever responded to talk page messages or wiki discussions, I'm seeing parallels here. I've been assuming good faith on the DYK nom of theirs a couple of weeks ago now but the lack of communication is not helping. TheBritinator (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

What you have seen is not universal. Please scan Talk:John W. Townsend Jr.

I failed GA

rabid did major rework

the interaction on the second go was collaborative. I was more than satisfied with the responses.

I have not checked other submissions but on three the work and results were appropriate.

Rabid has also committed to further expansion and improvement of these articles. It’s surprising that Townsend was never covered until now. Given the turmoil that science funding is going through, and the dismantling of NOAA NCAR etc. - having the first director of NOAA with an WP article seems important. I would like to see it expanded and similar holes filled in.

Let’s find a way to positively steer this interest WhaleFarm (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I respect your opinion on this matter, but I would like to see additional opinions. TheBritinator (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

My interactions with RT have been limited, but my impression is that they are acting in good faith, but they may not understand what is going on or realize what they are doing. On at least one occasion, they have responded at one of their nominations and tried to make changes, it just wasn't enough. This seems to be more of a WP:CIR issue than outright bad faith. I hope an editor could actually leave them a proper talk page message and ask them to change their ways, because regrettably I can see them going to ANI if this continues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree. ANI may unfortunately be a consideration if this pattern of behaviour continues. TheBritinator (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello all, apologies for latency. I'm a bit overwhelmed by the discussion across multiple pages but will do my best to address the concerns. My principal aim is to improve as an editor and contribute thorough, high-quality encyclopedic articles, particularly on subjects or historical people that have been overlooked. Until recently, I'd received minimal feedback on new articles and was thus operating mostly on my own understanding of WP policies and best practices.

After being recommended to submit Carl Grillmair to DYK, I started submitting new articles to DYK. Two have been published, but others received thorough scrutiny, including much that surprised me, being the first time I received thorough review since beginning to contribute regularly ~8 months ago. While most mistakes were minor, some involved close paraphrase or copyvio, and some reviewers in particular were spooked that there could be a systematic issue across articles, seemingly informed by past experience with other users. I regret if I've given that impression at all, and I understand the cause for vigilance.

I've attempted to explain my edits or sourcing in detail across multiple DYK pages. I've corrected most issues on most articles, although I am aware of 2 that will require more detailed revision. Certain reviews have been cynical, accusing me of AI use for instance, or appear phrased to garner wider attention or elicit alarm than to really help me improve. Candidly, I've felt a bit overwhelmed, as my responses have been often met with a cascade of further criticism rather than actionable feedback or responses, and some did not address detailed responses I made in good faith, making it difficult to understand how/why certain editorial decisions were misses. I've taken everything in stride because I believe that even cynical feedback is an opportunity to improve, and I apologize for the time it's taken reviewers to write feedback.

Recently, I was made aware of GAN and nominated a few articles that I thought were most thorough. I received incredibly thoughtful and detailed feedback from @WhaleFarm and learned a lot about close paraphrase (a policy I'd misunderstood), source synthesis, etc. in the process. Since then, he's helped me improve 3 articles to GA status. I strongly believe any mistakes in past articles can be remedied pretty quickly, and future articles should all be of the highest quality. I have held off on submitting new GA nominations since the initial batch, but I think the nominated pages are all mostly there in terms of quality.

As ever, I am seeking to improve, and I do best with detailed, optimistic feedback. Apologies for being a cause of concern. All the best, RabidTuberculosis (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This reply feels AI-assisted. Since LLMs have a problem with close paraphrasing, it is plausible that AI was used. ~2026-25675-74 (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean to suggest that RB used to AI to write this response, or that they used it to create the articles in question? Not that I'm suggesting that its true, just trying to clarify. TheBritinator (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think their response was entirely LLM-generated, they just added some AI polishing. Most of the reply is alright, it looks like something a human would write except for a few artefacts and the last paragraph that screams stereotypical AI email.

Since LLMs are notorious for close paraphrasing and the main issue with RB's editing is close paraphrasing, I think they did use AI ~2026-25675-74 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm a better writer than any AI. I hope my attempt at a thoughtful, measured response is not "felt" to be the output of an LLM. Excessive closeness in some past work was my fault, since paraphrasing a series of appointments or achievements from a single source makes it easy to run afoul of copyvio; I've corrected this by synthesizing multiple sources when writing. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I really don't see any compelling evidence of that. Let's continue to assume good faith here. TheBritinator (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The last paragraph is quite consistent with the previous areas. If that was LLM, it’s likely all LLM, which I find unlikely. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I ran a test. I took the NASA relase of John Townsend, which was the CLOP for rabid's first dump of the article (the one that I failed). The copyvio score is 54%, but a quick scan showed what I considered a lot of similarity.

