Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

New reviewer feed

There have been a few conversations over the past few years on whether we should introduce a feed of reviews completed by new reviewers (e.g. one, two, three, four). I thought of this recently after seeing some cases where insufficient reviews by new reviewers have been identified, and as we have cleaned them up, earlier, equally insufficient reviews have been uncovered. Past conversations on this proposal have been generally positive, but have raised concerns that it will be bite-y and discourage new reviewers. I think if we have that as a concern, we can reduce or eliminate it in implementation. I've raised the technical question with Mike Christie, who says a feed could be created that would update daily, potentially with some columns for indicators for insufficient reviews such as short reviews.

Do we want this? If so, do we want it just as a standalone feed on a subpage, with extra columns to identify insufficient reviews, or also as a table transcluded onto this page, WP:GAMENTOR or elsewhere? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'm OK with having this feed if we are upfront about this to new reviewers. I hope this feed will be used as a tool for experienced reviewers to find those new reviews quickly and give helpful feedback. It can also give confidence to new reviewers that they are not doing the review alone and that an experienced user will automatically help them without needing to post a request on WT:GA because they will see the review on this feed. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I would certainly use it. My only concern is that it could cause further clutter to the GA navigation template if we choose to add it there. I think it would be best that it be included in the mentorship section. IAWW (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean, WP:GAG is also not present anywhere in the navigation... I've already raised this before but it was ignored. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if there is general sentiment that the navigation could be changed around a bit? I for example would support moving the FAQs into the instructions section and then replacing that tab with the GAG. IAWW (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

As a newer editor and reviewer I will say that the navigation for GA pages could really use some reorganization. It's a little difficult to find pages and there are a few places that more or less link back and forth with each other. I'd be happy to help with that if that's something that the community would decide on. Snuggle 📫 🖤 19:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd enjoy reading a writeup from you on your experience @Snugglebuns even if no further action is being taken. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 23:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Things I've noticed in the last month:

• Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and Wikipedia:Good article frequently asked questions, both are overviews and neither truly explains the details of doing a review. With understanding that every editor has their little quirks in how they review but there's barely any mention of the tools at our disposal in the instructions. For the first few articles I reviewed I would have 5 tabs open for only the review process and not in relation to the article. WP:RGA and WP:GACN are linked in the intro of the reviewing instructions and some tools are mentioned in the former but there is nothing but a passing mention of them at the very top of the instructions themselves. The toolbox that is pre-populated on the review page has most of the tools which is great but it would be nice if the instructions (or FAQ) broke down what each of those tools did or where to find them when you aren't actively reviewing something. I ended up making my own template ({{GAprogex}}) because none of the others had quickfail included and until I learned the process I wanted to make sure I wasn't skipping anything since I didn't want to have to be constantly flipping between Wikipedia:Good article criteria, FAQ, Instructions, and the few other essays I found.
• WP:GAG, would have had literally no idea that this newsletter existed if it weren't for my adopter. I even spent time trying to find all of the newsletters that I thought would be relevant to me. I'll be honest, I still have no idea how to find it other than I know the shortcut for it and I signed up for it. I haven't been able to find it on any of the main pages (I could be overlooking it) but it's definitely not easy to find.
• Going back to tools, if a collection of tools were put together that would either be included in the box that pops up on a review or is included in a section on Instructions or FAQ it should include User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool and User:SD0001/GAN-helper (or equivalent options) as well as User:Anne drew/Veracity. I have browsed through hundreds of reviews at this point trying to learn what other editors do and I have noticed a substantial amount of reviews that have been left open and un-archived because one step somewhere along the way was missed. Even seasoned editors do it occasionally. And Veracity just makes everything easier when it comes to spot checks. Having them mentioned once – "Many of the technical steps for nominators are automated with the GAN-helper user script (how to install). The GANReviewTool does the same when you review an article." – at the very top of the page and never again can be so easily missed, especially since when you click Instructions in the toolbox it takes you to WP:GAN/I#R1 making it so you don't even see the review tool mentioned at all.
• The Wikipedia:Good article review pledges, I have attempted to understand what is going on there and I still don't quite get it. It's all honor code (much like the rest of this) but it seems to me that the pledges should really just be part of the review circles? Maybe I'm too new to get it.

All this to say, it's just not easy to navigate and find the most important information. Start to finish a new editor who needs to refer back to guidelines and policies is going to visit just about every page under the Good Article umbrella because maybe the question is answered on FAQ, maybe its on Instructions, maybe its on Criteria, and maybe its not in any of those and is instead in an essay that they have now lost the link for. Add that to the fact that there are nominations sitting in the queue that aren't actually open but are still open and that you can find an article to review on 4 different pages (not counting the sortable lists), it's a lot. Having experienced editors that occasionally check in on new reviewers is a great idea and I fully support it, but also making the whole process easier to understand and navigate would do a lot to make it not seem like such an impossible peak for people that are just getting started in the GA arena. It's always a balancing act because a lot of the reviewers that are the most active (and the nominators) have been doing this for years so what is second nature and easy to find for you (especially since you have a bunch of different scripts installed and have everything fine tuned to how you edit) is difficult and confusing for newer editors. I hope this at least somewhat answers you. I wasn't sure how to explain some of it since I have learned where things are and how to find things better now. Snuggle 📫 🖤 00:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

SB, this is awesome. Hopefully after the holiday period we can look at updating and consolidating the process, I know @Thebiguglyalien, @AirshipJungleman29, and @Vacant0 have expressed interest at varying points in such a task. I've also just had a look through WP:RGA, and it is concerning how many times it gets the GA process exactly wrong. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

IMO, TBUA's Wikipedia:Good article reviewing guide is much better. I've also worked on mine User:Vacant0/Reviewing GANs and FACs but still haven't completed it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

TBUA's was one of the guides I found that was very helpful. Another thing that helped me a lot was having a thorough completed review as an example of what I was aiming for. Snuggle 📫 🖤 14:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Most new users seem to not be familiar with WP:GAMENTOR so we should seek for more ways to help them. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

As a newer editor and reviewer, this honestly would've helped me with my first few reviews. I am painfully diligent about trying to do things correctly and knowing that a more experienced editor is more or less looking over my shoulder would have been helpful. On the same note though, I don't think that the more experienced editors should comment just to comment if we have the feed. I think they should only step in/comment if help is needed or something is going wrong (or as encouragement once the review is nearing completion if the reviewer seems uncertain of themselves). I also agree with some of the others saying that it needs to be evident to reviewers that the feed exists, so that people aren't caught off guard if a 3rd party is suddenly commenting in the review. Snuggle 📫 🖤 19:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If we decide to do this, it would be a filtered version of User:ChristieBot/Recent GAN activity. What would the filters be? The review size, reviewer prior review count, and reviewer edit count seem the most useful for this purpose -- what would be the values to include? And how many days of history should be in the filtered box? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, in GAN backlog drives we counted new reviewers as users who had performed less than 6 reviews (@Asilvering: can correct me if my memory is wrong). The starting review is about 1,000 bytes long, so I'd say anything below 2,500 or 3,000. I do not have any opinions on the edit count. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

That's what I recall as well. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do with GA Reassessments that are still hanging around the article's talkpage?

Like a year or two later? Case in point, see Talk:Joan Crawford & Talk:Joan Crawford#GA Reassessment with the subsection of Talk:Joan Crawford#Joan Crawford - with October 2024 dates, I never can remember what is supposed to happen to the old GAReassessments... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anything? It's closed, so no action is required. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but the entire Reassessment shouldn't be hanging around on the article talk page forever right? I am asking if people are just supposed to archive old GARs to the talk page archives or if there's a MOS/procedure we're supposed to follow. - Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Shearonink: GARs can be archived like any other talk page thread. It's OK if they stay on the talk page for a while: DYK noms and GAN noms sometimes stay on the talk page for decades if there isn't much article discussion. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Does anyone know if GANs/GARs archive if they are the top section of the talkpage? My assumption is that as they are effectively a template, they get archived with whichever section is above them. CMD (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  they should get archived with everything else, but they'll get archived dependent on the talk page's settings.

  Personally, I like to keep the reviews on the talk page. They are often the most in depth the article will be checked over so the found info is relevant. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:The Amazing Race 6/GA1

I'm not one to usually look gift horses in their mouths, but there's no way this is acceptable, right? Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Either the articles are indeed amazing or this is a non-thorough review. The user has done a couple more reviews and all had the same/similar response Talk:On Call (TV series)/GA1, Talk:The Woman in the House Across the Street from the Girl in the Window/GA1 (the last only contained a minor comment). I do know about other editors, I prefer a lengthy/detailed, but fair, review, as this helps to improve the nominated articles.A.Cython (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to think my articles are amazing, but... Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

It does not feel like victory if it was too easy, i know your feeling. A.Cython (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

To expand on Anne drew self-deleted comment. It would be helpful to everyone judging the review process if the reviewers are more explicit in their review as to why a GAN should become GA, especially when there are no comments. For example, did the reviewer checked the figures and text for copyright, if so how, etc... A.Cython (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

As the nominator of one of these articles (On Call), and a regular contributor to the GA process, I also share concerns with these reviews. A quick look at the reviewers contributions shows they're still fairly new to the editing process. Bar a handful of edits in 2021/2022, they only started editing two weeks ago, and have fewer than 200 global edits. If they're eager to contribute to the review process, I think a mentorship or something may help. In the meantime however, I think it'd be best if they stopped performing reviews, and I'd support overturning the ones mentioned above and reinserting the nominations into the queue where they were. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

They have just passed another of my articles as GA with a minimal statement: Talk:The Amazing Race 10/GA1. I think they all need to be sent back to the queue. Who wants to break the bad news? Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Since you brought this issue, may be you are the best person. :) Or perhaps an admistrator would be best. What I can do is to review the affected articles since they will end at the end of the queue. Not the best person in this category but at the moment i want to bring my reviews to be twice of my (GA+GAN) and for this i need three reviews. If you guys are ok with this, ping me once you renominate them. A.Cython (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

They will be restored to the same spot in the queue they occupied originally. I left a message on the user's talk page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh... no damage done then.A.Cython (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey all, I was told by Bgsu98 to bring this up here, so I'll post what I shared on their talk page: I wanted to check in about The Office season 8 article re: this editor's reviews. The page was previously a FL, but it got demoted a few weeks back for a technical reason (info here). I was under the impression that it was still of quality (to quote RunningTiger123, "the quality of these articles [including season8] is generally solid and the articles could probably pass GAN fairly easily (my opinion)"), so I re-nominated it for GA, expecting a pretty scant review. Indeed, Tyler17B's review was rather short, but it did lead to some solid improvements. Normally, I'd agree that the review was too short, but given the nature of the article, I (imho) think the brevity might be appropriate.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 17:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Missing review after name change

Hello, I recently changed my username from Thefinals626472 to Delcoan. Since then, the GAN page has shown that I have not reviewed a page when I have reviewed one.

See number 56 in Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Politics and government

There it says I've reviewed one.

Now, see, in the same section, the 63rd one.

It says I have not reviewed an article yet. Delcoan (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Mike Christie. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Delcoan, see User:ChristieBot#What to do if your username changes; I've gone ahead and connected the two names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Delcoan (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Very rapid closing of GAR

6 days ago a GAR was opened for the Whale page. Now, as the Reassessment instruction page reads: "GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days)". This GAR was closed within 12 hours after receiving comments from just one (1!) user other than the nominator. I myself would have liked to provide notes on the article, but have not been able to because I only saw the discussion after it closed. I was wondering if closing a GAR this rapidly and with this little input is even allowed? The Morrison Man (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

As the closer of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Whale/1, I would have appreciated being pinged (or this being brought up at my talk page). The answer to your question is yes, as per point 3 of the "Closing a reassessment" instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines: If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time. I saw such a consensus among the participants. There is no limit to the number of GARs a single article can go through, so if you think the article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria you can always start the process anew. Another option would be providing your notes at the talk page for the article, which might be preferable in this instance. TompaDompa (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I would doubt myself when closing a GAR within 12 hours of opening after only two people said to keep it so, especially within 50 minutes of the last comment. This leaves little room for anyone to disagree with the consensus (or the edits made!), and I do not believe that stacking reassessments onto a page is productive in the long run. I also doubt the usefulness of the article when considering Cetacea and the use of the term, though that is not relevant at the moment. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It does seem very fast, but in this particular case, I would have worded the close more specifically; something along the lines of “the nominator’s concerns have been addressed”. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I view it as analogous to a WP:Speedy keep close of an WP:Articles for deletion discussion upon nominator withdrawal. TompaDompa (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Extensive use of primary and pre-WWII sources

I have started the GA review of Jesse M. Bowell, a 19th-century Pennsylvanian river captain and politician, and would appreciate some clarification regarding the sourcing. The article appears to rely predominantly on pre-WWII material, in particular 19th-century newspaper accounts, and I could not identify any peer-reviewed or clearly modern secondary sources among the citations. Could you please clarify how this extensive use of primary sources is intended to comply with our sourcing policies, especially Wikipedia:PSTS and Wikipedia:PRIMARY? Many thanks for your time and comments. I am also seeking advice on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I recently dealt with the use of 19th century sources in three different articles. They have to be used very carefully and with close direction from more modern secondary sources, which lend weight and independent evaluation as to their accuracy. Very often, good secondary sources will highlight when the primary sources are correct and accurate to use; they will also mention when they are not. The number of times I discovered erroneous, half-true, and simply manufactured accounts is too many to count, so when in doubt, they should be removed. Two recent examples which required me to use them extremely carefully while writing include Scandinavian migration to the Hawaiian Kingdom and A Balloon in Mid-Air. In both cases, I used 19th century sources only when I had modern, reliable secondary sources supporting them. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I took a quick look. The article on Jesse M. Bowell has no secondary sources at all. The only modern info I could find is this extremely short bio on the official government website which is linked in the article. I have seen other articles like this before and I've even reviewed some of them. The ones that I've reviewed tend not to be very controversial. This one appears to have a somewhat controversial death section. My concern is about the accuracy. We know that newspapers of that time often made things up. It looks like much of the material in this article can be confirmed in official government sources, so the problem might not be as great as it seems. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

My concern is fairly straightforward, though I am open to other views: should we override or set aside our sourcing rules when peer-reviewed secondary sources are not available? My current view is that we probably should not. Not every topic needs to achieve GA status, and articles about subjects that are not covered by academic sources are unlikely to satisfy GACR2c. Borsoka (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

If you think an article can't be written on this subject without containing OR (GACR2c), you should nominate it for deletion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 08:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

My approach is less binary: I do not think an article must either meet GA standards or be deleted solely based on its sourcing. There are articles which do not reach the level required for GA, yet clearly meet the threshold for inclusion. For instance, Wikipedia:No original research states that articles usually rely on reliable secondary sources, while also noting that editors should be cautious about basing large passages on them. Accordingly, an article may require stronger secondary sourcing to reach GA status, while still having its basic structure and key claims verified by at least one reliable secondary source. I believe this is the situation with the article under discussion. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. The unanswered question here is whether an article based solely on primary sources can reach GA. I previously had to deal with this question as a reviewer for Clara Elsene Peck in 2009. The threshold for me was the preponderance of tertiary sources indicating her notability and recognition of her work by independent agencies with awards. This was an unusual case for me as a reviewer and I find it quite similar to your review. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

an article may require stronger secondary sourcing to reach GA status There is no requirement for GAs to have stronger sourcing. If it's good enough for any article, it's good enough for GA, and the GA criteria does not mention sources as primary or secondary. secondary. GA articles are required to comply with WP:OR, but so are all articles. They are not required to fulfil it to a higher standard than usual. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 00:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC) Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 00:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could give you an example of a research problem I encountered today, because it pertains exactly to the issue under discussion. Today, I created an article on the somewhat notable Western writer Gladwell Richardson, who died in 1980. As it turns out, Mr. Richardson had a well connected family firmly enmeshed in Arizona power and politics. At the age of 19, however, he encountered some "problems" in San Francisco in 1923. Virtually the entirety of this problem only appears in major news coverage throughout the United States in 1923. After that time, it not only disappears, but newspaper coverage from around 1960 to 1980 changes the history in several ways so as to mislead anyone who goes looking for it. Even the posthumous work about his life, which was released in 1986, rewrites this part of his history and in its place creates several events that never actually happened. Meanwhile, anyone can go back to the 1923 news indices to see what really happened. How do I cover this in his biography without secondary sources giving me direction, when the secondary sources have been unwittingly altered to avoid it? Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The best advice on this has to be at WP:WSAW, no? I have my own opinions on how to handle it, but I think that you would get better answers from asking there, which is well-equipped with editors more experienced than me. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Although the GA criteria do not explicitly mention primary or secondary sources, their explicit reference to WP:NOR implicitly incorporates the relevant sourcing requirements. In this case, the article is supported by a reliable secondary source, even if it relies mainly on primary material. Where this is so, the appropriate response is not deletion, but the application of a suitable maintenance tag to reflect the sourcing balance. Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Yup, GAs need to meet WP:NOR's primary and secondary sourcing standards (along with all articles). If you think a maintenance tag can handle this particular issue, then you don't think an article can't be written on this subject without containing OR. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not think anything similar. I only say that on the long run the sourcing of an article which is verified by at least one secondary source can be improved. Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Are newspaper accounts primary sources? In academic context, yes, these would be considered primary sources. But for our purposes, shouldn't they be treated the same as modern newspaper coverage unless there are some clear signs they have some direct connection to the subject? Sources don't stop being reliable because they're old, or because modern coverage doesn't exist on the topic. If they were reliable back then, they are still reliable today, since no modern sources would be superior to them. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Newspaper reports are not primary sources Billsmith60 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

There is not, and cannot be, a double standard between academic practice and Wikipedia: a primary source remains a primary source in both contexts. A typical newspaper report is, par excellence, a primary source, as it presents information based on the reporter's own observations or on the account of the person being interviewed. Borsoka (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not true, however, you may be saying this based on a specific field or discipline, or perhaps based on some confusion of the idea. Primary sources are primary only when they are used that way. The question is whether you are using a primary as a secondary (interpretation), or a secondary as a primary (direct evidence). Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. We have many featured articles primarily based on newspaper coverage, so I think it would be silly to dismiss them unless they're being used as primary sources for original research and interpretation, rather than just for the info they contain. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The mere existence of substandard FA articles on Wikipedia cannot be invoked to justify lowering sourcing standards. Editors who base articles exclusively on primary sources (including newspaper articles) are acting in direct contravention of established sourcing policy. Wikipedia articles are expected to rely primarily on reliable secondary sources, and entire articles must not be built on primary material, nor should substantial portions depend on it. Newspaper articles are, in the vast majority of cases, primary sources irrespective of how they are framed or used. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is a misunderstanding of PST in two parts. One, this generally arises when someone generalizes about how they use primary sources within their specific field or discipline. Outside of one field, sources may be used entirely differently. And two, a newspaper article isn't monolithic in focus or coverage, nor is there only one way to use it as an editor. For example, when writing about history, there are retrospective articles written by historians in newspapers that can be used; in fact, I use them all the time. These are secondary newspaper articles. On the other hand, while writing about history, there are also articles written at the time of the event which can be used, but as I said above, these types, which are considered primary, must be used carefully, often at the direction of secondary sources elsewhere. I made sure to do just that when writing about 19th century Scandinavian migration and an old painting. In those cases, the primary sources are used after the secondary has already evaluated their accuracy. This is important, as older sources are very often wrong. So, when someone says "we can use primary sources to write articles", there are all sorts of caveats involved. In the example of newspapers in general, it depends on the time the article was published, its focus, and whether it describes an event or analyzes it retrospectively. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we understand the term "newspaper article" somewhat differently, though we agree on the main point. A scholar’s work published in a peer-reviewed journal — or even in a newspaper — can be cited. However, I would still regard a newspaper article written by a journalist as a primary source. Such articles can be useful to researchers, but WP editors should not be conducting that kind of analysis within a Wikipedia article. Borsoka (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This would essentially render much of pop culture impossible to write about: look at the articles for modern albums and bands, or video games. It'd also make contemporary politics extremely difficult to talk about except at the highest level. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

And many of those political articles are analytical, which makes them secondary sources. Again, the confusion arises from field-related definitions that people bring here from their own professions. There used to be several published source guides that went into some detail about this, showing how each classifies the same source differently. That was a long, long time ago (2012?) so who knows what happened to it. It kind of reminded me of that old meme "Shit happens". If you know, you know. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't like using modern newspaper sources either — digging through a newspaper archive and writing an article based on that is the job of a historian, not a Wikipedia editor. I think that if in 10 years an article has no better sources than 2025 newspaper articles an AfD is in order. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for summarising my thoughts so clearly. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You're telling me that the FA Cedar Hill Yard should be deleted because it relies heavily on contemporary newspapers (and periodicals)? Do you see how absurd that appears for a subject that's been the source of sustained coverage for decades? Because that's how I am interpreting your comments.

digging through a newspaper archive and writing an article based on that is the job of a historian, not a Wikipedia editor This is farcical. If it were true, we wouldn't have access to newspaper archives through the Wikipedia Library. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

This is farcical. That's level 4 on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement.