I had chatgpt turn that NASA bit into a bio, put it in a sandbox User:WhaleFarm/JT test . I added a citation for that NASA article, and ran copyvio. It only logged it at 36.7%.

I think this was classic paraphrasing. Some of it is always going to look like paraphrasing; any bio is going to look a lot like a obit, especially the lists of positions, employment, education etc. There are only so many ways to state appointed by A to run the x division of the y corporation.

Take a look at the sandbox. There's a bunch of LLM slop and drivel, but the overall sturcture is OK, and not very similar to the NASA bit. WhaleFarm (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@RabidTuberculosis, whose reviews do you believe were “cynical”? As someone who provided good-faith reviews of several of your DYK noms and found extensive source-text integrity issues at each of the ones I marked for closure and close paraphrasing in one of them, I do not care to have my reviews potentially described as cynical. Please be clear about which reviews you are referring to. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

DCL, I would read RT's comments above as thanking you for your reviews. I don't see any point in digging any deeper about which reviews were cynical, but I think some of the comments were beyond what was needed to help RT improve.

Maybe I was too nice and lenient, but I would note that we're volunteers here, and we should be welcoming to all of this free labor. RT is contributing. I've certainly made bigger screw ups. Let's celebrate and welcome. WhaleFarm (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Calling reviews "cynical" is an assumption of the reviewer's bad faith. My first experience with this user was one of asking for missing citations to be added, and then re-approving the nomination after that was done -- and only spot-checking sources once source-text integrity issues had been noted by another editor, and then only because of the oddity of RT citing a single page number for several different claims throughout the article. If I'm not editor being accused of cynicism, then who is? Throwing around accusations like that is a failure of WP:AGF on RT's part and will make it harder for RT to regain the trust of the DYK/GA community. I've certainly made screwups myself and been given sometimes harsh feedback for them, but one can receive feedback from others without accusing them of acting cynically. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think he was accusing you. I look at your responses, they were very responsive and appropriate. He seems to have taken them well.

I don't know if cynical is the right word, but there were some comments that seemed counterproductive. WhaleFarm (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

IP editors as GA nominators

Quick question: Are anonymous/IP editors allowed to submit GA nominations? Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Any significant contributor can nominate an article for GA status. There isn't a rule excluding TAs/IPs. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Improper Balatro Review

The review for Talk:Balatro/GA2 was obviously improperly done. There was only one suggestion by the reviewer and their overall review took around 30 minutes. User:Boneless Pizza! has commented on this as well and was the one who alerted me to it here. This should be vacated. Jon698 (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

1. No listing of the sources reviewed
2. Almost each section of the review is one sentence long
3. Only one suggestion offered
4. There are two citation needed tags

Jon698 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked at some of the sources reference 31 claims that the soundtrack was released in March 2023. However, it does not state that in the March 2023 section nor can I find that in any other section. Jon698 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There are also errors in the references themselves. Reference 34 says that it is the Wall Street Journal, but clicking on it takes you to Bloomberg. Jon698 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Reference 91 does support "Within eight hours of release, the game had made over US$1 million in gross revenue" and instead states that the game sold over one million copies across a month instead. Jon698 (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I blindly clicked on ten links in the References section and found two major errors and one formatting error. Jon698 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

their overall review took around 30 minutes - this statement is false? they started their review at 19:32, and made their last comment on reference integrity at 04:27? ~ A412 ^talk! 08:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

2:32-3:00 (28 minutes) + 11:11-11:28 (17 minutes) = 45 minutes. I would be willing to assume good faith had any specific sources been reviewed or if the review wasn't so incredibly short. Jon698 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 have you tried to communicate to the reviewer about your concerns? How do you know they only spent time on the review when making edits? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, though since they were pretty clear that it was their first review I hope that they take this as a spout of constructive criticism. TheBritinator (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wrong category for promoted article

Hello, when I promoted an article to GA, I accidentally selected the wrong category. I have fixed it here: Special:Diff/1358504645. Will the bot relist the article in the History category? Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

No, you'll have to do it manually, but it's not hard, just copy paste. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Premeditated Chaos -- copy and paste what to where? (EDIT: Oh of course, I would need to copy and remove from the old category page and paste to the new one right?) Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The article listing on WP:GA. Edit the source and just take the entry from the wrong category, and put it in the correct one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Faneuil Hall/GA1

The GA review of Faneuil Hall was taken up by a relatively inexperienced reviewer, who, to their credit, has acknowledged as much. The reviewer failed it based on the criterion WP:GACR#3b, but I disagree somewhat with their reasoning, and have explained as much on the talk page. The main sticking point was that the article seemed a bit too detailed to them. While I have trimmed some of the more minor details, I think an article of ~8,000 words is not egregious per WP:SIZERULE, especially given the building's long history and its historical associations, and would like a more experienced reviewer's input. (Courtesy ping to @Ilov3gam3z, the original reviewer.) – Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to offer to review it for you, but it looks like the situation has resolved itself. Let me know when you take it to FAC and I'll be happy to review it there. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Archiving closed reviews

I noticed a few of our new reviewers are completing their reviews without the GANReviewTool script. When following the instructions for PASS or FAIL, there isn't anything about archiving the review with {{atopg}} or {{atopr}}. I've updated those instructions and will follow up with users that have manually closed their reviews. If you are helping new reviewers, consider mentioning how the userscript streamlines the process of closing reviews, or otherwise help ensure the page gets archived. Matthew Yeager (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There isn't anything about using the archive templates because they aren't required. CMD (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

not to mention that the tool gives me the option to disable the archive templates although the vast majority keep it checked JuniperChill (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Matthew Yeager, in the future, please consider checking at this page before enforcing something unnecessary. I have reverted your addition to the instructions. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, all, I agree that archiving isn't required. Its optional use in the userscript helps show that while not mandatory, it is common practice. For users not using the script, how do they become aware that archiving is an option? If the instructions aren't the right place, where would you direct someone to learn more about the process?

Proposed text: Optionally, you can archive the review by placing {{atopg |status= |result=Passed. ~~~~}} below the header ==GA review==, and {{abot}} at the end of the page.

Matthew Yeager (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It's common because the script put it as a default, rather than a documentation of existing practices. Archiving is an option for any discussion on en.wiki, but it is not usually needed. New reviewers do not need to know this is also specifically possible here, especially as we want to keep the instructions as simple as possible. CMD (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm the one that caught Matthew Yeager's attention, I have since added the script, it's simpler. Details like this are nice to know about. WhaleFarm (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

I wanted to flag a request for a second opinion at James Buchanan. Second opinion can either be on the narrow questions at play or on the article holistically. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Encouraging people to go directly to FA?

Right now, GA is pretty perennially backlogged, and while FA obviously doesn't have a dearth of work, they're doing okay – I've found personally that I have a much easier time getting reviews at FAC than at GAN. I wonder if we should be encouraging people who (1) plan on going to FAC anyway and (2) don't really need a GA review to help them get there to just skip GAN and go directly to FAC when they feel ready. This is something that nominators can do already – I did it with Menora v. Illinois High School Association, for instance. I was thinking of doing a mass message, thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

(OPPOSE). What does it say about the status of a GA if someone can, or thinks they can, bypass it and go straight to FA? I would recommend that no article can be submitted for FA unless it is already passed as a GA – not merely 'of sufficient merit to pass the GA assessment process' in someone's opinion Billsmith60 (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is, we can only submit one FAC at a time. I have sent articles to FAC without going through GAN first. Sometimes the article sat in the queue at GAN without being picked up. I have lots of articles sitting in the GAN queue that should eventually go through FAC/FLC, but I'm just biding my time because of the "one per customer" policy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Nominators can do this already. Whether every nominator should consider doing this is a different matter, and a mass message to that effect should be discussed with the FAC coordinators rather than here, as it is essentially a prompt to shift reviewer burden from GAN to FAC. CMD (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Those who know, know; those who don't know, don't know enough to need to know. It is better that inexperienced editors think that GAN is a necessary stepping stone to FAC; actually experienced editors will have worked out it isn't required by their second or third nomination. At that point, they'll be deciding whether they benefit from such optional processes by themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the thing is that lots of people get into the habit of running things by GA, driving up GA's backlog unnecessarily. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, its significantly easier to bring an article to GAN than to FAC for most people, because FAs have to be comprehensive while GAs only need to be broad, hence why GAs don't have to be over 1000 words long. Not to mention the need for high-quality sources, the need to follow the MOS, consistent citations, very professional and formal writing, etc. The main reason why only one FAC can be nominated at a time is due to the fact all FACs get transcluded onto one page, in order not to break the WP:PEIS, hence why there are other rules, like not using most templates. JuniperChill (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of GA nominations have no plans to go on to FA, so I’m not sure what this would achieve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