You're telling me that the FA Cedar Hill Yard should be deleted because it relies heavily on contemporary newspapers (and periodicals)? Do you see how absurd that appears for a subject that's been the source of sustained coverage for decades?

If it has truly been the source of sustained coverage, and significant coverage at that, not just WP:ROUTINE announcements, then no, I won't argue it should be deleted. But we should only then write what these secondary sources say, not what contemporaneous sources have for us. Writing an entire article based on 1900s newspaper announcements misses the point of Wikipedia as a tertiary source. Did the folks at Encyclopaedia Britannica go through newspaper archives to write their stuff? JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course they did. And we can use primary sources for facts. They are authoritative whereas secondary sources are not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Your snarky reference to Graham's hierarchy of disagreement ignores that in the very next sentence I provide a counterargument. If you're going to be snarky, at least do it accurately. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

"Well, status quo" is hardly an argument in my book, to be honest. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with sourcing an entire article from primary sources! Primary sources can only be used for facts; you cannot for original research and interpretation, but otherwise their use is fine. Notability requires coverage in secondary sources, but you don't have to use them in sourcing the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

There's this attitude by some editors that primary = unreliable, and that's not necessarily true. I also can't agree with the assertion that all newspaper articles are primary sources that others have stated in this thread. Some certainly are - an obituary for example should be treated as primary. But there are plenty of instances of newspaper articles that are clearly presenting an analysis of primary sources at least one step removed from the event, and that is what a secondary source does. "Breaking news: John Smith Elected Mayor" is most likely primary, but "John Smith: An Analysis of His Political Career" is probably secondary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Bit late, but consensus, to my eyes, is that secondary sources (while very preferable) are not at all mandatory and articles can be built without them.

See for instance, Will P. Brady, which cites 450 odd newspaper accounts and almost no secondary sources. It became a featured article in 2022. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a great analogue to this discussion. Taking a look at Brady, I see that secondary sources are used in only a few spots. Due to the unusual reliance on sources about a century old, I do wonder how much of the article is accurate. I suspect that it may have quite a few inaccuracies. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with that being FA. Just saying. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a FAR if you so wish, but I feel it's a perfectly fine FA if all the reliable secondary sources on the matter are being used. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we can understand it as less a binary. We can use all the reliable secondary sources on the matter and use primary sources, but put less emphasis on them, or use them only for basic facts, or use them only or primarily for the parts they act as secondary sources for (e.g. "IBM has a new CEO. In the past 20 years, the business has gone through five as market conditions have...") etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 10:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Note this is not an isolated example. For example almost all of @Sammi Brie's TV articles are based mainly off newspapers, and several of the Singapore MRT station FAs do the same. As do probably thousands of other GAs and FAs. I personally believe the encyclopedia is better keeping these articles the way they are, and having a more inclusive definition of secondary sources, but I'm curious what others think. IAWW (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The multitude of wildly differing perspectives on this is really interesting, considering most the participants in this discussion are regulars at the GA and FA processes. I'd be interested to know who's attached to their viewpoint as a matter of wikiphilosophy and who, in contrast, has based their viewpoint off their understanding of policies and guidelines up until now.

The range of differing perspectives gives me the impression that it's essentially luck whether a newspaper based article passes at FAC/GAN, depending on the reviewer(s) it gets. This is consistent with what I've observed in practice. IAWW (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

This was discussed about ten or more years ago in some depth. It turned out that the confusion arose from a discipline-level understanding of PST, not from one based on Wikipedia house style. In other words, primary sources have field-level definitions that change based on usage within that field and how they are used by people outside that field. The distinction between the type of source and how it is used is often ignored. This is why you see people saying up above that all newspapers are primary sources, when in fact, that isn't true. This understanding comes from field-related definitions. In a specific field (math, physics, history, pyschology, whatever), you are told that x type of source is primary, and people bring that understanding to Wikipedia, not realizing that our house style takes after the general library science classifications, not those of specific disciplines. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

if there's that much confusion, we should write an essay about this.. "Newspapers are not primary" or something Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we used to have a policy or essay that said that! Things change really quick around here (Insert obligatory Ferris Bueller quote). Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned this below, but what you're looking for is in an essay: WP:PRIMARYNEWS GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

That's it! Circa 2011-2012, so I wasn't so far off. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

An example of a field definition is that Ancient historians tend to refer to sources from more than a thousand years or so ago as primary, even if they were written centuries after the event described. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Three other examples pertain to how primary sources are used in physics, medical, and legal articles. IIRC, a primary source is routinely used in our physics-related articles, avoided in medical articles, and used carefully in legal topics. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I was taught that when doing literature review, you should attempt to trace a claim back to the original source, often resulting in very old sources being cited. The trend to rely primarily on the most cutting edge new stuff applies a bit to peer-reviewed publications, as they function a bit like a conversation and are focused on the new stuff, but I don't think that should really apply to Wikipedia articles. Over reliance on modern sources that are citing older material is often just laziness, and can quickly become a game of telephone where authors paraphrase what someone else said until it becomes entirely unrecognizable. Furthermore, often a subject was quite notable, but not much has been published about them in recent years. This was a problem I encountered when I wrote Cyrus Cornelius Adams, of the six sources I used for verification, four are pre-WWII, which isn't surprising as he died in 1928. I believe that the same might be true for Jesse M. Bowell, he appears to be notable but there might not be any recent reporting on him. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• In preparing articles I have consistently compared primary sources with the secondary literature cited, but this does not imply that articles should be based primarily on primary material such as newspaper reports or oral testimony. In my view, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for encyclopaedic entries on subjects that are not covered in peer-reviewed academic sources. This is, however, a strategic choice: whether the project should become a platform for material that has not passed academic scrutiny, or whether it should remain a reference work grounded in published scholarship and academic standards. Borsoka (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

  Limiting to only peer-reviewed academic sources would make a lot of topics almost impossible to include, and not in line with with the policies surrounding Wikipedia:Verifiability. This lists, University-level textbooks, Books published by respected publishing houses, Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones, and Reputable newspapers as appropriate sources to base an article on. WP:PRIMARYNEWS has a bit on newspaper articles, it is a bit complex on if an article is primary or not. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think the issues can be viewed not as binary, use or not, but which one to use if given the choice? If all we have is newspapers, then these are sources to use. Fine. However, if we do have secondary sources, i.e., an analysis by historians, then any newspapers should be cautiously used if at all and instead we primarily use on those secondary sources to write the WP articles. A.Cython (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Newspapers can be evaluated as both primary and secondary; see the link GeogSage provided. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  I know, but what I wanted to say is that when I have the choice, I ignore the newspapers because IMO they do not carry the same weight as peer-reviewed academic studies. If I do not have the choice then I use newspapers since it is better than nothing.A.Cython (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Using "peer-reviewed academic studies" is meaningful in a lot of contexts, however most of the time they are either non-existent, not exactly what we're looking for, or over kill. A great example is obituary articles in a news paper, they give us a source about basics like birth date, death date, spouse, kids, places lived, etc. While peer-reviewed journals do publish articles for prominent members of the discipline (they are the main source I try to use when writing biographies of geographers), this is not the case for most humans to have lived. When ever I can find both a new paper obituary and a journal article, I try to cite them both to double verify facts. There is very little chance that most notable people will have a journal article focused on their biography, this does not mean they are not notable. When it comes to simple statements of fact, I really don't think primary sources or news papers are a huge issue. There is an essay on using primary sources appropriately here: WP:PRIMARYCARE. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree up to a point.

  1. If there are no academic sources then newspapers become indispensable. No doubt about this. They could also be used to fill in the gaps between academic sources.
  2. I have grave concerns on the use of opinion pieces found in newspapers, which is why I hesitate to use newspapers with equal weight with academic sources.
  3. If a person is not worth being a subject of historians (or other secondary sources), then we need to be careful whether such a person should be subject of a WP article. There are questions of WP:NOTABILITY. Newspapers alone should not be sufficient to judge notability. A.Cython (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  If a person is not worth being a subject of historians (or other secondary sources), then we need to be careful whether such a person should be subject of a WP article. I disagree with this. Wikipedia:Notability gives several guidelines for when a subject is notable, and there are sets of specific guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (academics). For example, the reason I made a page for Cyrus Cornelius Adams is they are a former president of the American Association of Geographers and WP:NACADEMIC states one of the ways for a person to be notable is: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." It is often challenging to find information about academics while they live as the best sources are often the memorial articles in peer-reviewed journals that only become available after they die. Adams has "Memoir of Cyrus Cornelius Adams" and a New York Times obituary, but this is not the case for living people. Adams, as a verifiable former president of a major academic society, is notable even without being the subject of historians based on the policy for notability surrounding academics. I will note though that Adams does have an entry in the book "Illinois Biographical Dictionary," which probably qualifies as being a subject of historians, but even without this other presidents of the AAG (or other academic societies) should pass verification as notable. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  Most of what we cover does not have extensive coverage in peer-reviewed academic sources and our policies and guidelines explicitly do not limit what we should consider reliable or contributing to GNG to such sources (see WP:SECONDARY). You can have that opinion, but it does not reflect community consensus at all. You are also presenting as a fact that all newspaper articles are primary sources, which is clearly not a widely accepted viewpoint based on this discussion and the existence of WP:PRIMARYNEWS (which is not a policy or guideline, but shows there is nowhere near universal acceptance of your stated position). Quite simply, following your idea that Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for encyclopaedic entries on subjects that are not covered in peer-reviewed academic sources would account for binning most of the articles on Wikipedia and would utterly destroy this site as an encyclopedic resource for the vast majority of subjects. I strongly oppose this viewpoint and I think much of the community opposes it as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

GA is intended to be a low bar. The only sourcing requirement at GAN is that reliable sources are used. It is up to us all to reject any move to impose a higher standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• WP:PRIMARY (which is part of the WP:OR policy) states: 'Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.' if an article is entirely based on primary sources then it fails the requirement to comply with the WP:OR policy, and thus should be a GA fail. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's worth noting here that the inclusion of PSTS in the page WP:OR is contested, and all the last few talk page archives have some support for a proposal to split it out into its own page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see any reason why the GA criteria should ignore a part of the WP:OR policy because it *might* become a separate policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  That's not what he said IAWW (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

For me, Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS makes it clear that the newspaper articles cited in Jesse M. Bowell are to be treated as primary sources. Our policies are unambiguous: Wikipedia articles are expected to rely primarily on reliable secondary sources, and neither entire articles nor substantial parts of them should be built on primary material. If we wish to build and maintain a respected encyclopaedia, we simply have to adhere to these policies. I can only speak for myself rather than for "much of the community", but I am confident that editors are neither expected nor equipped to develop articles in the absence of reliable secondary sources, preferably peer-reviewed ones. Those who wish to present the results of their own research based on primary sources should, quite properly, seek to have it published in an academic journal first, rather than using Wikipedia as the initial venue for such work. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Without agreeing or disagreeing, it might help if people provide examples of how to best do this. I've already provided several examples up above because I run into this issue all the time. I would like to provide another one for people to look at because I'm considering submitting it as GAN at some point. For this, I would offer Roger A. Freeman. 90% of the article (possibly more) can be sourced to Stephan Seiter's biography in the widely cited academic work, Biographical handbook of German-speaking economists, which I believe is best described as a tertiary source composed of primary and secondary sources that have been analyzed by experts. However, as is my preference, I triangulated most of this material elsewhere, just to make sure I could verify it. In addition, I ended up using several newspaper articles that were not included in this biographical work, mostly as supplemental, as in some cases they appeared to be published after the work itself appeared, or were unknown to Seiter. In spite of that, I made sure that this material also appeared elsewhere so that I was not cherry picking primary sources based on my own POV. This is how primary sources should be used, IMO. I may need to go back and make this a bit more clear. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed based on secondary sources, but the "peer reviewed" part is something you've invented. Please stop trying to treat that as a settled fact when it quite simply isn't. Most subjects do not have extensive coverage in peer reviewed academic journals, but that does not mean they are unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia. And please stop with your obsession with academic journals in general. They are not the only form of a reliable secondary source, as we also have reputably published books, reliable magazines with a clear editorial policy, and published articles from reputable news organizations that conduct analysis and interpretation of primary sources, to give a few examples. WP:SECONDARY says nothing about peer review. If you want every single edit you do to be based on peer reviewed academic journals, be my guest, but you do not get to impose that on anyone else in the absence of any sort of policy or guideline mandating it. If you believe there is an issue specifically with the sourcing of Jesse M. Bowell, you know where to find the talk page for that article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

• Please read what I actually wrote: ...I am confident that editors are neither expected nor equipped to develop articles in the absence of reliable secondary sources, preferably peer-reviewed ones. Those who wish to present the results of their own research based on primary sources should, quite properly, seek to have it published in an academic journal first... This is not an obsession, this is fully in line with our community's policies on sourcing: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources" and "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay. I don't think such stringent wording exists in policy anywhere? IAWW (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I think at one time in the deep past, a lot of this stuff was part of our policies and guidelines. Some editors took it upon themselves to bifurcate the most important bits and I think that's how we ended up with this as an essay in 2011 or 2012. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not how policies and guidelines work. Individual people don't snap off bits of policy and downgrade them into essays. Essays are opinions and commentaries. Some have strong consensus and may be viewed (mistakenly or otherwise) as having the force of PAGs, but that is not the case. In rare cases an essay has been elevated to PAG status, but it doesn't go the other way around. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

It literally says at the top of the page "This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:No original research's Primary, secondary and tertiary sources subsection." Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

...yes? In what way does that mean it is bifurcated from a PAG or has the weight of a PAG? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Never said it had the weight. You can look at the NOR talk page and see where this topic has been discussed endlessly for years. In fact, Johnbod in 2010 called it a "perennial problem", which I believe is correct. WhatamIdoing summarized the exact issue one month later on the same talk page, a year before he created the essay. I know you're not going to like this, but the essay arose from the NOR policy talk page. The policy itself is deliberately ambiguous and refuses to engage with the perennial problem, but problematically lends weight to one side in various indirect ways. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That the essay arose from discussions on the talk page does not mean "this stuff was part of our policies and guidelines" until "Some editors took it upon themselves to bifurcate the most important bits". If anything, it means the opposite - there has clearly been no consensus to settle this issue one way or another. WAID wrote an explanatory essay, but it wasn't "bifurcated" or removed from policy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNEWS offers a well-grounded summary of the prevailing scholarly perspectives on how newspaper articles are distinguished as primary or secondary sources, and I see no persuasive reason to depart from it. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/GA1

I call bullshit on disagree with this Quick Fail. Pinging User:Jasper Deng. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Bgsu98, I'm sorry you have had this article quickfailed, it doesn't feel good. I would not have quickfailed the article and don't agree with a lot of what @Jasper Deng wrote, but a good article review is the opinion of one editor and doesn't require consensus. You can renominate it immediately and with 28 other articles in the queue, one nomination is not a big deal. this Quick Fail is bullshit. Shame on you. is out of line, GA is short enough on reviewers without this kind of behaviour that will certainly drive some editors away. Before escalating things here, talk to the reviewer. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Please ping properly (see WP:PING for details). Seems a good faith review that concluded that WP:DUE wasn't met. "I call bullshit" is uncivil, and I'd ask you to apologise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I followed protocol per Wikipedia:Good article frequently asked questions#Review process:

I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!

That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.

User:Jasper Deng simply Quick Failed the article again. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It's one thing if you had done any work since then to address the callouts. It's another when you're calling the process "bullshit". I quickfailed again because no reasonable reviewer will agree that what I said was addressed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I stated after the first Quick Fail why I felt most of your comments were invalid. There was nothing "glaring" that met the Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria for Quick Fail, and couldn't have been addressed within a reasonable time frame. "Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. You may decide to put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow time for issues to be fixed." Especially since you just spent time going through and making improvements to the article. In fact, I was headed to your talk page to leave a thank you note for your assistance with the article when the Quick Fail came through, so yeah, that went in the trash. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Jasper does not seem to have known it is best practice to let someone else handle the next review . Jasper, your comments being addressed is not a requirement. It is only a requirement if the next reviewer agrees they were legitimate (It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article. Just put a comment in the note= parameter asking the next reviewer to comment on whether they think the issues raised in the past review were legitimate and have been addressed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It is best practice, but also not binding, especially when the nominator expressly shows a failure to assume good faith. I have a very hard but manageable time believing that they did the second nomination in good faith without any attempt at fixing problems, especially as they did not rebut all of my rationale for failing (so for example, the overlinking should've been fixed). Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The standard practice on figure skating articles (hell, articles all over the place), is that it is not overlinking if it is linked only once per section. After all, readers may jump to a particular section without reading earlier sections. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Please discuss that at the review itself. I'm giving just one example of an issue that you implicitly admit is valid by not addressing it in your earlier comments. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

You specified that it was minor. I focused my attention on your major issues. Plus I don't believe it's overlinking. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Minor issues should still be addressed. That aside, you didn't the (non-minor) issue 6 either. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "stories" you think are missing. If you have specific examples, please share. I have tried to include specific incidents for a particular skater or team in their respective event subsection if available (for example, Keegan Messing being denied entry to China, Roman Sadovsky called up the night before, Vincent Zhou's personal history with the Chinese-themed routine, Nathan Chen redeeming himself for the Korean Olympics, etc.). The one item you bring up which is valid and I'm surprised it wasn't already included was the inordinate time delay in resolving the situation, particularly from the American team. I will include that tomorrow. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

For example, the Russian ladies being expected to be favorites, how the skaters felt before and after the event, how their coaches did, etc. Let's discuss that at the review itself. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the Background section is all about the Russian women expecting to dominate! Each section also tries to include at least one quote from someone about how they did. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, I don't want to discuss that here, but rather on the review. One paragraph isn't enough; one quote per section isn't enough, since most day-of press coverage was about this. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll leave this to anyone else who wants to comment, but I will say that overlinking is not part of the good article criteria. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

OVERLINK compromises "well-writtenness", 1b, at the level at which it occurs in this article. It's one thing to have just one extra blue link. It's another to have a dozen. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't. That section lists the relevant manual of style guidelines, none of which contain overlinking, and then finishes with a footnote saying "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles." Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really here to debate that. See how excessive links can indeed compromise flow? Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There are zero instances of WP:SEAOFBLUE in the article, period. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:OVERLINK specifies "Link a term at most once per major section" and qualifies "major section" as a level 2 header. By my calculation (assuming Heading is level 1), the level 2 header is Sub-heading 1. I do not repeat links below that level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Valieva is doubly linked in the Entries section (including the footnote), each results section (including footnotes), and the Aftermath section. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Jasper, go somewhere else and let another editor take over. This is disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know whether this applies, but the GA criteria state that the GA reviewer should "not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review." Jasper is the third most prolific editor on this article. Granted, the numbers are skewed since I overhauled it, so I don’t know what the percentages were beforehand.