And the vast majority of GA nominations are nowhere near FAC-ready. Not to be encouraged - many GA nominators who have never done an FAC won't be the best judges of whether they "don't really need a GA review to help them", & if done this would just transfer the backlog to both pages. Those in the know can do it anyway. Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

FAC is badly backlogged. Not only does it take three months or more for to get an article through FAC, but, as Bgsu98 notes, the true backlog is much higher due to the one-at-a-time rule. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel lucky if I can get an article through FAC in a month, but a month and a half has been more my experience. If it were to take upwards of three months, I probably wouldn't bother. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a matter for Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates or Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria, I'm not sure which, but it certainly isn't a matter for this page. Why not? Because the group of people who decide what can become an FA are a different group of people from those who decide what can become a GA. There may be people who are in both groups (and there probably are) but being part of one group is not a prerequisite to being a member of the other. Neither group is subservient to the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

What? They're is minimal correlation between FA and GA, as they as a much higher quality gap. Besides, FAC is equally as backlogged for reviews. TheBritinator (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Incomplete review at Talk:Washington State Ferries/GA1

Just wanted to flag this one for potential re-insertion into the queue: Talk:Washington State Ferries/GA1. SounderBruce 03:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@SounderBruce that editor may be waiting for an experienced reviewer to take a look at the review before they take final review action. The article is listed in the June backlog as needing an experienced reviewer here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/June_2026#Reviews_that_need_an_experienced_reviewer Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 15:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Criteria 2: page numbers?

For GA criteria 2, should the absence of page numbers in citations (for books) be noted in a review? Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It depends. If the absence of page numbers means you are unable to verify through a spot check, mention that. If you are able to verify even without the page numbers, you might mention it but I wouldn't fail over it. CMD (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

For books (at least, books that do not obviously have the cited claim as the main topic of the entire book), I would definitely at least note it in a review, as CG asks. What the consequence should be for not addressing the note is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the verifiability criterion is not met if it is not feasible for the reader to check through the entire source to find if the text is supported IAWW (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's tricky because the sources are offline, so I need quotes provided for source verification / integrity anyway. Those quotes are pending. If they are able to provide them, then that seems like verification criterion pass to me? But either way, I commented that I highly recommend adding the page numbers. Also, in my spot check of online sources, everything I checked was accurate. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 14:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't pass if the books were big and the nominator refused to add them (very unlikely), however it's worth noting that this question comes up semi-regularly on this talk page, and different reviewers have different opinions on how to treat that situation. IAWW (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Is adding alternative captions a requirement or merely a suggestion?

Hello, I'm reviewing Thuggee at this moment and I see none of the images have alt text. Now, my question is, are alternative captions a requirement for GA status? Criteria 6 only says 'have suitable captions.' Amir Ghandi (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Alt text is not required to pass a GA review, no. I always recommend it in the review if it's not already there, but it is not part of the criteria. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• As per Dr. Orin. It's definitely nice to have, and I recommend it, but it's not a criterion and shouldn't be a sticking point in any review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

As the editors above me have correctly stated, it is not a requirement. There was a suggestion to make it mandatory a few months ago, which did not gain consensus. TompaDompa (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

UFC Freedom 250

UFC Freedom 250 is happening in two days and has just been brought to GAN. Am I right in thinking that this article should not be here per criterion 5, because in two days' time the article is going to need to be significantly changed? JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Governmentshutdown2026 I've just noticed actually that the only comment on the review is request to withdraw nomination and update article status. If the user has created the review page to ask how to withdraw then this can be easily solved. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the article would definitely fail GAN due to the edit war, leading the page to be (fully) protected. Its also a quickfail under QF#4. The lead of the article is also very short, relative to the length of the article JuniperChill (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox: The bot might be preventing removal? Yea GA Nomination Withdraw or just "fail" it right away. Update the article history or something that show that is withdrawn since there too much issues on the page. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UFC_Freedom_250#GA_review Governmentshutdown2026 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for mentorship

Hello everyone, I posted in Wikipedia:Good_article_mentorship a couple days ago looking for an experienced reviewer to provide critique my approach to Talk:Tamara_Bunke/GA3, especially the issues I outlined in the "content gaps" section of my review (scroll to the bottom). I've decided to ask here as well for more visibility.