At the very least, I believe the second Quick Fail should be invalidated since it was not handled properly. I’m not asking to have the article put back in the queue; just to have that second QF removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Lists

Can lists qualify for GA status? We have featured list, but I cant tell if lists would be included here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist: The answer is No. Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#What cannot be a good article? mentions: "standalone lists", so that should answer your question. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I have submitted several articles that could be considered lists through GA. I guess it depends on the amount of prose in your article. What article are you considering? Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I have seen those articles and if I'm not mistaken they are television seasons which are in a bit of a weird spot. For a while, they used to be considered lists but now they're not, so... _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There is also the option of WP:Good topics, thought it is much more challenging to get achieve it. A.Cython(talk) 19:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Good Topic isn't a status for an individual page though, it's the recognition that a group of articles has achieved GA or FA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, all the articles under the topic must be at least GA, making it so difficult to get one. A.Cython(talk) 19:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Your comment mentions "the option" of GT in reply to a comment about how TV seasons are no longer considered lists, so it appeared as though you were saying they were an alternate option to GA, for lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if my comment was a bit off. I just wanted to mention GT because I was reading about them lately. A.Cython(talk) 22:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

User:SignedInteger: I wasn't thinking of those Amazing Race articles, but you're right, those are kind of odd. No way would any of them qualify for Featured List though, and I'm sure Featured Article would boot them out too. I was thinking more of Skate Canada International, for example. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Sports competition articles are also usually not considered lists, I would give other examples from the category yours is in but it appears you might be one of the hardest working editors when it comes to ice skating. But to give a non ice skating example, the 2022 FIFA World Cup is also a GA and is clearly also a sporting competition article. I'm not sure why this is the case, though. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the difference is that the bulk of those competition articles are lists of results, with some prose to provide context. 2025 Skate Canada International, for example, would definitely not be a list since it is a one-time event; Skate Canada International will go through Featured List when I get to it. I'm (sadly) limited by how many I can submit at a time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Yeah but after checking for more examples, I noticed that FIFA World Cup is a featured article and not a featured list, which means that Skate Canada International would probably have to go through the FAC process instead. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know; Grand Prix de France (figure skating) went through FLC; it is structurally similar to Skate Canada International. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Honestly, I wonder why they haven't made GLs (Good Lists, obviously) a thing yet at this point. If those existed, that could help clear things up with stuff like this. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I would love Good Lists! 😃😃😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There is not really a niche for it. The WP:FLCR are easier to meet than the WP:FACR, perhaps roughly similar to the WP:GACR. Cutting parts of the FLCR off to create a lower rung would not provide as large as a gap as GA/FA. CMD (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Totally understandable! Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Why would articles randomly be lists simply because they are sports articles? For instance, the World Snooker Championship is an article, whilst List of World Snooker Championship winners is a list. There is a little nuance, but generally lists are where the bulk of the article is in list form, or at least the subject is of a list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 already gave an example of a sports article that went through FLC instead of FAC: Grand Prix de France (figure skating). I'm not too sure why this is the case, to be honest. It is very strange. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 14:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Probabky should have gone to FAC indeed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, just because an article includes a lot of tables doesn’t mean the article is a list. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Because, as Lee stated, the bulk of that article (Grand Prix de France (figure skating)) is made up of lists and tables. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a specific list you were looking at? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Review of Charles T. Moran

Czarking0, honorarily mentioning you as the reviewer. In August, I started working on Charles T. Moran and submitted it that month. Czarking0 took the nomination on December 28. I started working through some of the issues they brought up promptly, but the review was quickfailed this morning after two days of not responding. Changes to reviews do not notify the nominator, so I was unaware of Czarking0's comments—not an issue on that part—until last night. I intended to work on the article this morning, only to find that the review had been closed. Czarking0 did leave a comment irrespective of the closing nine minutes before the review was closed, which indicates to me that perhaps they weren't finished with their review.

There are other issues with the review—I don't need to rehash them here, as I did explicitly say them in the review—but this appears to be the most glaring issue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Grand Slam

I can't remember if I ever suggested this before, but a while ago, I had an idea that in the same vein as the Triple Crown and four awards, we could have the "Grand Slam". The idea being a rather difficult task of completing the promotion of an article to GA for each of the 15 GA nomination categories. You can see an example of how this looks with my list where I've completed 8. I'm certain someone must have completed all categories by now.

I'm posting here to see how much interest there might be in a dedicated page in Wikipedia space for this, maybe with some barnstars for completing the Grand Slam, or even ones for completing half of the topics. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Anything to encourage editing is a net-positive. You could also do a reviewer grand slam as a separate award. Z1720 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
• This sounds like the "bonus" for "Jack of all trades" from WP:BILORV, no? And the reviewer version as the regular "Jack of all trades" challenge. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

  You're right. I'd not seen that page. It's pretty much exactly that. No reason to not have it more prominent though. Glad to see someone has indeed done this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

• This is as mentioned a BILORV bonus but I don't oppose expanding it into something a bit more developed if it would encourage people. The top-level GA categories have remained reasonably stable. CMD (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems like this is reasonably popular, so I've gone ahead and created the page Wikipedia:Grand Slam. It's a little barebones for now, so feel free to add anything that is suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a companion for this when someone has reviewed an article from every category? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

There certainly could be scope for that. I think at the very least we could make some barnstars to this end. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Another opportunity to encourage people to review GANs

Can we add a sentence to the end of ChristieBot's {{GAnotice}} saying something along the lines of "Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination from the queue. Thank you!"? JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

While this is a good suggestion, I think that it would be nice if we had more people willing to mentor new GAN reviewers. I looked at the mentorship section and I saw two discussions that got archived before anyone could respond which is a shame because if anyone did, we'd have more reviewers and thus the backlog would be cleared at a somewhat faster rate. That would probably help out too. I for one wouldn't mind helping out if I could get a mentor to explain some of the bits that I might not understand that well. Just my own take on this. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 14:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

User:SignedInteger Feel free to message me if you have any questions about doing reviews! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll think of a few questions and ask them on your talk page later. I'm likely going to review any of the nominations under "Music" (All of them, that includes biographies, songs and albums) because music is both a topic I'm interested in and one that I feel like I have a great understanding of when it comes to how it is handled on Wikipedia. Again, thanks, but it would really help if we had more experienced reviewers willing to help potential new reviewers out exactly like this because again, then we'd have more reviewers and the backlog would be cleared at a faster rate. That and I think those who gain experience reviewing GANs would also be able to help with reviewing FACs and yeah you get the idea. Wikipedia improves at a faster rate when editors are willing to help each other out, and this is a clear example of an area that could use more of that. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

GA Mentor Request

Hello all, and happy holidays! I originally posted over at WP:Good article mentorship, but my request kept getting archived; there are a couple of other pending requests there if any experienced reviewers wanted to take a look?

I've completed a review of Talk:Bella Ramsey/GA1, and feel it's ready for promotion. As this is my first ever GA review however, I was hoping a GA Mentor or experienced reviewer could just double check that I've not missed anything important before I did so. Cheers, Nil🥝 21:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

That looks more than sufficient! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a good review. You caught quite a few issues, including often forgotten wp:lead issues and the more technical image licencing issues. There is a source spotcheck and the noting of insufficient sourcing. If I was to nitpick there is no explicit mention of criterias 3, 4, or 5, but I emphasise it's a procedural nitpick and the review is good. CMD (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 @Chipmunkdavis Thank you both, much appreciated! Nil🥝 03:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I deal with a non-free sound sample that has no rationale?

I just started my review for Seven Nation Army, and I was clearing the basics (ie, 5 and 6, copyvio bot, citation bot and the like) but then I noticed that the sound sample has no rationale at all. What do I do here? This is probably the simplest part of the GA criteria, and every other multimedia file is fine except for this one, so do I remove this or provide a rationale on my own? Or do I wait for the nominator to do so? Thanks in advance! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

There is some rationale for inclusion at File:Seven Nation Army (sample).ogg#Summary. Is your concern that what is given is insufficient? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh! Then let me fix this real quick. They forgot to remove the notice that tells you to add a rationale. I'll remove it real quick. Apologies. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed it. That damn thing is the first thing I look at when checking these, so to see it say "to the uploader! provide a non-free rationale!" made me go "Uh oh...". Let this be a lesson to always change that to "file has rationale=yes" if it has one. Apologies again for my own ignorance. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

No trouble, thanks for taking on another GA review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 23:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem! I just finished it up a moment ago. (I was finishing up the source spot checking, it had about 22-25% of the sources cited, which is clearly enough for a review). I think I'm getting the hang of this. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Abandoned review

Ajay Platinum (talk · contribs) picked Contramar for review two weeks ago. They also nominated Gustav Ammann for GAN. Since that day, they haven't edited. Reviewing their edits, they edited once in November and from then, until January 2025. They left a review, but one of the points was vague ("Some sections of the prose must be rewritten to become more neutral or provide clarity. Some sentences can also be clubbed together for better readability. I will fix the prose while you work on my other comments, but feel free to let me know if you want to handle this/want clarification."), so the nomination is stuck because of this. What can be done? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

If the user doesn't respond by the 5th January, I'll take it up and finish the review 😁 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies for the delay in completing the review. I will be responding to the nominee's comments today and will work with them to wrap it up ASAP. Ajay Platinum (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

That's wonderful that this review was able to carry on with a new reviewer. To answer your question 'What can be done?', the normal route is to increment, as stated in the Instructions under "if a review seems abandoned." Prhartcom (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Grounds for failure

On its own:

• Is WP:ARTICLESIZE grounds for failure or putting a review on hold?

• Is a single instance of a potentially incorrectly licensed file grounds for failure or putting a review on hold?

Thanks in advance. ~2026-80356 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

What is the specific article to which you are referring? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey Bgsu; sorry, that was me on my phone. I am currently reviewing the entry for the 2025 Singaporean general election, and I cannot for the life of me determine whether this modified version of the Singaporean coat of arms is correctly licensed or not.

There is also the small matter of the page being 14,858 words in length — and that's only counting the prose. SelfDestructible (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

"Putting a review on hold" generally means waiting for problems identified to be fixed, so presumably any GACR issues are "grounds" for this. CMD (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Bad file licensing is definitely grounds for placing a review on hold under criteria #6a. My opinion is that for GA status, we should be a lot more lenient on article size stuff than at FAC, but for truly egregious cases (which would mainly involve clear summary style failures or off-topic information) this would be grounds for failing the article or not passing until criteria #1a (clear and concise prose) and #3a (on topic and written in summary style) are met. I think for GA status it's more helpful to approach the article size issues from a perspective of summary style and off-topic information than a raw word count; 8,000 words for a major historical figure or core scientific topic is clearly different than 8,000 words for a more minor topic. Hog Farm _Talk 01:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The rules are that the article cannot be a stub. Whether an article is a stub based on length is a little bit up for debate. A review can be "put on hold" for any reason at any time prior to it being passed or failed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

My personal rule is I quickfail anything that doesn't meet the minimum requirements for DYK (1500 characters in length). For comparison, a very short GA I wrote (Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad) shows as 2956 characters in length with the DYK tool. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

GA nom of article where nominator got banned

Hi, recently I completed an extensive peer review (around 10 hours of work, including spot-checking source-text integrity and finding additional references) of an article which I hoped to see at GA.

Unfortunately, the nominator got banned recently. Even though I'm not the main contributor to the article, would it be acceptable for me to nominate it, given that I feel I understand the article very well and am prepared to address any issues during the GA process? Any advice would be appreciated. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Always unfortunate when a talented editor ruins their efforts by socking. I think it's perfectly fine to nominate it as long as you note the circumstances alongside your nomination and make an effort to familiarize yourself with all the sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shame to see. Thanks for the advice and answer, I'll make sure to do that. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I share Generalissima's perspective here. As I've said before, the point of disallowing drive-by nominations is to ensure that nominators are sufficiently familiar with the article and its sources to be able to deal with any issues brought up by the reviewer, and anybody who meets that requirement—even, in principle, somebody who has never edited the article or indeed Wikipedia at all—should be able to nominate it. TompaDompa (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Penalty for multiple quick fails

I have seen an editor have two GAR quick failed in the last week and a peer review speedy closed. This editor has 30+ GAN presently. I do not feel that I can fairly do 30+ reviews but wanted to see if this was something that should be brought up? Czarking0 (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Who is the editor? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

This is really unclear. have two GAR quick failed – Do you mean GANs? GARs can't be quickfailed. Also like Bgsu says I think you need to say who the editor is or any judgements will lack context. IAWW (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, why should penalties be applied for having GAs or GARs failed? Wikipedia is a work in progress, no one should be punished for their articles not being GA standards... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The implication, if I understand correctly, is that the alleged editor was tempted to quick fail a few GANs to advance his/her own articles in the queue. So the critical question is whether the quick fail of these nominations were done correctly or not. A.Cython (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh okay, that makes more sense DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation was that the editor's nominations were quickfailed. Perhaps Czarking0 could clarify, and indeed do us the courtesy of naming the editor (is it User:ElijahPepe?) so we can talk facts rather than vague suppositions? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct, Czarking said nothing about the editor QFing other peoples' nominations in a bad faith manner. Their concern is clearly that someone who has nominated 30+ articles has already had two of their nominations be quickfails, implying that there may be issues with some of their other nominations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The editor is ElijahPepe who has quickfailed one article Talk:Online Safety Amendment/GA1 in the last month. I don't know what the two in the last week is referencing, Czarking0 has failed Talk:Pete Hegseth/GA2 today. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 17:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I think ElijahPepe is operating in good faith and am not trying to make a disciplinary thing here.

I personally never have more than one GAN at a time as I don't think I can do a good job with more volume. I recognize that others are able to do more than I. However, when I see multiple quickfails with 30+ additional nominations I worry that others are not recognizing their own limits. Czarking0 (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Some editors may be working on multiple articles at the same time over extensive period of time. Once all these articles are finished (from their point of view) then they can submit them all together. As far as I know, there is no limit how many GANs one can submit. I am more concerned with editors submitting multiple GANs but fail to review other people's work (the rule of thumb is two reviews per GAN). All of these take time, so let's assume good faith. A.Cython (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say that two of the editor's GAN were QF'd by other reviewers. I worry about the 30+ GAN in the review pipeline. Czarking0 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

What is the second GAN quick failed in the last week? Is Wikipedia:Peer review/Kash Patel/archive1 the peer review you reference? It was closed on procedural grounds as Elijah already a PR open. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 17:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

One GAN quick failed in the last week, which was by Czarking0 today; you can check my talk page. First, by no means is there any obligation to do 33 reviews by yourself. Second, the implication that my articles aren't worthy of GA status isn't supported by the passes I have had since I started doing GAs for BLPs: Kingsley Wilson, Emil Bove, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, and Gary Shapley. The quickfail that's being brought up is for Pete Hegseth, and the peer review is for Kash Patel; I was unaware that you could not have more than two peer reviews open at a time, and I had frankly forgotten that I had opened it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Kash Patel/GA3 was the other QF I was talking about. I was incorrect about last week as this was months ago Czarking0 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the validity of your QF today either way, but it does rather undercut your case if much of your original post is incorrect. (Not to mention that it was unclear enough that the discussion immediately derailed into a misunderstanding of your concerns.) Do you think it might have been more productive to talk to Elijah yourself on his talk page rather than hastily bringing this to a public noticeboard without double checking your assumptions? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I did try to address his talk page. Maybe read that first if you think it is relevant. Czarking0 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw the post with your concerns about the Kash Patel article, but this thread isn't focused on the Patel article, it expresses a more general issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I probably would not have passed Kingsley Wilson and may take it to GAR at some point. Lutnick looks pretty good. You certainly make a lot of articles about republican leaders. Czarking0 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You certainly make a lot of articles about republican leaders. Care to explain why this is relevant? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable at this time. Two QFs in a week isn't necessarily cause for alarm just yet, but I don't even see that - I only see one QF from the past week. If you go through ElijahPepe's 30+ other GANs and find several other articles that are easily QF-able, then we can discuss that problem. But I don't think we need to apply any "penalties" or "punishments" right now. Barring the existence of prevalent QF-able issues, such as maintenance tags, across these articles, reviewers will get to the articles in due time.

As for the number of GANs that ElijahPepe currently has open, that's a separate issue. There's a current soft cap of 20 GANs; any additional GANs are automatically hidden by ChristieBot. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. I had tried to bring the question for my understanding of the process. I did not know about this soft cap. I did not mean for this to turn into a conduct discussion about a specific editor as I think Elijah is a good faith editor that is bringing a lot of value to the project. Of course, anyone can look through my contributions so it is not like I could keep the issue that had brought this to mind a secret. Czarking0 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I hope it is alright to insert myself into this conversation, but I believe ElijahPepe is a good faith editor and I had the pleasure of working with them to pass Brilyn Hollyhand as a good article. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 21:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Essay on reviewing Good Articles; the motivation perspective

I wrote a somewhat different user essay (How to stay motivated when reviewing Good Articles), encouraging the reviewers to be a bit more selfish. The simple assumption is that happy reviewers equate to more reviews. Not sure if this essay is helpful, but it's a try. Input welcome! Thanks, Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Quite good! These are helpful ideas. I made a few copy-edits to your page (feel free to revert them).

• Would you like to touch on the responsibility to complete the review and the goal to wrap it up in around seven days?

• The text touches on it in the second sentence ("responsibility and commitment") and provide a possible workaround (review strategy #2). I heard from editors who avoid taking a review because they are not sure they can really finish it, so this is definitely an issue for some. Do you think we should stress the responsibility aspect a bit more (overdoing it – becoming too selfish and motivation-focused – is obviously no good for a collaborative project)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Your instinct to not preach is probably the right one: touch on the reviewer's commitment and goal, then move on. It's good that the essay is focusing on the reviewer finding ways to have fun when they review. Prhartcom (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Just noticed that the essay could use a closing section. Even if only one positive, motivating sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Possibly, yeah. I'm not good with closing sentences and can't think about one atm, but will add it as soon as something comes to mind. And of course, if you already have an idea, please feel free to add it. And thanks again for the feedback, much appreciated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps add to the list of motivations not only "give back" but also "pay it forward"? (I've seen people do this.)

• Added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• Is this a good time to remind the reviewer to suggest changes rather than demand changes? And to collaboratively fix simple issues themselves? (Sometimes it's quicker than explaining.)

• Excellent suggestions – I took both on-board. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that motivation is important. All reviewers should read this. Prhartcom (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Excellent – thank you very much for your copy edit and your suggestions, and see my replies above! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack, I enjoyed reading your essay and think it is valuable to all good article nominators and reviewers. I have recently decided to get back into doing good article reviews after having years long hiatus from doing them. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 22:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Book or journal sources using Wikipedia as a reference

While I am reviewing an article Arithmetic billiards in the discussion, apparently a source from here uses Wikipedia as a reference. And surprisingly, the nominator could not find it, yet I could. What bugs me is, can such a source still be considered reliable? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

If this is an academic peer-reviewed source then I do not see why citing WP would make it less reliable. A.Cython(talk) 01:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Judging by the authors, it appears to be, the authors are all faculty members from the University of Luxembourg. I could be wrong here, but I doubt that something like this, that's authored by faculty members from a university wouldn't be peer-reviewed. Again, sorry if I'm wrong. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 01:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Take this to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

ga nom close request

i'm concerned about the review at dersu uzala (1975) (nom), at the nomination we have had a content dispute, for which i asked for a second opinion. in the notice for a second opinion the reviewer commented that the second person should take over reviewing the article. as a result i've asked twice for the review to be closed as failed; the reviewer denied this request and accused me of WP:GAMING and they left a notice asking for a sysop to comment on whether my actions constitute GAMING. quote: "by your asking to simply close the GAN without any further appreciable work on the article from you, for the purpose of then directly re-opening it with the sole purpose of somehow getting a clean slate with another editor seems a poor idea." it feels to me like a bfe accusation. as far as i can tell from the gan guidelines there's been nothing wrong with my request. the diffs to the article demonstrate that i've been willing to compromise and followed the majority of the advice of the reviewer.--Plifal (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I've left a comment, but the idea that you want to keep a review open but don't want to review the article is bizarre Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from ErnestKrause why they consider the explicit GAN instructions "If a review stalls or there is disagreement over the interpretation of the good article criteria...you may ask the reviewer to fail the review, then renominate the article to get a different reviewer to be WP:GAMING ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Plifal: I closed the GA for you. You are free to immediately resubmit it to GA in order to find a second reviewer. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you!--Plifal (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Sample template for February GAN Drive

The idea that I had was to encourage reviewers to try and review one article from each category. This template would allow reviewers to identify each article they've reviewed in its respective category, and then provide a spot for moderators to award the points (the same as has been done in the past). If reviewers do other reviews in a category they have already covered, they can list them below the table. At the end of the month, bonus points can be awarded for each category covered, plus super bonus points for anyone who completes the table. I also suggest a special barnstar for completing a full set.

In the event that there are not sufficient articles in a particular category (chemistry and math appear to have very few entries, for example), reviewers can substitute another article from a duplicated category at the end. No one should be penalized for a lack of available articles to review in a particular category.

Category	Article reviewed	Points awarded
Agriculture, food and drink
Art and architecture
Computing and engineering
Transport
Geography
Places
Royalty, nobility and heraldry
World history
Language and literature
Mathematics and mathematicians
Film
Media and drama
Television
Albums
Songs
Other music articles
Biology and medicine
Chemistry and materials science
Earth sciences
Physics and astronomy
Philosophy and religion
Culture, sociology and psychology
Education
Economics and business
Law
Magazines and print journalism
Politics and government
Football
Other sports
Recreation
Video games
Warfare

Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks good for me but what would be the criteria for giving extra or bonus points. Fade258 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• I suspect that only a few reviewers will go for this, and this template will take up a lot of space so I don't think this should be placed on the main drive page. Rather, a sub-page can be created where editors who want to be awarded this prize can place this template and the articles for consideration. Z1720 (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, a separate subpage, maybe one for each participant would be better or at least; participants grouped by alphabetic or something.. A table with links to each user's subpage (with sub-section anchor if grouped) should be placed in the main drive's page instead.. Vestrian24Bio 13:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

100 bonus points and bonus barnstar for completing a full set? Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it will create burden for the reviewer in completing the full set. Fade258 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it is challenging; that's the whole point. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Instead of giving bonus points, why don't we have a special "all categories award" that is only given to editors who complete this? It might make this less complicated, and the participant can apply to the award themselves, so it is less work for the coordinators. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This idea came from a conversation I had with @User:Lee Vilenski elsewhere (I can't remember where), where he was proposing an award for creating or promoting an article to GA in every category, and I countered with the slightly less daunting idea of reviewing a GA article in every category. I just would have no way of designing the award; if someone else is amenable to doing that, it would be great! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

T'was for WP:SLAM Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 37#Grand Slam, if anyone is interested. TompaDompa (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is the sensible way to do this. Have participants fill out the table themselves to apply for the special award. -- asilvering (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

what if we make a split between the two ideas-if you get a review in every category, you get the Barnstar and a set amount of bonus points, like 10 or 15? Crystalite13 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, @Z1720. Would you want to coordinate this drive? Fade258 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Fade258: I will be too busy to coordinate this drive. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720. No worries. Fade258 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I also think that a special award would be preferable and I threw one together here: {{Good Article Grand Slam Reviewer}} (t · c) buIdhe 22:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Buidhe: Very cool. And very nice of you! But this is a big undertaking; how about adding some gold-leaf to that barnstar? That seems to be the thing nowadays. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

maybe a multi-colored one, or some little images to represent each category. Crystalite13 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, regarding the "no one should be penalized" thing, I think it probably makes more sense to grant the award at some proportion of the total possible categories. So for example you could set 80% as the bar. That would still be a pretty tough goal to shoot for, and then you have to worry less about edge cases like "what if someone submits a GAN for Agriculture on the last day of the drive?" etc. -- asilvering (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

What to do if nominator has been blocked?

Hello. I have been reviewing "Christopher (The Sopranos)", and was actually almost done with the review, but the nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a potential sockpuppet. They have appealed it, but I’m not sure they’ll be let back on, so I’m here to ask, what am I supposed to do in situations like these? Should i automatically fail the article, or should I wait? Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 11:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

For me, if you've completed the review, ping the relevant WikiProject(s), let them know it has been reviewed, there are outstanding issues, you'll put it on hold for a week, and if no work has been done, fail it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Personally, just from looking at the review so far, I'd close it and move on. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Simultaneous nominations

I just wanted to know, is it possible (and allowed) to have multiple GANs at the same time? Babin Mew (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

However, if you have more than 20 current nominations, then only the first 20 will be visible by default on the nominations page. In fact, Bgsu98 is one of the nominators who has hidden nominations for this reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Accessibility Issue on a Good Article

Hello, a Good Article is having an accessibility issue, specifically with the images creating SANDWICH issues. I have brought the issue to WP:WPACCESS for their advice and input. Since this is a Good Article (since 2013), I am letting the community know to get input from them as well. The discussion in question can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#SANDWICH_Issue. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Might very well do; accessibility is not a part of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I wanted to get some GA eyeballs and those I have gotten all agree it's not a GA issue. So, I'll work on a visually appealing and accessible alternative. This can be considered closed. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Very novice editor's first review

Hello all! An editor has begun and completed a review of my work at Grammatical aspect in the Slavic languages and seems to be very new to editing Wikipedia in general. I wanted to be transparent that the review was not terribly thorough (less than 180 words for a 5k word article, no source review, no image license review, no Earwig, zero commentary on prose, etc.). In the interest of neutrality and the Good Article process at large, before I accept the GA, I think it might be a good idea if a neutral volunteer (i.e., not me, the nominator) walk them through a typical GA process and act as a mentor (like here). If not, I'm happy to accept the pass since I think it clearly meets GA criteria, but I wanted to be upfront and not just collect laurels, but help get an editor better acquainted with editing and reviewing. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I can jump in as a mentor. Would like to see a bit more. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to assist. ThaesOfereode (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Bugged nominations

I've noticed a few nominations on the GAN page are bugged and not linking to the articles in question. Item 11 in transport links a nonexistent article called "statusonhold" instead of the Kansas highway it should be linking, while item 53 in other music articles is linked to "note Unpredictable to respond until January to early February unless further notice." and item 67 in politics is linked to "noteI pledge to review two other articles when this article is reviewed."

Does anyone know what might be causing these errors? I see two of the three seem to be using nomination comments as the article title instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, the nominations for Henri Giraud and Maurice Gamelin are eating the string "note" from the note left on the talk page templates Note: There are notes in the talk page. Thanks. and instead displaying Note: There are s in the talk page. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Just saw this. At least some of these are caused by bad parameters in the GA nomination template on the article talk page, but the bot should handle these a little more gracefully. I'll add it to the to-do list. In the meantime if you see anything like this you should be able to fix it by looking at the nomination template. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This isn't the end of the world but I wanted to make a note of it for future fixes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4 § Category:Good articles in need of review

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4 § Category:Good articles in need of review, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. GoldRomean (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Issue on the nominations page

It says "(0 reviews, 999 GAs) Example (talk)". I am not User:Example and do not have 999 GAs. Please can someone help :') I don't know what caused this and I've never nominated an article for GA status before so I don't know how to fix it. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 14:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It should be fixed the next time the bot runs. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Do you know why this happened? --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 14:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but your signature not having a link to your user name may have been it? Perhaps someone else knows for sure. You can see what I did to change the coding on the article's talk page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

As it happens, as a result of another bug reported a few sections up from this one, I am working on improving how the bot handles odd parameter values and things like duplicate parameters. I don't know if I can get it to work in every possible case, but it should be possible to make it behave a little better than this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

If anyone is curious, the record for most GAs by a single user is 896. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow! --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Not getting notifications for newly started reviews?

Since yesterday two of my nominations have had reviews started and are listed on the nominations page as under review, but I haven't seen the usual talk page notification of the new reviews. (I found out about them only because I had the article watchlisted and saw the updates transcluding the reviews to the article talk pages.) The last notification I received was roughly three days ago for a third nomination also currently under review. Is something wrong with the notification bot or is it just being slow? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry -- yes, it's a bug caused by an attempt to fix a different problem. I hope to have it fixed by the end of the day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem for me in any case. Carry on, and thanks for your efforts! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Changes to handling nomination template errors

I've changed the way the bot handles certain kinds of errors in the GA templates. I have not tested all the exceptions, but here's what is now supposed to happen. Please let me know if anything goes wrong with the GAN page as a result of these changes, or if there are still issues with these errors not being correctly handled. These errors only happen when someone manually edits the template instead of following the GAN/I instructions.

• Any parameters with invalid parameter names will be ignored.
• If a parameter is duplicated (I see this mostly with shortdesc and note) only the first one will be used. Later instances of the parameter will be ignored. Previously this caused unpredictable effects.
• If a nominator does not include a link to either their user or user talk page in their signature, the bot will show the nominator as "No user page link found", and should not cause any other error.
• The timestamp format should now be much more forgiving. Previously it required leading zeros on months, for example -- e.g. "8:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)" would fail. It should now handle any unambiguous date/time format, and it no longer requires the "(UTC)" at the end.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

FYI: In order to test some more of the bugs that have been reported over the bot's lifetime, I need to create a fake GA nomination. I'll add a note to it saying something like "This is not a real GA nomination; it is used for testing purposes only. Please do not start a review of this nomination." I'll probably do it on Armais Arutunoff, since that's a very obscure article I created that practically nobody will be watching. Please ignore anything related to this test nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

New 5th-level subdivision of mammals proposal

Hi, since it's getting to be a bit lopsided in the misc. mammals section, can a new section heading be added to the list of GAs? Proposed heading and its contained elements:

=====Mammals — lagomorphs=====

Abyssinian hare – Alpine pika – Amami rabbit – Black-tailed jackrabbit – Bunyoro rabbit – Dice's cottontail – Ethiopian hare – Ethiopian highland hare – European rabbit – Forrest's pika – Helan Shan pika – Hewitt's red rock hare – Hispid hare – Jameson's red rock hare – Manchurian hare – Marsh rabbit – Mountain cottontail – Moupin pika – Natal red rock hare – Nubra pika – Omilteme cottontail – Pronolagus humpatensis – Rabbit – Red rock hare – Riverine rabbit – Smith's red rock hare – Swamp rabbit – Tehuantepec jackrabbit – Tres Marias cottontail – Turkestan red pika – Venezuelan lowland rabbit – Yarkand hare – Yunnan hare -- Reconrabbit 20:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Seems fine to me. I think you can WP:BEBOLD and implement it yourself, as I have done with creating the other level 5 mammal subdivisions. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, I thought it was more complex than just doing it on the page. Thanks. -- Reconrabbit 21:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Anything four ==== or more is within the GA list page only. The issue with all these animals is they are exceeding our header levels. CMD (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

GA Review of Papyrus Bingen 45

UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) failed my nomination of Papyrus Bingen 45 for reasons I am struggling to understand. The issue seems to be that the transliterations by different academics differ (which the article mentions and meticulously cites) and that this could confuse readers. Another point seems to be that "several possible erroneous conclusions" could be reached, but they are not further specified. The review is therefore failed (but "without prejudice").

As the reviewer is experienced and frankly impressive, I am probably simply blind to see the shortcomings and would therefore be grateful if a third person could explain to me what should be changed to address these issues to make the article acceptable for GA in the future. WatkynBassett (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Highly unusual and aggressive WP:GAN review of Leik Myrabo

@Ldm1954 picked up this WP:GAN I had submitted in September 2025:

• Leik Myrabo
• Talk:Leik Myrabo/GA1

Right out of the gate, I was instantly hit with what I struggle and cannot find a way to call "good faith" accusations of lying on the article and falsifying data:

I just tagged the page for both WP:PEACOCK and possible failure of WP:NPROF. This GAN looks very premature. I will think about AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The page also claimed (falsely) that he was a professor (he was an associate professor). I am going to get additional opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The user then went to various wikiprojects to seemingly buttress his position, and as is reasonable after being falsely accused of lying and fabricating data without proof or justification, I was not pleased, and have and had no obligation to do any sort of deference to the wild claims.

I finally told @ldm1954 to just get over their desire to send it to AfD (after they mentioned the threat it seems five (5) times!) and do it if they must, and they did:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leik Myrabo

Which was just closed here by an admin rather bluntly:

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK criterion 3 applies here. There is consensus that no valid deletion rationale was articulated in the initial nomination, and after more than 24 hours the nominator has yet to make a reasonable response to prompts to provide one. Their only response represents an unambiguous misunderstanding or misuse of the guideline apparently in question. I would also draw attention to WP:SK criterion 2 – The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption – and the fact that several commentators below have suggested that this may apply too.

I assume this particular WP:GAN is now ruined and burned due to @ldm1954 uniquely aggressive (and demonstrably proven now wrong position). Should someone else uninvolved close this GAN now? I just go back to the back of the queue again?

Was this a normal acceptable path through a WP:GAN nomination, as a nominator? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I have vacated that review and sent it back to the queue in the same position it occupied before. I'm sorry you had an unpleasant GA experience; hopefully another reviewer will pick up your article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

At the bare minimum, the reviewer sounds like they are a bit too close to the topic and should not be reviewing articles within or near their field of expertise unless they can do so dispassionately, with kindness, and with grace. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Monroe tornado/GA1

I've only failed two-or-so articles while doing a GA review, so I was wondering if I could get a second opinion on this one. It meets most of the criteria, but the ones it doesn't meet have a lot of issues (I haven't done a spotcheck yet) despite the article being rather short. ^EF⁵ 17:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026 GAN Drive

Hello all !

I hope you’re all doing well. Well, I am planning to do Good Article nomination drive in February 2026 under the theme for which I need to hear from you. I would really appreciate your feedback on it before I proceed. CP @It is a wonderful world, Bgsu98, and Asilvering: Thank You ! Fade258 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The WP:GAD says that the upcoming drive should have no theme. This time, I think that we should concentrate on making the drive as effective as possible, considering that previous several drives did not really lower the backlog. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It was. I think we should keep attractive theme to attract more reviewers and this time there's no any drive in February which may help in making this drive more successful than previous one. Fade258 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Is this to encourage nominations or reviews? Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

IMO, To reduce the number of GAN with quality reviews. Fade258 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

One idea I came up with would be to encourage a review of at least one article from every subcategory. Bonus points and a custom barnstar for completing a full set. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

In fact, that's a good idea. I think it also helps to reduce the long standing article from each subcategory. Fade258 (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Still do the scoring as normal (extra points for older nominations, etc.), but then if someone accomplishes a full set by the end of the drive (we can create a template that users can use on the score page to keep track of their reviews), then we can bonus points. If a category is by chance depleted, then users can substitute another review from a duplicate category. I'll try and put together a mockup template later today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not get you properly. But regarding points that would be fine. I respect your idea which is cool. We also try to do some extra things similar to this time NPP drive. Fade258 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

That is a WP:BILORV challenge (Jack of all trades) which has surprisingly low completion overall. It would help get the backlogs in all small categories down, which could be quite nice. But I don't think it will do much to attack the backlog in the large categories. —Kusma (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Anything to help reduce the backlog. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok. You are also free to give your opinion about the drive. Fade258 (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Was this not beneficial feedback that I am in favour of us having one? I'm not sure a theme is all that important, rather that there is some incentive to complete quality reviews Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

No, It will be a good theme though. Ohh, That was a theme. My bad I didnot get it properly. Fade258 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

One idea I had for this or a future backlog: extra points for reviewing articles where the GAN nominator has a positive review-to-nomination ratio. For example, in the backlog drive I would get an extra 0.5 points if I reviewed an article nominated by an editor with 20 reviews and 19 GAs, per the GA editor query. Since each editor's number of reviews and GAs are on the GAN page already, I think it will be easier to implement. This might encourage nominators to review and improve their stats while rewarding editors who have been helping clear the backlog. It doesn't have to be implemented as a theme, but just as an added incentive to review articles. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd support including it in the upcoming drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and willing to include it in the upcoming drive. Could you please provide the criteria for bonus points? Fade258 (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Fade258: I suggest keeping it simple: at the time the review is started, if the nominator has more reviews than GAs, the reviewer will get an extra 0.5 points. If there's any doubt, preference should be to give the bonus, which will be determined by the coordinators. 03:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720, Please sign your comment and thank your for the opinion. Fade258 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  They did sign, they simply did one too many tildes (~). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  Ohh. So, I didnot see their name over there. Fade258 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging the coordinators to a potential issue: @Vestrian24Bio, @Bgsu98, @Crystalite13, how are notifications for the drive being distributed? I didn't know there was a backlog drive until I just happened upon the WT:GAN page, and ended up adding the notification to the Wikipedia:Community bulletin board myself. It doesn't look like it's a prominent part of the most recent Good Article Gazette (hi @Vacant0!) and there's nothing currently on Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders either. -- Reconrabbit 21:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

well, it was mentioned in the January 18th gazette...but not many people even know it exists. Crystalite13 (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Request a notification on MMS then, similar to the one sent out last October. I can do it if the groups we are sending messages to are clear (people who have reviewed at least one GA in the past year?). -- Reconrabbit 22:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

sounds good to me! Crystalite13 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Coordinators for the February 2026 GAN Drive

Please feel free to add your name, if you want to coordinate? Fade258 (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• You know I'll help you out again. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Bgsu98. Thank you for step in. Fade258 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Count me in... Vestrian24Bio 13:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Vestrian24Bio, Thank you for step in as a coordinator. Fade258 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Participated in the October 2025 one, was super fun, wouldn't mind helping out as a coordinator! Crystalite13 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Bgsu98, @Crystalite13 and @Vestrian24Bio. Could you please create a page for upcoming GAN drive? Fade258 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  alright Crystalite13 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  done Crystalite13 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I also made a template for coordinators: Template:User GA Coordinator Crystalite13 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  If we are to create separate submission sub-pages for participants, then we should have a separate participants page too.. I can create it if we are okay with having sub-pages.? Vestrian24Bio 02:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  I dont think we've actually come to a conclusive decision about whats what and what we're gonna do. So reply what you want.

  1A: If a reviewer reviews and article in every category, they recieve and additional 10 points and earn a barnstar. The reviewer does not have to note down their progress in a chart, rather, we simply check their list of reviews-maybe they make a note on their section saying they've reviewed in every category and we check.

  2A: A reviewer earns a set amount of points per article in every category, like 2+ points if it's in a category they haven't done, and if they complete every category, they get a barnstar. This proposal will use a subpage with the chart

  3A: A reviewer doesn't use a subpage chart but earns additional points per article in category like 2A.

  4A: Something else

  I'm going with 1A: I think it would be the most simple.

  Thoughts @Vestrian24Bio@Bgsu98@Fade258? What do you like best Crystalite13 (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Crystalite13. For now I am going to stick with 1A. Fade258 (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Er, @Crystalite13, there's no such thing as a "GA Coordinator", and a template on your userpage should not be implying that you are one. -- asilvering (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've amended the template to say GAN Backlog Drives coordinator instead. Vestrian24Bio 12:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  i guess a mislabel on my part *shrug* Crystalite13 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Template

Good article nominations | February 2026 Backlog Drive
February 2026 Backlog Drive: On 1 February, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted a good article review in the past year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

This has to be sent via MMS. In the past, we usually sent this to those who have reviewed a GAN in the past year or participated in the previous backlog drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

love it! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0. Great ! Thank You for it. Fade258 (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Crystalite13, @Bgsu98, and @Vestrian24Bio. Would we initiate a request to add a watchlist message and mass message? Fade258 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: could potentially help with creating this list. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I recently created a spreadsheet of all reviews conducted in 2025 for an editor who was interested in analyzing the data; I can send that to anyone interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie. Can you please send me that spreadsheet? Fade258 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure -- I can't attach a spreadsheet to an email sent via Wikipedia, but if you email via the "Email this user" link on my user page, I can reply and attach it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie. Done ! Please check it. Fade258 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

i think so! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

ChristieBot schedule changed from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes

FYI: the bot runs are taking close to 20 minutes to complete, and I don't want them to start overlapping, so I've changed the schedule from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. It should start running on the hour and half hour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Roger that. Prhartcom (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

What should ChristieBot do when an article is moved mid-review?

I've been fixing some old bugs in ChristieBot (so there's a chance I've introduced new bugs; please let me know if the bot misbehaves). One that has been on the list for a long time, and which was a bug for Legobot too, is what to do if an article is moved after the GA review has been started but before it is passed or failed. This is hard to test, because I can't go around moving real articles, so I am hoping to get input here from GA regulars.

Suppose Fred Bloggs gets moved to Fred Bloggs (politician) in the middle of the review, which is at Talk:Fred Bloggs/GA1. I believe that the current behaviour is that if the /GA1 subpage is not moved (which I think is usually the case; they get forgotten and a bot picks them up) then ChristieBot assumes that the article must have failed, because there is no GA nomination for the article in Talk:Fred Bloggs (which is now probably, but not always, a redirect) and the article is not a GA -- a nomination that ends without a promotion is by definition a fail. So ChristieBot notifies the nominator that the nomination of Fred Bloggs has failed. That's the bug people complain about. The nominator also gets notified that there is a review under way for Fred Bloggs (politician), which is probably a good thing, though if the bot can tell it's a move that would be a better message.

Is there a bullet-proof way for the bot to know what has happened when the article has moved? Given the old talk page could be deleted, or a redirect, or even left as is (I think this happens when there's history relevant to a dab page on a talk page) then the bot has multiple possibilities to look at. I can just mark this bug as WONTFIX, but if there's a clear way to determine what to do I'd prefer that. Any ideas? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

/GAX subpages should get moved, as I understand it they get picked up by the same process as talkpage archives. While I have had to clean quite a few up, I would anecdotally suspect that marooned /GAX are in the minority. As a side point, can you test ChristieBot on the draft space? If ChristieBot tracked Page IDs then it would be able to follow moves, but I don't know if that's possible. CMD (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

How should ChristieBot notify nominators of malformed nominations?