My questions are, basically: am I overstepping in my feedback, and, if so, how can I improve? I'm also open to drive-by comments if you don't have much time to dedicate to mentorship but still have some thoughts to share to help me improve. Thank you so much — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 23:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Chao Garden, if you're still looking for help the day after tomorrow, I'll be able to help. Just busy tomorrow IAWW (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @It is a wonderful world, thank you so much. If you are still willing to help, I would love your advice on the review. This evening I'm going to complete a spot check (which I originally stopped when I had source questions & content feedback). — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 02:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Another editor has offered to mentor. But also, if you happen to have any additional feedback or criticism for me, I'm open to any drive-by comments (here, on my talk page, where ever). No worries, either way; I appreciate your offer. Thank you again — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 05:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me up-to-date. I'll prioritise other nominations needing experienced attention since someone else has kindly stepped in. However if help is needed again just ping me and I'll help when I can. IAWW (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (song)/GA1

I need a bit of help here. Gavetheman555 (talk · contribs) nominated The Man Who Sold the World (song) but three things are at work. One, Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (song)/GA1 has been open since 2020, as it was nominated as a drive-by and never closed correctly. Two, when Gavetheman555 nominated it earlier today, the bot reopened the old review. Not sure how to appropriately close the old one so that the bot opens a new one at GA2. And three, Gavetheman555 doesn't meet the primary author criterion, so this might be another drive-by. I tried to fix this in several ways but nothing worked so I reverted to the original, yet to be closed review. If someone could close GA1 and then figure out what to do about GA2, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've closed GA1. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Since Gavetheman555 will need to re-nominate, I've asked them to discuss this with the primary author first. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The nominator should have discussed with the primary author first. Good job on finding this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like they may co-nominate. Can someone tell me how that is usually done? Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The co-nominator should be mentioned in the |note= field. (There isn't a technical process that registers co-noms, the GAN will be attributed to the user listed in the nominator field.) CMD (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Is User:Mike Christie the point person on this? I believe DYK solved the co-nom problem a long time ago by splitting the process into multiple author fields. I assume the same could be done here. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It might be possible to adapt the bot to credit conominators, but this is something I would first want to see a consensus on from the GA community before thinking about how it might be implemented. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

An RfC on non-free photos of low-profile victims at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content § RfC: Non-free pre-death photos of deceased individual low-profile victims in articles about primarily their own deaths. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Slackintosh

They have nominated multiple articles for GA then started the review pages themselves, so they all need to be deleted most likely.

1. Talk:MacOS/GA5
2. Talk:MacBook Neo/GA1
3. Talk:Apple Inc./GA1

-- ZooBlazer 08:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, this has been sorted by Bgsu98. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 13:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I failed them, but also submitted them to CSD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I first thought of deleting them, but on another look I don't think it's really needed. The reviews have been closed and I think that's enough. The nominator can re-nominate them if they want to (and if they meet the requirements). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think deleting them and removing them from the article history of the relevant articles are both appropriate; Slackintosh does not appear to be a significant contributor to any of these articles, and has submitted all three to the WikiCup as GA reviews, which will surely be disallowed under Cup rules. They should not be renominated by Slackintosh because they are not a significant contributor. Bgsu98, you may not know this, but it's important to add noinclude tags around the G6 template on review pages so that, since the review page is transcluded on the article's talk page, the deletion message doesn't show up there; sometimes both the review page and the top page get deleted by admins rather than just the review page, and this prevents that sort of accidental deletion. I'm in the process of doing this to the three review pages here. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted the three pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius is always on top of things, and surely will disallow those from the GA WikiCup. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I reviewed these submissions and agree that they are not eligible for WikiCup points at this time. I've also left a message at the user's talk page. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Seeking additional opinion on a prose aspect at Talk:The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction/GA1

Hello. I've just wrapped up a prose review on The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and me and the nominator (Courtesy ping @Piotrus) have come to a disagreement on whether an aspect of prose runs afoul of the Good Article criteria or not. In the second paragraph of the "Second edition" section in reception, I believe the section of prose that starts with "Similar endorsements were offered by..." runs afoul of criteria 3, since I feel it goes into unnecessary detail by including a number of superfluous reviews that do nothing but affirm a prior statement. Conversely, the nominator believes this section to be necessary for comprehensiveness, since all the reviews hail from reliable sources and policies like Wikipedia:NOTPAPER justify that there is no reason not to include the number of sources listed there (Piotrus, feel free to clarify or expand your argument here in case I got something wrong).