Nominators occasionally modify their nominations in ways that make the nomination invalid in some way. Here is an example. (Sorry, Bgsu98, not picking on you, I just wanted a real example to show people.) At the moment there is no notification to the nominator when they do this. This is an error that can cause the GAN not to appear on the GAN page.

The bot currently posts an error to the GAN page (e.g. see ), though this doesn't name the nominator, and also updates an error page that can be watchlisted, here. One problem with this approach is that the bot sometimes gets killed by the system when resources are slow, and it reports that as an error too -- if you see errors such as "System resource not available" that's what's going on. I am planning to suppress those, but that might not be quick. Anyway, the real problem is that the nominator has no idea that they made an error. The bot could ping the nominator, but that would happen every half hour so that's not an option. I could try building something that tracks when the nominator was last pinged and only pings them once a day, but that's pretty complicated for a simple problem. I could create a {{GA nomination error}} template and post that to the article's talk page, but then that would have to be cleaned up. The best I can come up with is to add the nominator's name, without pinging, to the error section of the GAN page, but I think few people actually read that.

Currently these get caught after a couple of days when a regular such as Bluemoonset or CMD notices and fixes them. I can't think of a good way to solve this problem, but if someone has a good suggestion I would be glad to hear it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me; I have fixed it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks -- and again, sorry to pick on you, but I knew you'd be glad to fix it if you knew about it -- and the point of my post is that there was no easy way for you to know there was a problem. It does occur to me that the GAN template itself might show a red error if it is missing one of the important parameters, as happened here. That might alert some editors -- do you think that would have led to you catching the problem? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It was still showing in the queue despite the error, FYI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

A couple of ideas that might make both issues more robust.

For "article moved mid-review": a safe approach is to track active reviews by the article's page ID, not by title. When a review starts, store the article page_id and the review subpage being used (e.g., Talk:OldTitle/GA1). On each run, resolve the current title from that page_id; if it has changed, treat it as a move and don't infer failure just because Talk:OldTitle no longer has a GAN template. In that situation the bot can keep using the existing /GA1 subpage if it still exists, but update outward-facing messages/listings to show something like “OldTitle (moved to NewTitle)” and link both. (Optional: if the bot has the rights and Talk:NewTitle/GA1 doesn't exist, it could automatically move the GA subpage and leave a redirect.)

For malformed nominations: consider a small, self-cleaning talk-page error tag. When the bot detects a malformed GA nomination template, add something like {{GA nomination error|reason=…|bot=ChristieBot|date=…}} to the article talk page, and remove it automatically once the nomination is valid again. If you still want a direct note to the nominator, rate-limit it in bot state (e.g., once per nomination per day or once total) so you don't end up pinging every 30 minutes. Esculenta (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of the page_id idea; that should do it -- thanks! Re the second suggestion: yes, that would work, but I'm now thinking that making {{GAN}} emit an error (and probably {{GANentry}} too) would be simpler. The bot wouldn't have to do anything. I don't have the skills to edit those templates; as I recall there's a place to request someone with those skills to make those changes. I'll wait to see if there are any objections here before I make a request. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Since no one has objected to the idea of making {{GA nominee}} and {{GANentry}} show errors in these cases, I've requested the change here; please comment there if anyone disagrees with the idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreviewed backlog mode enabled at DYK

Hi, just a friendly heads up that unrevewed backlog mode has been enabled at DYK for those here who plan to nominate their successful GAs. If you have 20+ DYK noms you may want to make sure you have your QPQs done ahead of time. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Questionable review?

I was wondering if one of the more experienced reviewers can have a look at this Talk:Barron Trump/GA2. Given that this is an article about a living person and politically sensitive topic, I would had expected to read a more thorough review. Instead it passed without a single correction. Let me know your thoughts. Courtesy ping to the nominator @ElijahPepe and reviewer @Robloxguest3. A.Cython(talk) 03:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it is my first review. I would recommend further review by someone *more experienced* Robloxguest3 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It is wonderful that you want to review GANs, but perhaps first familiarize with WP policies as well as asking a mentor first *before* picking up your first review the perhaps most sensitive topic out of the about 900 nominations? A.Cython(talk) 03:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Admittedly, I only saw that the nomination had passed, not the specifics of the review. Given a second look, I would like a second review. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This review is almost a checklist, and does not include source checks. Many thanks to the reviewer for joining in, per their recommendation above and the nominator's agreement I will reopen the nomination for another review. CMD (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython, Robloxguest3, ElijahPepe, and Chipmunkdavis: Hi everyone! Robloxguest3 has just started their second review on an article I contributed to (Talk:Mo Tzu-yi/GA1), and I was a bit puzzled by their unfamiliarity with not only P&Gs but also WP editing in general, i.e. they do not seem to know about WP:LEADSOURCE and interlanguage links. I looked into their contributions and noticed that their first and most recent review have already been questioned by you guys and is currently reopened. I do not want to bite the newbies and I think everyone has their first GAN review at some point. But I believe it would be very helpful if a more experienced editor could perhaps guide Roblox through the GA review process and provide a fresh pair of eyes for their review. Many thanks!!! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 00:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If they lack knowledge of basic PAGs, they shouldn't be reviewing at this point. I don't think they're ready for mentorship. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Amount of articles in video game categories

With the increase in the number of good articles (yay!) some categories are getting quite large, making navigation and finding a specific article difficult. Usually, I am bold in making new categories, but a previous discussion didn't really result in a consensus on what to do with video game titles. So, I'm asking here.

In video game titles, how should categories be organised (specifically, larger categories)?

• Option A: Status quo: mostly 10 year groupings until they are too large, then split into 5 year groupings. No category is smaller than 5 years, no matter how many articles are in the category.
• Option B: When 5 sub-categories are too large (roughly larger than 200 articles each) it is split into 3-year categories. If implemented, I would create the following subcategories: 1990-1992 video games, 1993-1995 video games, 1996-1998 video games, 1999-2001 video games, 2002-2004 video games, 2005-2007 video games, 2008-2010 video games, 2011-2013 video games, 2014-2016 video games, 2017-2019 video games.
• Option C: When a 5 year sub-category is over 200 articles, it is split into 3-and 2-year groupings. If implemented, I would create the following groupings: 1995-1997 video games, 1998-1999 video games, 2000-2002 video games, 2003-2004 video games, 2005-2007 video games, 2008-2009 video games, 2010-2012 video games, 2013-2014 video games.
• Option D: When a 5-year sub category is over 200 articles, the decade of that category is split into three categories: early, mid, and late. An example is shown in Cat's Tuxedo's sandbox.
• Option E: Something else - please specify below.

A notice for this discussion will be posted at WP:VG. Thanks for your help in resolving this. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Two or three year geoupings seem somewhat arbitrary and clunky. I think if we're splittling decades, i think itd be good to future proof it and just do it by year. Easier to navigate, and we'd have at least a dozen articles for any given year anyway. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I too don't really see the reason not to cut by year, starting in the 1990s. Is there something I'm missing that would make this particularly complicated or undesirable? -- asilvering (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: It could create categories with few articles in them, like seen in TV shows. It wouldn't be complicated to implement (probably a couple evenings to make the transition). Desirability is open to interpretation: it really depends what editors think is the ideal number of articles in each category. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I don't see any problem with that, so, still in favour of just solving the overfilling categories problem the simplest way, cutting by year. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would there be any appetite for broad splitting by genre instead of year? (Or you could do genre, then year, I guess). It feels like "type of game" is a bit more intuitive than "year of game" if you're the kind of person who pulls up the GA list looking for something to read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Genre is an endless rats nest of subjectivity and edit wars. Seems simple enough but even very basic genres can get quite messy quite quickly, e.g. "Are boxing games fighting games or sports games?" "Is God of War (2018) an RPG?" "Is Roller Coaster Tycoon a strategy game or a simulation game?" "Is Shanghai a board game or a puzzle game?" "What even is an action game anyway?" "Fire Emblem, is that an RPG or a strategy game or do we need a category for both?" etc etc. There's no real way to answer these besides critical consensus which has a tendency to change over time. Personally I agree with going by year, that's future proof and about as objective as it gets. Whipmywillows (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Whipmywillows. Also, organising by genre would deviate from how other GA categories (film, music) organise their GAs. Z1720 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree with both Z1720 and Whipmywillows on this. Console is a potential alternative for older games, but nowadays most games are multiconsole. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Splitting by decade, then by five years if necessary, and then by 2-3 years, and by year (as necessary for all of those) is likely the best solution, and one that can have some automation since games themselves will already be categorized by year. Masem (t) 04:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

C per Wikipedia:Good articles/Music. Can also go to per year when necessary (as Masem notes), also per GA/Music. CMD (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

First of all, flattered that someone would take the time to peek at my sandbox. I'm naturally biased towards the "early/mid/late decade" approach because I consider it more efficient in observing shifts in culture than going by whole decades; so much can change in just 3-and-a-third years, let alone ten. Course, despite the fact that 120 months can be perfectly divided into thirds, I figured the approach would be regarded as original research, thus I kept it confined to my own sandbox. Anyway, if that sentiment does indeed hold true, I wouldn't mind going for Option B as the closest thing. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Cat's Tuxedo: In the November discussion, you made this proposal and linked to your sandbox. Since I wanted to preserve your proposal, I thought that including your link would be the best way to do this. Please let me know if you would like me to delink it. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720: Ah, guess I must've forgotten that. No prob. It's best to keep our options open. Thanks for the consideration either way. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe out of the question, but what exactly was wrong with splitting this alphabetically? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think sorting by date here is just more useful. I mean the biggest use case for this sort of list is other editors looking for reference for working on their own articles, right? I think since games have changed so much over the years, in substance but also especially in coverage, the most useful articles to look at for understanding how to write an 1984 game article are other 1984 game articles. Also games have changed a lot in terms of quantity, this list is dominated by games from the last 30 years so sorting alphabetically would drown out earlier games and make them harder to find. A lot of editors focus on specific time periods for all the reasons above, so I think it's just to the most people benefit to go with release. Whipmywillows (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Nothing wrong with alphabetical: military history sorts people alphabetically (by last name), biology and sports sort by category (type of animal, type of sports), and music sorts chronologically. Changing from chronological to alphabetical or category would require a major edit, so it would take a little bit to implement, and a consensus would need to be formed to do that. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It just seems a bit more natural than splitting things by genre or by a two year period. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to change size guidelines in WP:SIZE

FYI: There is a talk page discussion about changing the article size guidance (9,000 words, etc) in WP:SIZE. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Idea for backlog drives

Random idea. Has anyone previously brought up the idea to hold a two month backlog drive, but one half of editors participate one month and the other the other (by first letter of username say, or just let people choose, with some method to make it relatively even)? As far as I understand, one thing that limits the effectiveness of backlog drives are the pre- and post-drive spikes, which this might help alleviate. JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Or take the idea to the extreme — have every month be a drive for a quarter of editors, and do this until the whole backlog is gone. This is a bit far-fetched, especially considering I'm not sure if that would mathematically work out, that is whether a quarter of the output of one drive balances out the standard rate of incoming nominations, but surely it would help in moderating the effect of the spikes. JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This would be an interesting idea if we had way more participants, but I don't think it would do us much good as it stands. We've experimented with a few types of "mini" drives and certainly could try this one, but my guess is that we'd have diminished participation in both halves / all four quarters. A big part of the motivation effect of a backlog drive is that Number Go Down, and there's a point at which that effect is so minimal it discourages participants. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Himalayan fossil hoax/GA1 abandoned by reviewer

This GAN has been abandoned by the reviewer before making any actionable comments. Could the GA1 file please be deleted and the counter set back to 1? Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted. iirc ChristieBot sorts out the rest. -- asilvering (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2026

~2026-11907-93 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

one for the best manga and anmaia

•  Not done: This isn't how the system works. A list of best manga and anime would have to go through the featured list process instead, anyways. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Barron Trump/Trump, Barron pages

In cleaning up a mess I found that Talk:Barron Trump's article history shows a GA2 but no failed GA1. It turns out this is because the article was once at Trump, Barron and got deleted, and is now a redirect. The talk page of that redirect has an article history that includes GA1. Is this the right way to do it? If we move an article, the article history goes with it; should these histories be merged in some way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

That's deeply confusing. It looks like the new version was based on the old version? We should probably move GA1, but I don't know if the histories themselves can be merged. Template:Article history is flexible enough to accommodate. By the way @Mike Christie, there was a previous discussion and the GA2 should not be counted as a pass given it had no source check and was otherwise quite checklisty. Is there a way to communicate such an annulment to Christiebot? CMD (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

That article is still showing as a GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing in ChristieBot that can handle that situation -- if it is still showing as a GA, then I think it would be best to summarily delist it. FYI I have posted a query at AN about this, since I think an admin with a lot of histmerge experience would be the best person to look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Specifically, what triggered this edit when there was no GA3? CMD (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it was triggered by the previous edit, which went from "nominated, page=3" to "GA". The bot interpreted that as the article having been reviewed and passed between bot runs, so it never saw an "onreview" status, but still needed to do its usual tasks, including transcluding the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like a niche case that is not the bot's fault. CMD (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Change to {{GANotice}}

In case anyone cares, I've updated the GANotice template per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 37#Another opportunity to encourage people to review GANs and Template talk:GANotice#Change to template. Something to consider would also be whether to add it to the under review version of the template ("while you wait, please consider reviewing..."). JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Changes to ChristieBot including changes to GANentry display on the main GAN page

I've been tweaking ChristieBot over the last couple of days, and expect to do a bit more. Most of the changes should not be visible, but if anyone sees any unexpected behaviour please let me know, here or on my talk page. I've been working on speed improvements and have cut the run time from about 15-17 minutes to around 7-8 minutes. Once I have squeezed all the speed improvements I can find, I'll set it back to running every twenty minutes again.

There is one change that will be noticeable: the GAN page will now print a bright red warning against any entry which has something wrong with the GA nominee template (invalid status, no page parameter, etc.). See this version for an example of how it will look (in the Computing and Engineering section). I am planning to remove the current error section and possibly the separate error reporting page if I can get all nomination related errors to display like this. I will work on improving these errors so it is clearer what needs to be fixed -- at the moment the messages are going to be a bit repetitive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT review

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.

---

Valid concerns have been raised at User talk:Crystalite13#Lack of depth on GA reviews about the review at Talk:ChatGPT/GA1. For that broad of an article, it is very hard to make it "perfect", and there was a valid {{cn}} tag in the article at that time. Opening a thread here to get more input on what should be done. HurricaneZeta^C 03:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Considering how frequently of a problem this is for this user, I think we might consider barring them from creating new reviews until it is evident that they are up to the task for it. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

From their talk page it looks like they're sincerely trying to participate in the GA process, but do not quite have the hang of how to apply the criteria. Perhaps a good plan would be to temporarily suspend them from reviewing until they themselves have put two or three articles through the GA process? By nominating their own articles and seeing what kind of feedback they get from reviewers, they should learn about the GA criteria and the sort of feedback that reviewers are expected to give. Noleander (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That would be a good thing to suggest to them as something they could do voluntarily. -- asilvering (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I have vacated that review and sent the article back to the queue. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am very sorry this happened. This whole incident is a clear example of my incompetency. I was simply rushing through reviews far too quickly because I didn't realize how much time had passed and that the drive was ending soon. I should have realized I had overburdened myself and now even my right to review is being discussed being suspended. If you'll allow me, I'll take the initiative to do a proper review of ChatGPT, maybe with the help of the fellow editor. Earlier, I planned to take up writing a GA myself, but failing a simple AfC due to notability issues hurt me far more than was appropriate. I stopped editing for almost a month after that and only joined back for the drive, and honestly, maybe I should have stopped. Crystalite13 (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

how could I do this Crystalite13 (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

im sorry to anyone who tried to give me advice that I didn't listen to, rather pathetically. it seems the October GA drive has taught me nothing other than the fact I am far better suited reading articles rather than reviewing or editing them Crystalite13 (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

or wait-that would suggest that I was taught I was better at reading articles-but I wasn't taught. because I came back. I cant even insult myself properly. Crystalite13 (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey man, it kind of feels like you're spiralling here. Nobody wants you to beat yourself up over this. Take a deep breath, maybe step away from the keyboard for a bit. Everything on Wikipedia is a skill - researching, writing, reviewing, etc - and skills can be improved with practice and listening to feedback. I recommend you go slowly, practice researching and writing articles for a bit until you're very confident you can do that, and then maybe you can come back to try doing GA reviewing in the future once you've made some improvements. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2026 (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.

Lack of spot check

How do we handle a lack of source spot check in a month old review? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

See Talk:Baháʼí House of Worship/GA1. Pinging @Magnesium Cube, @Gazelle55, and @Mojgoon. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I see. When I reviewed the article, I was planning to do the sourcing at the end; however, due to the inactivity of Gazelle55 at that time, I assumed that it would be failed and did not pay too much attention to it. Afterwards, Mojgoon stepped in and filled in most of the prose/MoS views I had, which I thought was sufficient enough- due to this, I accidentally missed the spot-check and immediately went to promote the article to GA.

I'm looking at the sources right now and see what you mean (some don't work or are unreliable)- my apologies on that part. I'd be welcome to do a reassessment. MagnesiumCube (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of the sources. I saw the article at DYK, looked at the GA review, and noticed this issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm also not sure if GAR is the process to go through here. That's why I started this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh- alright. MagnesiumCube (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that I've started a separate discussion at DYK about this being approved even though the GA review was incomplete. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi voorts,

I was solely helping with the prose/MoS in the nominator's absence to improve the article. I did not review the sources, as that is the reviewer's responsibility. Ironically, my own GA nomination was failed by the same reviewer (MagnesiumCube) based on unreliable AI detectors while I was unable to respond due to the 2026 Internet blackout in Iran as seen in this faulty review. He later admitted this was a mistake as seen in this notice. I'm glad to see a proper reassessment of his review process here. Mojgoon ^talk 23:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Can we not just do a bit of a spot check after the review is done? Are we expecting major issues? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes- I was thinking this as well. MagnesiumCube (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that's fine. If it fails, do we revoke GA? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

depends how bad the failure is. A month is a long time to just revoke it. Let's do the spot check and see what we are dealing with. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay. @Magnesium Cube, please do a spot check. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I'll just do it here.

As a general note, MacEoin's works are potentially contentious (citations 66 and 67), but given the framing of the information provided within the article as the opinion of the author and uses quotations, I believe it is excusable.

I will give comments on specific sources when possible.

RANDOM SPOT CHECKS: 3, 6, 10, 15, 20, 31, 37, 50, 65

3: ✔️ | Many citations are filled by this one reference, but due to the prevalence of much more, it can be absolved.

6: ✔️

10: ✔️

15:

20:

31:

37:

50:

65:

I'll finish this within a day or two; can't really do the whole thing right now. MagnesiumCube (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You should do it on the nomination page for the article, not here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll move it. MagnesiumCube (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT article passed GAN without any error or any spotcheck. ~2026-12343-36 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems to have been reverted now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Inactive review

The review for an article I nominated back in late-November last year was started by TheUltimateGenealogy on the 28th of January. However, since then, the review has remained essentially inactive, while the reviewer has practically vanished, save for two edits over a week ago. It's also worth mentioning TheUltimateGenealogy has faced allegations of LLM usage in the past, which makes me lose confidence in their ability to perform a comprehensive review in accordance with GA standards. A second opinion would be much appreciated. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 12:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I vacated that review and sent your article back to the queue in the same position it was in originally. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion on GAN review

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.

---

Hello all. I'd like to ask if Talk:Commonwealth MRT station/GA1 was a proper GAN review? I note that the review is a bit sparse; I don't see a spotcheck of any of the sources (there is an Earwig comparison, but most of the sources in the article cites snippets of newspaper articles; words within those articles can only be detected via OCR). For the article's prose, I will say that the reviewer fixed prose issues themselves (check the article's edit history), which probably explains the absence of any comments on the article's prose.

So, would you consider this review to be "properly conducted", and if not, what should the outcome be? Should the review be voided, reopened for a spotcheck, or what? Pinging Whyiseverythingalreadyused, the reviewer of this GAN. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 10:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

In the absence of a spot check or a real sign that the reviewer combed through the text, I'd recommend it get voided (w/ the reviewer welcome to re-review ofc) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

... Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I swear I read it seriously Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima, if they've been making prose edits, they've obviously read the text. @Whyiseverythingalreadyused, did you spot check any of the sources to make sure the text is verified? -- asilvering (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

As in Wikipedia:Spot checking sources? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I did Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you edit the review to list which sources you checked and what the result was? That would largely resolve the issue here. People want you to show your work, that's all. -- asilvering (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hold on Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

1. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19820523-1.2.9 ("Proposed MRT stations")
2. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/biztimes19850105-1.2.35 ("Lim Kah Ngam and Aoki win MRT contract")
3. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19870327-1.2.24.12 ("Five MRT stations renamed to better reflect the locality")
4. The link for reference 18 ("Above-ground MRT stations to have platform screen doors by 2012")
5. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/page/straitstimes19880310-1.1.20 ("Bright and scenic ride")

I can't add the fourth one here because it's an archive.today link and I heard of the successful RfC to deprecate it Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, the original link for the fourth citation is permanently dead and inaccessible on Wayback Machine, likely because of SPH Media's attempts to censor their publications from it (see WT:WikiProject Singapore § Replacing archive.today links) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm gonna add them Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The addition is done and Asilvering should have been pinged Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue here is resolved; it's clear that WIEAU was acting in good faith and has provided the spot checks, so no further action is needed here. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 14:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why we got into the habit of not talking to the reviewer about issues with a review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, this is the first time I've ever encountered this scenario and I wasn't sure on what to do, so this seemed like the safest route. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 13:58, 26 February 2026 (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.

References in a GAN article

Hey, I talked with the nominator during the review of Perles configuration, and we looked into the WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESHORT pages, but I still don't see eye-to-eye with his perspective. Due to this, I wanted to ask the broader community (i.e., you guys) if it's valid for an article's shorthand footnotes to omit the page number, and thus present itself non-specifically. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 11:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems entirely natural and helpful for the reader. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Should probably be References and Citations, rather than notes.

In general having a page reference is great to be clear, but I think we're a bit beyond the GA formatting criteria to worry about it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The GA criteria don't require much, and don't specify that page numbers must be used. However, they do implicitly require that a reader can find the supporting material. Two of the sources are papers that are quite long -- one is 40 pages, and another nearly 80 pages. If those two sources are used in their entirety -- that is, the entire paper makes the relevant argument for the point cited -- then that's probably OK. If the citation is to a few sentences or a page or two within the paper, and the reader is expected to read the entire paper to find those sentences, I don't think that meets the definition of "cited" any more than citing the OED without giving a page number is a valid citation, because the citation has to be usable. For shorter papers I don't think it's an issue. Personally I think it's kinder to the reader to always narrow the citation down to as few pages as possible, and I don't know why we wouldn't try to do that, but if the citation is usable that meets the GA criteria. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot be too strict, but there is a difference when there are say 50 out of 70 citations. If those 50 journal articles have say on average 20 pages, this leads to 1000 pages, which is a barrier for the reviewer to verify one of the criteria for the GA. It is as if one is citing books without providing page numbers. IMO, a nominator should assist in providing page numbers to journals articles when this is possible to lighten the burden. A.Cython(talk) 13:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The question is about demanding page numbers within journal articles. Book citations should usually have page numbers to specific pages within the book, although even these can be omitted when the sourced claim is the main topic of the entire book.
2. If this article happened to use the format of footnoted long citations (as the GA reviewer tried to change it to) instead of the format of short footnotes + later long citations (as it was already formatted as), this question could not arise. The standard Wikipedia citation templates do not provide any way to specify pages within a journal or magazine article. The pages parameters of those templates are only to be used for the page range of the entire article.
3. See discussion in the GA review over the difficulty of even determining page numbers within many articles. Specifically, it cited one reference for which three different versions were available, the official publisher pdf file, the official publisher html version, and an unofficial arxiv preprint. The publisher pdf is paginated but not officially numbered (although its pages are annotated with their position within the pdf file). The publisher html is not paginated and does not have page numbers. The preprint is paginated differently, with different page numbers. The reference in question could be cited to a figure number instead of a page number, but the figure numbering also differs between the publisher and preprint version.
4. Some editors may be able to access only preprint versions with different pagination than the official versions. For the "nearly 80 pages" paper that Mike Christie mentions, that was the case for me when I looked for individual page numbers to cite: I should have subscription access to the official version but it was temporarily unavailable at that time. For readers accessing preprint versions, providing official-version page numbers that differ from the preprint-version page numbers is useless, and for editors, demanding that page numbers be provided for all versions is burdensome, clutters up the footnotes, and (see point 3) is in many cases nonsensical and impossible because those numbers cannot be defined.

Let's put it another way: suppose I cited a long web page (such as an article in a long-form online magazine) and a reviewer demanded that I supply a page number within that web page. What would that even mean? With some publishers moving journal article dissemination to html rather than pdf formats that is what we are already seeing for journal articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think a reader/reviewer can reasonably be able to find/check the supporting material, but I don't think it matters much how it's done. For html pages I've seen people put notes in that say "Search for <string>" or something similar to help locate the relevant paragraph or whatever; but section headings or "At end of page" or whatever would be fine -- anything that works. The only thing I think is not acceptable is for it to be effectively impossible for a reader to find the supporting text. And as I say above, if the whole paper is the support (it does happen) then nothing more specific is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take up the task of finding a format for long-form citations that can include this material, going beyond what standard academic citation formats and our citation templates allow, and building up consensus for supporting this format within our citation templates. Because as they are now, it does not exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think 4 and to a certain extent 3 are a different issue - if the preprint is what was consulted, the preprint should be cited, not the final version, regardless of the pagination question. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we had this coversation and I regret saying not use the review for GA backlog drive (in fact i changed my mind). The use of pages in technical/government reports and journal articles is commonly used in WP, at least my view part of elevating the standards. There are different templates/approaches how to do this. Even if there are no pages then you can use the loc= option to specify, e.g., loc=chapter 3, loc=section IV, or loc=epub p. 66, etc. Note that electronic books do not always have page numbers or that these numbers agree with the pdf version, so the loc= gives the option to clarify. You can even provide explanatory comments, e.g., loc=general overview see pages xx and for proof see section yy. Anything to help the review process. To reverse the argument, a book has an index thus there is no need for pages. This won't fly here. Adding extra info is not only useful for the review but to anyone who will read the article later on. For editors who write large and complicated articles (in which we are not experts), having 200+ different sources, adding this extra info helps with our sanity, at least this is my personal experience. A.Cython(talk) 20:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

loc= is only for short-format footnotes. It does not exist for long-format footnotes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Then use efn template for a longer explanation. Though for everyone else loc= has been working just fine. A.Cython(talk) 20:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The sfns are what is being discussed. For example, you have sfn #10 stating 'Grace (2021)' pointing to a long-form citation that links to an article that is 80 pages long. If the pages parameter is inadequate because different versions of the article have different pagination, then you could use the loc= parameter in the sfn to narrow down where in that article to look. For example, opening up the arXiv version the only mention of Perles anywhere in it is under Theorem 1.2 (on p. 2 of the arXiv version). I don't speak math and cannot tell how if at all that theorem is connected to the content of the article, perhaps Hypothesis 6.1 is relevant as well, but the point is that the sfn can state the relevant theorem, hypothesis, lemma, or what-have-you if a page number is unavailable or dependent on version. Side-note: You have Grünbaum (2003) listed as pp. 93–95, but sfn #6 cites p. 244. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Re Grace (2021): There is a long comment pertaining to this on the GA1. The content in question is scattered throughout the reference, under a different name (Y9, not Perles). I provided specifics in the GA1 but was unable to do so using page numbers because the online journal version was broken when I looked this all up.

Re Grünbaum (2003): The long-form citation lists the most pertinent pages (93–95) but the short-form citations give other page numbers for some content. Are you asserting that one should never use a long-form citation with page numbers when short-form citations give different page numbers? That would conflict with a different but standard citation style in which the first citation to a work is a long-form footnote (with page numbers specific to that footnote) while subsequent citations are short-form (with different page numbers as appropriate).

In any case my main point is that this level of nitpicking over citation formatting details goes far beyond the GA requirements. GA requires only that the citations be present and verify the content. Or are we now taking the position that GA readers and reviewers do not know how to read, do not know how to do keyword searches, and must be spoon-fed the exact quote where each citation says the claim in question? Where in the content guidelines used by the GA criteria is this level of specificity spelled out? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The position is that when a reviewer asks for something then the nominators should assist.

WP:GACR6#2 Verifiable with no original research:
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged

If the reviewer or another reader cannot verify (maybe because he/she is not an expert) for whatever reason (including missing pages) then the content can be challenged and even removed, perhaps unjustifiably if it is only due to the missing pages; such cases will happen. Some WP articles may be written by experts but the readers (including reviewers) are typically non-experts. This means that the citation information must be presented in a way that a non-expert can verify! You are not writing for mathematicians, but for everyone else. A.Cython(talk) 23:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Asking for assistance in verifying individual sources: commonplace and uncontroversial. Starting a GA review of an article with 74 footnotes to long-form references, almost all of which already had page-number ranges, by stating flatly that it is "as if there is no source" (as you did) because the short footnotes did not point you to the exact page within that range where the claims can be verified: far beyond the GA rules, unduly aggressive, WP:CREEPy, and wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Nope, I am not going through your circular reasoning again or conspiratorial accusations that you throw at my initial positive review. Let's agree that we disagree and leave it as that. Happy editing. A.Cython(talk) 01:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My $0.02 as someone with a number of articles in the GAN pipeline right now (see my user page), and where some of them are decidedly complicated in sourcing.

I think if you're citing very obvious things to a PDF, and not citing many, and it's easy enough for someone to catch the content... no big deal on pages. If you know them, put them in the reference themselves.

But if you're doing crazy things like I have on Field propulsion (still a work in very progress after 400+ edits)... control-f for Gilland, James as an example example in the refs, and how I've gone for 100% coverage on {{rp|4,5}} templates. Because I'm using some of those PDFs a ton of times, and for very complex stuff that is not layman accessible (also a work in progress).

It would be absurd to send something like that to WP:GAN (I figure another +300 to +350 edits give or take) without that kind of easy reference accessibility beyond nailed down. Who the fuck would ever review it otherwise? It's because of that article I've made it a personal rule now to do that on any article with sourcing that's at all complex or where I can find pages: Abigail Becker, Amrom Harry Katz, Christopher Mellon, Zirconic. It makes the articles strong. If you're sure of your work/research, it makes it non-contestable, which is nice (especially with liberal/reasonable quote deployment). A boring "yep that's settled and no other way to interpet it" article is a stable article.

And it makes it easier for reviewers and readers or other editors.

Keep it optional but VERY ENCOURAGED. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

☝️ Exactly! The addition of pages in the citations, whenever and wherever possible, makes the articles stronger! A.Cython(talk) 02:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My suspicion is that for a significant fraction of technical papers, if a reader can't find the most relevant passage without a page number, they won't be able to follow the text in it well enough to see that it actually does verify the claim.

Because of variations in pagination between different versions/copies of an article (arXiv PDF, arXiv HTML, journal PDF, journal HTML, PMC HTML, etc.) page numbers can do more harm than good. If specifying a location within an academic article is helpful enough to be worth doing, then specifying that location by section number, theorem number, etc., will be more stable.

Not in every case, but in a lot of cases, we cite an academic journal article for its principal claim. Consequently, verifying that the article backs up the claim to which it is attached is a matter of looking at its abstract or opening page. Adding page numbers in this situation is just make-work. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That's an exact headache that I ran into on Field propulsion with some of the material being all over the place in formatting. The easy way around it (if not annoyingly time consuming) is to hunt down the web-accessible version of everything, assuming it exists, and get it locked into one of the archive sites. Then you're referencing back to a hopefully fixed safe asset. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This is still rather a debate in WP referencing circles and academic circles of course have their own standards. As long as the information is accessible, I would say not mandatory but encouraged. Kingsif (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've left a note at WT:FAC about this conversation, since I know the question has come up there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Per that conversation the loc = parameter can be used to do this in {{sfnp}}. David, I tested changing the citation to Grace (2021) to {{sfnp|Grace|2021|loc=Search for "Perles"}} and it produced this: 'Grace (2021), Search for "Perles"'. Is there some reason that wouldn't work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Also per that conversation, at= can serve the same purpose. I honestly have no idea how at= differs from loc=. I've also been known to ad-lib things like page=unnumbered photo plate between pages 74 and 75. It used to be common that color photographs would be printed via a different process from the main text and inserted into the already numbered sequence at the bindery. The bottom line is do whatever you need to do to give the reader the information they need to find what you want them to find. RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Is giving search instructions to reader like "search for Perles" considered acceptable citation style in Wikipedia? It certainly wouldn't be in academia. I would be happy to use that as guidance to a GA or DYK reviewer but that's different from the encyclopedic style we want to present to readers. (Also, that particular instruction is both the obvious thing that any competent reader should be capable of trying on their own, and not actually a good instruction for this example. Grace 2021 largely refers to the object in question as $Y_{9}$, not by name, and there are some 65 matches for $Y_{9}$ scattered throughout the article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It has been accepted at FAC, so that's one answer. I agree it's ugly and undesirable. Personally I think that's preferable to making it hard for readers to find the supporting text, but I can see how others could disagree. I do think some way has to be provided. My academic background is maths with some post-graduate work, and I would have a hard time finding the right information in that source. I can accept that almost everyone who clicks through with the serious intention of reading that source is likely to be able to find it by themselves, but I don't think it's unreasonable for Wikipedia's quality processes to insist on something more specific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to read the wall of text above, since no one can seem to be bothered to give a specific example, but looking at Perles configuration, I see zero issue with referencing. Ziegler (2008) spans 6 pages, and if you cannot be bothered to read six pages, you're an extremely lazy person. While refining to something like "Ziegler (2008) p. 38", or "Ziegler (2008), Theorem 5" is always an option, it is by no means mandatory, even at the FA-level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Astonishingly insulting statement coming from an established editor. First you declare not to invest the time to read the arguments, but then accuse others for being a lazy person. On top of that you use generalization, a well known logical fallacy, to say that this is not a requirement even at the FA level. Since you cannot invest the time, I will help you by providing a single question by flipping your own argument. If an editor writing a WP article fully familiar with the sources cannot be bothered to be more specific where the relevant information is located within a journal article, then is he/she not an extremely lazy person!? Do you see why your argument insulted others? The question is not about a single citation but what happens if there are 50 such citations (typical in 6k-word science articles) with an average number of pages of 10 or 20 pages. We are talking 500 to 1000 pages. For a non-expert (reviewer and reader) this is too much. Adding this information as far as I know is pretty standard in history- and politics-related projects, so why the editors in WP Physics and Maths projects need special treatment? Again this is not about making mandatory to every single journal article, but lightening the load of verification wherever possible. A.Cython(talk) 01:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

There's one 40-page paper and one 80-page paper. I think those should have some assistance for the reader to find the supporting text. I agree re the shorter papers. I gave a specific example above: Grace (2021) in that article is 80 pages, and I gave an example citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You gave a useless example. The 40-page reference is used only to support a specific name; a reader who does not think to search for that specific name is a reader who does not think enough to read this article at all. And the information from the 80-page reference is fairly widely spread across this reference; the text supported by this footnote is not really a specific claim about the topic of our article, but rather a three-sentence brief summary of this 80-page reference and how it uses the topic. One can provide enough more specifics to help reviewers verify that this summary is accurate, but those specifics will not help readers, because readers who want to actually learn about the summarized material will need to read the whole reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

If someone suffered to learn something then everyone else should suffer as well. Is this your argument? This is not surprising as this is a typical response from professors to their students. The students have no choice because they seek a job and go through this painful path. This is of course an outdated educational practice. For the sake of the argument let's assume that this is correct. Still, we cannot apply this approach here because WP is not academia! The readers come here freely and we have no leverage over them to read anything. Thus, here we bother to do anything out of our free time because we want to help/induce others to learn, not make them suffer. If a reader wants to read every single page of the journal article, they will do so no matter how you presented the information. However, others need a little nudge, and thus helping them to find the information is really helpful. Moreover, WP is a project like no other because it is an encyclopedia where all of us are participating in improving it, and I mean everyone. This also includes reviewers who may not necessarily have the time to learn all of the glorious details in these papers, but their job is confirm whether statements are supported by citations in order to signal to readers that this article has a certain quality. The question that starts to manifest is whether your actions prevent the improvement of WP by being polemic to any suggestion that you do not like to the articles you write, signalling WP:OWN symptoms. A.Cython(talk) 01:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I have told you over and over again to stop with the ad hominem "you're a professor so you must be treating readers badly like my professors once did" attacks. Again, stop it. Address the content, not your stereotypes of editors' identities. You have been repeatedly violating WP:NPA and that's not acceptable behavior for a Wikipedia editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Then act accordingly in a collaborative manner. Being a professor is not an insult. A.Cython(talk) 02:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The title itself may not be an insult, but the way you describe professors and me is. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Not my intention, but also do not invoke it by lecturing us. A.Cython(talk) 02:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'd really prefer to focus on article content decisions instead, but I have to lodge my objection to this. No one is trying to turn Wikipedia articles into hazing rituals on some kind of twisted "I suffered so the next generation should too" rationale. The mere act of writing Wikipedia articles about technical subjects makes them more accessible and lowers barriers that impede wider understanding of those subjects. Everyone who puts time into doing that should get the fair presumption that they have the public's interest at heart and are, by their own lights, trying to reduce the suffering involved in learning technical subjects. We're all here to make as much knowledge available, as clearly as possible, to as many people as possible. Reasonable people can share that goal and disagree about where to include page numbers, for goodness' sake. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

How to reach the content if I do not know where to look? Why the reviewer needs to go through several dozens of academic papers and read every single page? Oh right, as another editor said, I should be lazy for not appreciating all these pages. I have one PhD thank you very much, I do not need a second. Just as an editor puts time to write something so does the reviewer by double checking. Unlike academia where the reviewer is from the same community, in WP the reviewer may not be from the same field and so much will be unknown. Thus, not having the numbers creates an undue burden to the reviewer. Nobody said to make the page numbers mandatory (though this is becoming standard elsewhere so maybe the WP science projects need to catch up?), but helping to lighten the load when requested helps immensely in the review process and to the curious but perhaps intimidated non-expert reader. Refusing to add them simply makes everything worse and this is the heart of the problem, I believe. Maybe I am wrong, well I do hope I am wrong, but I did not open this discussion, did I? A.Cython(talk) 06:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think spot-checking references for a GA review is comparable to the research burden of a PhD thesis. And I'm skeptical that if a reviewer is that foreign to a technical subject, page numbers will help very much. A reviewer who can't understand a page when they're pointed right at it shouldn't be reviewing that article; a reviewer who can't by themselves locate the central claim of an article is not much better off. I am likewise skeptical that a "curious but perhaps intimidated non-expert reader" is actually made less intimidated to any meaningful degree by a few extra digits in small print. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No it is not comparable but feels like pretty quickly if I need to read 50 journal articles and having the page number helps immensely to catch up. Apologies but I am skeptical of your skepticism as I find it bathed in the academic way of thinking rather than in encyclopedic ways. The same argument can be applied to history, i.e., how can you understand the complexities of the life of a medieval king unless you read the whole journal article or whole book etc. The basis of your argument is to exclude others (non-experts) from judging the sources, which is an academic frame of mind. Here in WP anyone (expert or not) should be able to edit & review since most of us are working as non-experts in the articles. Experts/academics are allowed to contribute provided to abide to WP rules. A.Cython(talk) 06:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I don't think being given a page number within an average-length article has ever made me less intimidated by a technical topic that I hadn't studied before. In a thousand-page doorstopper of a book, sure. In a hundred-page review article, sometimes. My rule of thumb would be that a location specifier starts to help when the relevant information is not in the abstract or first couple pages, and the document as a whole is big enough that it has a table of contents. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

those specifics will not help readers, because readers who want to actually learn about the summarized material will need to read the whole reference.

I really have to disagree. Example, click here first, then on citation A for that reference. You're telling me that to understand that sentence... we should assume "readers" need to read an entire 525 page reference material, or should have to, to understand that one sentence?