Currently we're deadlocked over this and I would appreciate an additional outsider opinion on this, since this is a small prose issue and something I do not feel should stall the whole review. Any and all thoughts are appreciated on this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I can offer some input on the review page, as I have worked closely with the nom before and somewhat understand their perspective, but I would encourage others to also weigh in. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look. The first thing I noticed is that this is a wordy style preferred by younger Wikipedians, and it's one I've seen used just about everywhere by younger editors. I don't prefer this style because, like the reviewer, I tend to find it unnecessary. However, having seen this thing many times before, I think there's a legitimate difference in approach and style to reception sections and this is a good example. I don't think this runs afoul of the GA criteria, but it is annoying to older readers like myself who did not grow up with this style or find it attractive. The easiest way forward (and a possible compromise to boot) is to move everything after "Similar endorsements were offered by..." to a footnote. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Does it satisfy WP:NPOV to have lengthy discussion of the positives found by reviewers, with an extensive quote farm, while summarizing only more briefly the negatives without any quotes of them and then summarizing the paragraph on negatives with a dismissive reference to a positive review? Does it satisfy WP:SYN to order the material on negative quotes in this way, as if to endorse in Wikipedia's voice the dismissal by Kessel? I'm skeptical. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't exactly place a finger on the name of the fallacy the nom is using by claiming he doesn't have to declare a conflict of interest, because Wikipedians writing the 'Wikipedia' page also have a conflict of interest. Somewhere between tu quoque and whataboutism. Either way, in my opinion there is definitely a conflict of interest, and therefore the nom should be extra receptive to feedback about NPOV and the reception section. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Idea

We have review circles already, but I have a potentially better idea for easily(ish) getting GAs:

A group of five or seven editors (they don't have to know each other prior, in fact, this may be preferable) works together on getting an article to GA. With 5 editors, 3 work on that, with 7 editors, 4 work on that. After they think they are done, they send messages to the other editors, who go through the article and the criteria together to determine if it passes, and, if not, to help fix the mistakes. Ideally, each person would have one request for an article to improve, and they would rotate.

This has several improvements:

1. Low fail rate, as the reviewers would be trying their hardest to get it to pass.

2. Faster, as the number of editors working in tandem gets thing done more easily.

3. Neutral on the backlog, as the group would review itself.

4. More thorough, as the reviewers would be looking for different qualities and the editors would each vet everything carefully.

Any thoughts? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea within WikiProjects, because I think it will only really work among people who know each other and the subject material. However, some projects, like the UK Railways project where I hang out mostly, are quite solitary, so I couldn't see a huge uptake from us but you never know. Other projects I know can be very communal like the Doctor Who WikiProject, so you'd probably see more interest from them.

My second thought is that some people are just better noms or reviewers. For example, I have reviewed quite a few articles for MRSC who never does any reviews in return, but I don't have a problem with that because both nominating and reviewing are equally as important for the project, and people should focus on what they want to do and are good at. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 00:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. I was informally talking about a similar idea about ten years ago. I even came up with a roadmap for it, but it's buried in my sandbox userspace history and I'm too lazy to find it. I hope something like this eventually gets rolled out. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

GMTA. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Putting this here for the notifications. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox, @Viriditas: Should we add this discussion somewhere else? Should we ping people in review circles, or is this canvassing? _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 04:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Your biggest enemy here is inertia and culture. I mean, look at the main page. It hasn't changed in forever. This place attracts people who don't like change. The best way for you to see something like this happen is to make it happen yourself. Find people who are interested in collaborating on something like this and then push it from the bottom up. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei: They expressed support for a similar idea related to collaboration in general in 2025, now on the Wikipedia:Editor reflections page. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I already have a few people (from real life) whom I would plan to do this with (courtesy pings to @Nephellium and @Linux Luvver).

I would prefer more. At least two. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 11:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, as long as you don't run into conflicts of interest between nominator/reviewer, or peer pressure to avoid negative criticism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. The whole idea kinda depends upon that. I think we could do it, but there would need to be rules (e.g., an experienced GA reviewer/nominator must be in the group to ensure it is done correctly). _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)