How about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Field_propulsion&oldid=1339346733#cite_ref-Sutton_Rockets_2017_11-0

Source for: In contrast, conventional rockets achieve motion by expelling mass.[ref pages 5-6]

The reference for that one: https://web.archive.org/web/20220612011026/https://ftp.idu.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/ebook/tdg/DESIGN%20SISTEM%20DAYA%20GERAK/Rocket%20Propulsion%20Elements.pdf

That's a 792 page source. You literally only need pages 5-6 to learn everything any layman needs to know about why "big boom make rocket fly". I am, no offense, genuinely befuddled by your position. Would someone need to read an entire rocket science textbook to understand that rockets fly away on fire? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

A 792 page source is a book. I literally started my first comment here by stating that book sources usually need specific page references. This discussion is instead about adding more-specific pages within references that already have page ranges (journal articles, magazine articles, chapters of books...). So you are arguing against a strawman position that nobody here is taking. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Perles configuration is a great example, but you don't need to be rude. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Given a choice between "useful to the reader" and "acceptable citation style", I'll go with "useful to the reader" all day. RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes it's just helpful to cook up a local bespoke solution for various reasons. A good ad hoc example a bunch of us quickly made up the day of the shooting is at:

Killing of Renée Good#Notes

The citations and edit warring were getting out of control very, very rapidly. It would have been terrible for readers in what was indeed a very, very highly read article for days. Paragraphs like:

This is the first sentence.[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x] This is the second sentence.[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]

I shoved a couple info efn and then others did and it stuck, and made the article instantly more stable and easier to read. What should happen is what makes the article in question the best, while doing it's best to stick by the rules. And there's never anything wrong with inventing a new wheel if it spins. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

(Off-topic here, but: Although in this case packing the citation overload into efns was surely an improvement, I have also seen efns get out of hand. Example: 24-cell.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that if one ever finds oneself adding an instruction like "Search for 'foobar'" to a citation, that's probably a sign that the supplemental location information should be provided in some other way. It can easily come across as talking down to the reader, and it's generally out of tone with a house style that prefers not to give the reader direct instructions. For example, instead of saying "Search for 'foobar'", the note could say, "The term 'foobar' is used, e.g., in the caption of Figure 7 on page 91". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so after reading a lot of these comments (being the original instigator of this entire section), it can obviously be seen that having a specific, but not too broad, location in the shorthand footnotes is helpful regardless, and I can also see that this is increasingly necessary for citations that have a greater amount of pages or content. It feels like the act of applying this to the evaluation of GANs is going to be an expansive topic for future discussions, but regardless of how obvious it may seem, do you guys think that, on a BASELINE level, that the shorthand footnotes without the page numbers are at least applicable for the 1b subcriteria?

I understand that the reference pages can be long sometimes, but I found that, especially online, I was able to read through, understand, and verify the information presented on the aforementioned article. There were cases where, yes, I did find that such information could have its page range narrowed down to aid the readers, but I've also come to understand that, with articles of fluid sources such as those containing both links to a preprint and published version, or present itself online and on paper, it may take a creative approach to find the information one's looking for. I also wanted to point out that, with the way the layout of the artice is presented right now, the citations are seen as "notes" rather than "references", which further blurs the desire of a specific citation format, since notes are very diverse in nature.

If its truly a problem for editors to verify the references for themselves under the eyes of GA reviewing, then we should make a note somewhere on Wikipedia's project pages on how to search for keywords from the presented information, or a different approach other than just looking for the page numbers (in fact, this type of advice may already be on the site, I don't really know), but the simple question I have for the article I'm reviewing, not for the sake of my perspective, but for others who will come across, skim, or thoroughly read the article, is this: Is the reference format shown on the Perles configuration article enough to satisfy standard 1b of the good article criteria, and be verifiable to the general audience? — Alex26337 ^(talk) 03:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It provides more specific locations within books (which is also a good idea for articles, if we're talking about behemoth reviews that reach into monograph range). The "Notes" entries that give further information about what to look for in the shorter cited documents indicate when that kind of further information is helpful, and most of them do so in a stable way: making clear the difference between journal and arXiv versions, using location labels that aren't just page numbers. I'd say that it goes above and beyond what GA criterion 1b calls for. There's no requirement in 1b that citations be verified in 30 seconds each or that the article must hold the reader's hand against every conceivable eventuality. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Despite differences of opinion with the nominator, so take my words with a grain of salt, I will say the following:

1. The particular article satisfies the criteria of being verifiable to a general audience. The ratio of citations with specific pages is sufficient for the particular article and for GA status as it is generally perceived by the current WP community. Having a higher ratio would make it stronger and more accessible, but I do not want to press this issue further so I will call it barely adequate for now. Per decade WP steadily increases the standards so whether the GA status survives in the following the decade remains to be seen.
2. The article (IMO) does not satisfy the 1b (manual of style) as it mixes different styles of referencing, breaking consistency both with notation and reading style one expects in WP. Here is an example:
   • Mac Lane (1936) describes an 11-point example, obtained by applying Von Staudt's algebra of throws to construct a configuration corresponding to the square root of two.[15] I honestly fail to see the reasoning of citing twice the same reference, i.e., Mac "Lane (1936)" linked to the paper & in [15], in the same sentence. My first reaction when I read it was pure confusion. If I am not mistaken this is related to the parenthetical citation style, which is deprecated in WP, see the discussion and decision, in which the nominator participated, meaning he is full aware that this style is no longer used and continued to use it against consensus. See also, Wikipedia:Inline_citation#Parenthetical_reference: This citation system is deprecated by a community discussion and is no longer used in new articles. If you run across this format, whether in an old article or in a new contribution from an editor who hasn't yet learned other styles, please help by converting it to a non-deprecated style. The article needs to be in compliance with WP:MOS to be accepted to GA status. While the decision talked about avoiding edit wars over AfC and existing articles, it has been 6 years for the nominator to get used to the new WP guidelines. The refusal to comply to established consensus and reviewer comments by adopting a polemic stance here and elsewhere on various reviewer's suggestions requires a more firm community stance.

IMO, the article as is fails on this criteria, and the nominator needs to comply to the requests of the reviewer on what changes are needed to fix the deviations in WP policies and guidelines. This may only require 5 mins to fix, but fix is what is needed now and in any future GAN. We should not take lightly the actions of an editor acting against consensus for that long. My 2 cents and I will speak no more on this issue. A.Cython(talk) 05:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not a "parenthetical reference" as most of the deprecation discussion focused on, or as illustrated by example at WP:PAREN. It's a use of the name "Mac Lane" as the subject of the sentence. I find it too hard to get upset about that. To see how it looks, I changed it to non-parenthetical form (and find my own personal reaction unchanged). Either way, bringing this extra issue into a discussion about how much information should be provided and where seems like a diversion from the question at hand. Moreover, 1b itself does not demand "consistency", and in fact says the opposite: Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied so that the reviewer is able to identify the source. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank for the change. See, not so hard to follow guidelines! I have to wait for the reviewer to see whether there are other pending issues on WP:MOS. A.Cython(talk) 07:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Language like "See, not so hard to follow guidelines!" is rather snide. Can we please keep this focused on article content, rather than sniping? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Well receiving conspiratorial accusations, insults, and lectures is not part of my WP participation. Now, from a brief look:

• (optional) citations 10 & 13 can be better presented as notes with the efn template. This means the note starts with the explanation and ends with a superscript citation.
• (optional) Typically the section "Notes" is labelled "Footnotes" or "References" (with the section containing the full citations as "Sources") with "Notes" corresponding to a subsection where the efn notes appear. There are different styles as there is no universally accepted way but as is it is confusing to general audience as to what it contains since Notes does not necessarily mean citations.
• (major) Avoid single sentence paragraphs either by expanding them or merging them with nearby paragraphs. This is major issue as we reject articles for B-class on this.
• (minor) The prose needs some work: missing commas and it needs some c/e to improve reading flow as it is awkward at places. This is minor so anything you can do in this direction would be helpful.

That's it from me in terms of manual of style. A.Cython(talk) 07:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, I'm currently reviewing the prose and will update the article's review page in a short moment. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 07:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for putting up with all this nonsense and outright misinformation in your thread here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This question has come up before, and among editors in the medical/science range, following the academic convention of citing the whole paper is preferred.

One of the problems that we run into on wiki is that some people expect the content of an article to be supported by a sentence, or at most a paragraph. In practice, though, editors should frequently be citing a whole article for its main point, e.g., a sentence like "Most cancer deaths cannot prevented through diet or other individual choices" should be cited to a whole paper on cancer prevention, and not to an isolated single bit within that paper.

More broadly, the amount of specificity depends on the claim being supported. "Sal Scientist proposed a grand theory of unification in 1988" should be cited to the whole work, even if that whole work is a multi-volume set of books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not about a sentence or a paragraph, it is about to be able to verify. There are other options i.e., page range, section, subsection, etc. The argument presented that 'the whole journal article must be cited' is suitable for an academic environment, where the target audience and reviewers are experts on the field. In WP, the majority of us are not experts on the field where we read or review. Now while exceptions exist, i.e., YYY scientist/historian wrote a book/paper that outline his/her discovery, how of these exceptions are we supposed to allow in an article? 1, 10, or 100? Beyond a certain point, the burden of verification becomes too much. Moreover, no evidence provided to justify why there is no need to provide page numbers for journal articles in maths and natural sciences articles, and I say this since in every other field in WP it is pretty much a standard practice. It gives the impression to the readers of lower standards.
The only argument presented above in support to this (I hope I did not miss something) is that this is good for the readers because this way they will be forced to read the whole paper. Of course, we want people to read, but this is an invalid argument because WP is not academia. We are here to write an encyclopedia that everyone has access, not force them to read, especially not any material beyond WP domain as this runs into issues with WP:PROMO. The readers must want to read at their own choice and not because there are choices by WP editors to force the readers to read editor's preferred material (especially in cases when the editor has added his/her own work in the sources).

As for the example you gave: Most cancer deaths cannot prevented through diet or other individual choices. If you use a whole journal article to draw this conclusion without this been explicitly stated in the source, then you have issues of WP:SYTH and WP:OR. In fact, for such a general statement you should not even using a research article for this purpose, at a minimum a review paper and better still a book; review papers tend to be long so providing a page number or range is necessary. A.Cython(talk) 05:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Here's an example from an actual article: "Gipson believed that the American Revolution was a direct result of changes that occurred in the British Empire after 1763, due to Britain's victory in the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War, which he referred to as "The Great War for the Empire." His thesis is succinctly presented in his article "The American Revolution as an Aftermath of the Great War for the Empire, 1754-1763," which was published in the March 1950 issue of Political Science Quarterly." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes this is ok to write in a biography, but it needs a citation to support what Gipson believed. Ideally, we want another historian to express what Gipson believed, as we should avoid to draw these conclusions. Otherwise, we run into trouble in potential pitfalls of us trying to describe what each author believed. Irrespective of this, the particular style is not suited in a non-biography article when there might be say 10-20 or more contributing scientists. Are we going to say YY1 published this, YY2 published this, YY3 ... etc 20 times in the article? This is more academic writing rather than an encyclopedic way to present information. My understanding is that we meant summarize the topic and provide sufficient information to verify, which includes page numbers. A.Cython(talk) 08:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Why limit this principle to articles on scientific topics? Imagine how much more concise our encyclopedia could be if we forbade articles on sporting events from saying which players made which plays, or if we forbade articles on elections from speaking about the performance of individual candidates. This is all more journalistic writing rather than an encyclopedic way to present information, and does not suitably summarize the topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

If you follow the WP guidelines, then WP would be concise! Instead you adopt a polemic stance against inclusion of page numbers in journal articles and in at least two times continued to use WP:PARREF, i.e., acting against consensus.

I never said not to include sources, I said include them in a way that other people can more easily verify! Finally, if you confuse encyclopedia with journalism, then you need to read what Wikipedia is and is not. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a dictionary, academic journal (added emphasis). So please do not use WP to summarize academic literature as if WP is an academic journal. A.Cython(talk) 14:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Let me expand Hawkeye7's example. Imagine that we have this:

• Sentence in the Wikipedia article: "Gipson believed that the American Revolution was a direct result of changes that occurred in the British Empire after 1763, due to Britain's victory in the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War, which he referred to as "The Great War for the Empire".
• Citation at the end of that sentence: Gipson, Lawrence Henry (1950-03-01). "The American Revolution as an Aftermath of the Great War for the Empire, 1754-1763". Political Science Quarterly. 65 (1): 86–104. doi:10.2307/2144276. ISSN 0032-3195.

I think this is a correct citation for the work, and that the whole article is an appropriate source for the statement being made. A.Cython seems to be arguing that glancing through 18 (short) pages (including refs) to see whether this statement is supported by the source is just too much work for a GA reviewer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

” In fact, for such a general statement you should not even using a research article for this purpose, at a minimum a review paper and better still a book; review papers tend to be long so providing a page number or range is necessary.”

This is a massive overreach of WP:RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

In what sense is an overreach? WP:RS states The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. A single narrow focused journal article that contains the views of a small number of scholars cannot cover a general statement that reflects the whole field itself. A review (academic) article that summarizes the current trends in research is better in this context. A.Cython(talk) 14:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes: The reliability of a source depends on context. For "context", read "the exact claim being made in the Wikipedia article". For example, if the sentence is "A Phase Ia clinical trial found that Wonderpam caused headaches", then a correct source – and possible the WP:BESTSOURCE that actually exists so far, because Wikipedia writes articles on experimental drugs for which review articles are scarce luxuries – is a "single narrow focused journal article", and you should be citing the whole paper, not just one bit or one page. WP:MEDRS specifically warns editors not to rely only on the abstract.

Perhaps another way to put this is: The main purpose of the citation is not maximizing the convenience of someone doing spot checks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I never said use one page or just the abstact but the relevant information within the paper, which might be several pages. Moreover, it is prudent not use journal articles as if WP:PRIMARY sources and it much better to use reviews or books, which are written at a larger temporal distance and have better digested the claims of research article, see also WP:VNOT. You also repeated the insult brought by another editor by effectively saying that the reviewer who does not read all the pages is extremely lazy. Wanting higher standards is not lazyness, because if we cannot double check the numerous sources without pages then mistakes will slip and degrade the WP project. Easier access means that we can verify more sources and provide better recommendations. To verify is directly linked to GA criteria which sets a threshold. This threshold is not about beating it down to see how much lower quality can we get out of it, but rather providing the reviewer the means to verify. No pages prevent this from happening as a higher quality review and a higher quality of the article. Your position appears to me being against higher quality. A.Cython(talk) 19:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I said nothing about the reviewer being lazy. I said that a citation that is correct is sometimes going to be inconvenient for a reviewer.

On your other points:

• Using a correct citation is not lower quality.
• Using a wrong/non-standard citation could make it harder for people to find the sources in the real world.
• If you personally run into problems verifying a source, then ask for help. But don't demand that the normal and correct WP:CITEVAR be changed just because you had problems verifying it.
• Page numbers don't necessarily help with verification. If you're looking at a sentence that says "Alice Expert wrote a book on the size of the Sun" and the citation is "Expert, Alice (2000) The Sun is Really Big. Big University Press", then I hope you'll be able to check that without even needing to go past the cover page.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Pages help to narrow down with verification and this does not require sub standard format. We do this in every other field in WP. If one has to read the whole paper to draw the conclusion then probably there are issues of WP:SYTH or WP:OR. This also why we avoid WP:PRIMARY and prefer WP:SECONDARY, so that we do not have to draw conclusions from complicated reports without taking into account the surrounding context.

You said that we should not ease convinience of the reviewer, but to me this echoes the argument presented about related to lazyness. Apologies if i read too much. But if i am allowed, should we also note the reverse, i.e., allowing no pages, we are doing too much for the conviniece of the nominator. This argument is not helpful, as I explained above.
Also note i did not ask for change of policy. However, i do expect as a reviewer to make modest request for page numbers when say there are 50 journal articles with no pages. Modest means 10-15% whenever possible maybe compromise with 5%. What I do not expect though is to be accused of lazyness, conspiracy theories, e.g., i am trying to fail the article for points, to be lectured as if my request is propesterous and i do not have as many GAs, etc. So if I as a reviewer make such a request i expect to hear "I will see what I can do to help but we maybe not reach this goal for these reasons..." and everyone will be happy. Is this so outlandish? Apparently by the responses above it appears to be the case. A.Cython(talk) 20:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for a reviewer to ask for help with any source if they can't easily determine that the source directly supports the given material. But I think this should take the form of a question in the review page, and not in the form of changing the WP:CITEVAR in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I never asked for a policy change! However, if as a reviewer I ask help to narrow down the pages but I get a hostile reaction (claiming that the policy does not require this bla bla) then what is the policy here? Am I allowed to fail the GAR it for preventing me from verifying? A.Cython(talk) 06:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Reviewers can fail – excuse me, "decline to list" – an article for any reason whatsoever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

"A single narrow focused journal article that contains the views of a small number of scholars cannot cover a general statement that reflects the whole field itself." An absurd suggestion, without even considering the assertion that a book containing the views of the same number of scholars is somehow the highest form of reliability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviews and books tend to have more strict editorial checks and they are written as WP:SECONDARY in contrast to research academic articles, where the academics do anything in hyper-competitive fields, i.e., there is sufficient temporal distance for other scientists to have the chance to verify various claims. It is not perfect but it is safer. This is not as crazy as it sounds as academic is going through a crisis.

The number of sub quality academic papers, i.e., the number of errors (or even fake data, in more clinical and biological fields and elsewhere) has been increasing steadily in the last decades:

• Fraudulent Scientific Papers Are Rapidly Increasing, Study Finds New York Times
• The situation has become appalling’: fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point Guardian
• Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common by Science
• Scientific fraud has become an ‘industry,’ alarming analysis finds by Science
• How big is science's fake-paper problem? by Nature

Is this the end of the world, no. But it has been a problem nonetheless. A.Cython(talk) 22:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Three more in case anyone interested on the prevalence of fake academic papers.

• An Investigation Showing How Fake Academic Papers Contaminate Scientific Literature
  • Reviewers volunteer their time, typically assume research is real and so don’t look for signs of fraud. And some publishers may try to pick reviewers they deem more likely to accept papers, because rejecting a manuscript can mean losing out on thousands of dollars in publication fees.
    “Even good, honest reviewers have become apathetic” because of “the volume of poor research coming through the system,” said Adam Day, who directs Clear Skies, a company in London that develops data-based methods to help spot falsified papers and academic journals. “Any editor can recount seeing reports where it’s obvious the reviewer hasn’t read the paper.”
• What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia
• Fake studies in academic journals may be more common than previously thought
  • Well, the goal of our study was really to estimate the scope rather than identifying a specific paper - this is fake. So when we're looking at the numbers of papers that are identified with our indicators, the percentage was in 2020 at 28% of all biomedical publications. That comes to over 300,000 in the biomedical field alone. Now, if you consider that all of science is maybe roughly double that, then you can sort of roughly estimate that there may be a half million fake papers published per year. And that is a shocking number. (added emphasis)

And here the best as this arxiv manuscript studies the lifetime of retracted academic papers in WP itself:

• The Persistence of Retracted Papers on Wikipedia
  • Our findings highlight how the Wikipedia community supports collaborative maintenance but leaves gaps in citation-level repair. ... Our findings reveal that while some citations are corrected promptly, many persist uncorrected for extended periods, with a median time to correction of 3.68 years (1,344 days). ... Conversely, a high academic citation count is associated with a slower correction time, which may reflect the difficulty of challenging sources perceived as highly authoritative. ... These findings highlight a fundamental disconnect between the public availability of retraction data and the community’s collaborative workflows, which often fail to translate this information into the reader-facing edits required for a complete repair. (emphasis added)

Are you telling me that we should not be just a bit vigilant to ensure none of these papers enter into WP? Because if we believe the particular manuscript we do have a problem. A.Cython(talk) 00:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Then take your sources to the talk pages of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. It’s no use extensively quoting from them on a project talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks A.Cython(talk) 02:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think review articles are generally more accurate and reliable and scholarly than research articles you are deluded. The world of review articles is currently seriously problematic (for instance overrun by people using them to game citation counts rather than for scholarly review purposes) to the point where arXiv.org has had to ban unpublished review articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Lazy and deluded, please continue to insult me. A.Cython(talk) 02:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

My point was about the quality of review articles, not so much about your judgement. Feel free to substitute any other pronoun for "you" in the conditional statement. If you do not happen to think highly of review articles, the consequent logically does not apply to you. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

My comment above provided the reason as to why reviews are a bit better. They are written some time after the original papers, i.e., there is a temporal distance that gives other scientists time to evaluate the claims of the paper, reproduce it etc. So a review has better chances to filter out some of the bad papers. This is the process that we have in academia even before AI tools, the reviews provided this mechanism of cleaning up what was going on in research. Are there bad reviews, yes, but there are less in number than the bad papers. Books from notable publishers does this job better, since writing a book take a lot more time and resources, providing a larger temporal distance and it better be good because otherwise people will not buy it. Is it perfect, hell no, but again it is better than citing the original paper. A.Cython(talk) 03:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS explicitly says the following:

Ideal sources for biomedical material include systematic and literature reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised, standard medical textbooks, or medical guidelines and position statements from reputable national or international expert bodies.

Cite reviews, don't write them.

(All the emphasis is in the original.) So for the specific situation of sourcing the statement Most cancer deaths cannot prevented through diet or other individual choices. appropriately, A.Cython is correct in stating that a review article should be cited rather than a research article. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This is wrong: books tend to have more strict editorial checks and they are written as WP:SECONDARY.

Books (including highly reputable textbooks) normally have no peer review and frequently have no fact-checking. They may or may not be secondary sources. A university textbook is probably a secondary source, but an autobiography never is, and book-length proposal or other presentation of a new idea (e.g., in philosophy) is often primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The topic was science based books, which they do have reviewers. A.Cython(talk) 06:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

In history and politics, we do regularly place page numbers and nobody complains. Only in math and natural sciences people complain as far I understand. A.Cython(talk) 06:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

History and politics are generally citing books instead of journal articles.

People generally complain in two instances:

• When "a" page number is inappropriate because the whole source is being cited in its totality.
• When the request appears to be in violation of WP:CITEVAR.

One thing to consider is that the conventional bibliographic citation format for a journal article gives an expert a hint about the source. A one-page "article" in most journals isn't actually an article, but a letter to the editor or similarly brief and non-peer-reviewed publication. So if you write a citation like this:

• Expert, Alice. (2002) "On the nature of expertise." J. Imp. 34 (12): 15.

instead of giving the full page range of "15–23", then someone might assume that's not a regular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Still, in History/Politics topics a large number of journals are used we provide page numbers. See recent FA article First Jewish–Roman War all journal articles have page numbers. Likewise in a political biography by me, containing 48 journal articles. I understand that this is not current policy, but there is a positive reaction when this is done and it elevates the article overall. So why not us to strive to elevate articles even if it is by only by a little bit? Finally, the addition of page numbers in journals in an article like Perles configuration does not require changes in reference style as it has already the appropriate setup so this is not a violation of WP:CITEVAR. Apologies but beyond the hostile reaction that I have witnessed I have not seen a valid argument. So let's agree that we disagree and leave it as that. A.Cython(talk) 21:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked at First Jewish–Roman War. There are 13 instances of {{cite journal}}. All 13 give a page range (←not a single page or two) that appears to be the page range for the whole article. For example:

• Cohen, Shaye J. D. (1984). "The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism". Hebrew Union College Annual. 55: 27–53. JSTOR 23507609.

The "27–53" bit means that the article is 27 pages long, and the whole article is being cited. This citation, which you hold up here as an example of doing it right, is AFAICT exactly the problem you've been complaining about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. No. Taking Cohen (1984) as the example, the long-form citation (which is a bibliographic entry) gives the whole page range for the article. The short-form citations, which are the ones used in-line for specific claims, give individual pages or short page ranges: p. 27; pp. 31, 35–36; p. 47; p. 50. The whole article is never cited for a claim in prose. Nobody has raised any concern about having a properly formatted bibliography.

The longest page range I could find in the citations of the article was 'Rogers 2022, pp. 273–277'. There are a few others than cite multiple pages that are far apart, e.g. 'Hengel 1989, pp. 72, 145, 224–227'. I also found one mistake: 'pp. 376, 377' should be 'pp. 376–377'. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This article happens to use a citation format with separate short-form and long-form citations, where there is room to include this extra information. However, many articles have only a single level of referencing, with long-form citations directly in the footnotes. In such cases, the correct long-form citation to a journal article is, as it is here, the form with the entire range of pages of the article. You can add more information to the footnote, of course, but it would have to be outside of the long-form citation itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I am aware of the citation formatting where the first instance of a citation is presented in long-form with subsequent citations in short-form referring back to the same work. This is typical of, for example, academic journal articles. The separate short-form, long-form citation style of 'First Jewish–Roman War' article is common on Wikipedia in the history subject area. I use the same format: short-form inline citations; long-form bibliography entries. I don't think of the long-form as 'citations' at all; whereas those using the academic style do, because they are. The format you've used at 'Perles configuration' has virtually the same appearance as the one at 'First Jewish–Roman War', but, if I've understood you, you're employing the academic format. The first instance of a 'note' – say Grünbaum mentioned much earlier – is the corresponding entry under 'references'. Subsequent 'notes' refer back to the same work, but potentially elsewhere in it. My side-comment about the page range listed in the references for Grünbaum arose from misinterpreting your citation style as being the same as the, for brevity, 'dual level referencing' style. That is that 'notes' are in-line citations and 'references' are a bibliography. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Books about science don't undergo peer review, and they rarely have external fact-checking. The publishing house is going to check for typos, grammar, and layout problems. They're going to check for copyright violations on images (but apparently not for text, as parts of Wikipedia articles turn up without attribution in many books). And the people who are deciding whether to publish it generally know something about the subject matter in general, so if the whole book is obviously wrong, they'll (probably) decide not to publish it. But you shouldn't expect them to be systematically reviewed for their facts. It just doesn't happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Scientific books (not popular science) do go peer-review process. I have regularly reviewed chapters of books and the criteria by the editors are more strict than journal articles. The reason is that the majority of journal articles are predominately written by early career (graduate or postdoc) scholars (with only some supervision by their professor) while books is for more senior scholars. The quality between the two is different. A.Cython(talk) 21:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Without going into point-by-point detail, let's just say that none of these statements about scientific publication norms is recognizable from my own experience. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Certainly it will vary by field. I've read, for example, that history is a field in which the best books are usually written by people late in their careers. For the experimental sciences, the most brilliant work is frequently done by people under the age of 40. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Crazy idea > make shit happen > redo it a bunch > spend career refining.

Know nothing > learn about shit > relearn it a bunch > understand how to explain it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Different areas of science, engineering, math, medicine and technology have incredible variation in how a lot of this feels and is handled, and norms. The basics are all there the same, but the skins and workflows and expectations are terrifically different. Our jobs here are to accept there can't be a one-size fits all approach or stanndard sometimes.

The laziest high level example is when I see people in AfD say "someone is not notable because their citation index score is too low for late career" and similar. Some fields sprinkle citations like it's a music video with someone throwing dollars around. Some, if you get a handful you're a rock star in your local field.

Sure, the particle physics nerds are rolling up in their neon-colored cars with hydraulics hopping around like a methed out hare. The bashful little mollusc guy with his five citations on a janky old Vespa is just as badass. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Formatting of the GA lists

This is a bit of a long-winded comment, but bear with me. I notice some weirdness/inconsistency with how the GA lists are formatted, particularly when it comes to disambiguating sections. I know attempts at standardization are sometimes considered folly on Wikipedia, but this list, long (yay!) as it is, has a rather limited number of sections, so I really don't think getting them (reasonably) consistent is that far-fetched. Here are the main things I notice:

1. It's unclear what character should be used for disambiguating. I see colons, em dashes, and en dashes / hyphens (the latter two are probably erroneous unless there's an obscure style in use here that I've never heard of). A popular choice seems to be a colon for the first disambiguation followed by a dash for a second (e.g. "Historical figures: politicians - Africa", though I'm puzzled by the use of the hyphen, as mentioned).
2. It's unclear how explicitly the disambiguation should be made. This is especially apparent for the list of living things; "Animals" is followed by "Mammals — artiodactyla/bats/lagomorphs/etc." rather than "Animals — mammals — artiodactyla/bats/lagomorphs/etc.".
3. It's unclear how to format uncategorized items in a list. I see "X miscellanea", "miscellaneous X", "X: miscellaneous", "X: other", and "other X" (for the examples with colons, note that dashes are also mixed in following the confusion above).

I am very curious to know if anyone has any opinion here, or even cares. Barring any opposition, I might go ahead and quietly try to harmonize some of the relatively trivial parts (mainly those addressed by points 1 and 3; 2 is a bit trickier). — An anonymous username, not my real name 04:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative to look at this, An anonymous username, not my real name. Seems non-controversial—I'd say go for it. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the encouragement. I've been wrestling with different styles for quite a while now, but I think I'm starting to settle on something decent. It's a shame that subheadings only go so low. — An anonymous username, not my real name 04:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheers, An anonymous username, not my real name. Often consistency is more important than the over-arching style, so I'm sure that whatever you land on will work. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Dakota MRT station

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.

---

I wish to review the article, but due to multi-edit copyediting and deletion of duplicate sources, I became the top editor there by number of edits and the fourth-biggest by byte addition

I'd like to clarify: does that prohibit me from being the reviewer under WP:GANI § R2? I'd prefer to ask first rather than review boldly and get sanctioned for rubber-stamping my own contributions

Also pinging Icepinner because he nominated the article for a GA assessment (I have history on this talk page; just see § Second opinion on GAN review) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you have made significant contributions to the article; thus, you are no longer impartial, and should not review the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Cool... Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: would you like to review it then? Otherwise I think I'll go to the reward board Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:52, 5 March 2026 (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.

Can we merge two similar processes: Pledge and Review Circles?

The Good Article system has two processes – Pledges and Review Circles – that are functionally similar. Can they be merged? They both have pros and cons, but does GA really need two redundant processes? I've done 30 GA reviews (5 via Review Circles; and 3 via Pledges). It seems silly to have two similar processes. They both aim to facilitate GA reviews, while avoiding the "low quality review" problems that could result from a DYK-style quid pro quo system. A merged system would have some benefits:

• Less confusion for GA newcomers
• Makes GA simpler (e.g. the top GA tab bar)
• Reduced workload for GA volunteers (today it takes two separate teams of volunteers manage the two processes)

What do people think of merging them? Noleander (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is one way to merge the Pledge and Review Circle processes. This is not an official proposal: I'm simply tossing it out to show that a merger could be done rather easily. I'm sure there are other ways to merge them.

1. Change the GA Review Circles page to redirect to the Pledge page. Update the Pledge guidelines as follows:
2. After you place your nomination in the Pledge queue, you may begin reviewing the other article(s) for your Pledge obligation immediately; or you can wait a bit.
3. You should start reviewing the other article(s) no later than one week after your own nomination's review is complete. Complete the review within 7 days of starting it (unless the nominator is non-responsive)
4. When selecting an article to review: prioritize articles in the Pledge queue (over articles not in the Pledge queue); and prioritize older nominations over newer ones.
5. If an editor repeatedly does not fulfill their obligation to do a review(s), they will be politely asked to refrain from using the Pledge system.

Items 2 to 5 seek to implement the "best of both worlds" from both Pledge process and the Review Circle process. Noleander (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander, it doesn't "need" two separate processes, no. For context, these were both ideas that editors came up with in prior discussions about how to deal with the increasing backlogs at GAN. This is why we now have multiple backlog drives per year, for example. I suggest tagging in the editors who are currently active in these two systems, to have a more productive conversation about them. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

For me, I never understood the Review Circles, so simplify this sounds a good idea to me. I understand the logic of Pledges, but I find it a reactive mechanism, i.e., one has to wait for a reviewer for the nominator to review other articles (still better than nothing). By waiting useful time is wasted, maybe I am wrong.

One thought of mine (please do not shoot me, I only put on the table and most people can ignore this) is to add an extra point (or half point) during GA Backlog Drives to reviews of articles whose nominators have a healthy ratio of nominations over reviews, i.e., GARs > GAs; this is available in the nomination page. This is similar to points awarded to reviews of old nominations. Just a thought. A.Cython(talk) 00:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging some users that have been involved in Pledges and GARC: @Gommeh:, @Kusma:, @GGOTCC:, @GoldRomean:, @750h+:, @Bgsu98:. Noleander (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping!

I am in favor of keeping GARCs. It is the only process which reliably gets articles reviewed in a reasonable timeframe. Pledges, on the other hand, are just a pinky promise that uses the same default list-based process of picking a nomination. I always review more GAs then I nominate. Why shouldn't users just let their stats speak for themselves? GGOTCC 00:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@GGOTCC - Thanks for the feedback. Can you think of a way the two processes could be merged (for the sake of GA's overall efficiency and simplicity) yet still retain the aspects of GARC that you like? Noleander (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Same here, no reason to merge the two. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 01:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Generally, I think it is a good idea to try to figure out what works best about Pledges and Circles and how to make a new process that works better for everyone without ending up with three processes. In my view, the main disadvantages of the systems are:

• From a nominator's perspective, pledges can be slow (the oldest nomination with a review pledge right now is almost 10 weeks old) and there is no guarantee that your nomination will be picked up soon. Many pledges do get picked up very quickly though.
• Circles can also be slow in periods of low activity or when nearly finished circles fall through, but the system does try harder to match reviewers with articles than Pledges.
• From a reviewer's perspective, the downside of Circles is the lack of freedom what to review
• In both systems, the nominator is supposed to wait until the circle is closed/their article review is started before they can start the review(s) that will be associated to their nomination, so there is no way to "pay" for getting your article reviewed by doing reviews of your own in advance.

When I started Pledges, I expected the circle-like "I will review another GA nom with a pledge" type pledges to be the default, but it turns out most people just pledge one or two reviews without favouring other pledges. I think we would get better service for the people who pledge with the circle-like pledges. Overall I think merging the official Circle system into Pledges would work probably provide decent service in practice if people are more strongly encouraged to review articles with pledges, but I understand why some of the users of classic GARC want to stick with a system that has more strongly enforced queueing. —Kusma (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Slightly gamify picking up reviews

One thing that might encourage people to pick up reviews is having a counter that shows how many articles have been nominated today vs. reviewed, and then invites you to work on offsetting the difference. It looks less daunting than a massive number between 800-950. I obviously don't think this is going to be a particularly impactful change, but any reviews we can get are a good thing, I feel. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable statistic to have clearly visible somewhere, and ChristieBot already has this data in some form. CMD (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of some back-end improvements to ChristieBot but can add this to the to-do list. Where would this show up? Top of the GAN page? On the talk page of the article as part of the {{GA nominee}} template's display? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd was thinking of WP:GAN, but reasonable minds might differ. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Change in ChristieBot behaviour if an article is moved during a review

I've just changed ChristieBot so that if an article is moved while a GA review is open, ChristieBot should not complain. Previously it would post a failure message on the nominator's talk page, and then an "under review" message for the new article title under that. Now it does nothing; it just refreshes the GAN page with the article title changed. At least, that's what it's supposed to do -- I don't want to screw around with article space to test it. If anyone moves an article during a review, please let me know and I'll check everything worked correctly. It's quite a rare event and it might be months till it happens again; I'll be keeping an eye on it in the background. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Shortest page in any GA

WP:GACR does not mention the minimum number of bytes in GA. But can someone tell me what is the shortest page in any GA? I am planning to nominate another article, but because of the lack of sources on expanding (and having to wait for some time) and to avoid WP:OR, I don't think it is possible. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

See the bottom of Wikipedia:Database reports/Good articles by size/5. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

1000 bytes; article is M-70 (Michigan highway) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Our GA criteria just says "not a stub". What a stub is tense to be debatable. I tend to think "is this topic complete" when it's short. That item on the highway is a good example of saying all you can about a notable subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Same with DYK, although that also imposes a minimum of 1500 prose characters. I'm guessing the reason why DYK has that requirement is because DYK is for new articles (meaning created, expanded 5x prose or improved to GA status within 7 days) and readers wouldn't want a short stub article to be featured on the main page. Likewise, WP:FACR has no mentions of minimum size or even 'stub', although I could argue that stubs are a 'de facto' fail for an FAC, likely because of the 'comprehensiveness' requirement, which is more than 'broadness' for GA. You also have articles like 61016 which is only 477 words (2865 bytes) long and passed GA a couple of months ago. JuniperChill (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: In that list, 'word count' is self explanatory, but what is 'prose size'? Just curious. Thnks!  Spintendo  17:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Prose size is basically the word count in a measurement of bytes. It's what Wikipedia occasionally uses as a measurement for things like page splitting (for example MOS:TVSPLIT recommends splitting off an article when it reaches "50kB to 60kB of readable prose"). TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ahh good to know. And thanks Doc for the link to the gadget, I love gadgets!  Spintendo  17:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It tells you how many bytes of prose is in the article. Individual words have different byte sizes: 'a' is two bytes; 'pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' is forty-six bytes. The difference between individual words is usually mitigated the longer an article gets by the average length of a word (6 bytes), though exceptions appear frequently with shorter articles. For example, New York State Route 326 at 800 words has a smaller prose size than Kwonop Sinmun at 700 words. Note: The table sorts articles by prose size by default, not by word count. This should also tell you how much of the article's total size is taken up by prose (as opposed to the bibliography, citations, images and captions, etc). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The Dance of Anitra

This review was started on 5 January, but has since stalled; the reviewer, CounterpointStitch, has not edited since 25 January (and has made only 3 edits since 8 January). I sent a ping last week but there has been no response.

Any suggestions on next steps? There's no rush, and I'm happy to continue waiting. On the other hand, I think the article is in good shape; the main substantive comment was to trim the background section, which has been done substantially (about 1/3 of the article has been cut). Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

A void is reasonable; you can always invite an uninvolved editor to review the article

Or maybe you can ask someone on their user talk page or maybe another participant in this talk page will volunteer themselves Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Whyiseverythingalreadyused. (Incidentally, did we arrive at our usernames through the same process of trying and failing at finding a username we wanted that wasn't already taken?) MSincccc, you had mentioned this article on my talk page. I don't suppose your exams have cleared up enough to give you the time to take a look (if you would be interested)? I'm biased, of course, but I don't think the review is a heavy lift at this point—mainly confirming that the background has been trimmed enough to meet WP:summary style. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

About the usernames... yeah, frustration lol (thank you for making me laugh) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Whyiseverythingalreadyused, hah! You, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, and I can form a drinking club. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

laughs in hell language

I don't do alcohol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Smart man. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

lol :) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique I’ll take a look later today and let you know if any revisions are needed for the prose or images. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @MSincccc! Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Sync number of reviews and GAs to new username

My total reviews and GAs are not synced to my new username from what I can see. My old username was "Surayeproject3." Is there anyway that this can be changed so that the numbers are synced? Thanks. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@PresentlySuraye3 see the instructions at User:ChristieBot#What to do if your username changes JuniperChill (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Improperly filed GA nomination

There's an improperly filed GA nomination at Talk:Joe Hathaway (American Politician)/GA1 that was done by the page's creator, who also made it so they're reviewing their own nomination. I think it constitutes as a quickfail but I'm not sure on how to do it when they've already started the review, could someone take a look at this? reppop^talk 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I closed it as a quickfail. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It should just have been deleted as G6, which I'll go and do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

AI concerns

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.

---

Hello, I am reviewing an article & am getting bogged down in thinking it contains some WP:AISIGNS. I'm honestly at a loss for what action to take. I've posted my thoughts in the review. I can keep pointing out sentences that seem robotic or flowery to me, but that is ultimately a time sink for both me and the nominating editor.

Should I ask for a second opinion for this GA review? Do you all have any other advice for me? Thank you for your time. As I am a new editor and this is my first GA review, I want to get this right. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 07:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It'd be easier to give advice if you linked to the article in question. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Disney's Aladdin (Sega Genesis video game) Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 08:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As a comment, I note that the nominator of the article is Cat's Tuxedo, an editor who has 74 GAs, 2 FLs, and 3 GTs. With a track record like this, I generally expect an editor like them not to use LLMs for article writing, though there could be a chance (not taking any sides here; I'm neutral on this, just pointing this detail out for further consideration). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 09:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. So, to start Cat's Tuxedo first edit to the article was Dec, 2018 and first significant expansion to the article in Dec 2019 – Some of the passages you flagged as AI concerns are from content written in this edit, for example: Aladdin's primary forms of offense against enemy characters are a scimitar for short-range slashing attacks and apples that can be pelted as long-range ammunition. The apples are a finite resource, but can be collected in abundant amounts throughout the game. This is well before the ChatGPT (or other AI) era (post Nov, 2022) and could not have been generated using it. Something just shy of half the article already existed pre-AI era (the article is ~27,000 bytes in Oct, 2022). This doesn't preclude the possibility of AI involvement, but it does indicate that you have false positives in your review. This is a recent (Feb, 2026) and quite substantial edit. There are passages within it that raise my eyebrow, for example [t]he game's development represented Disney's inaugural direct participation in video game production, motivated by a desire to produce a high-quality adaptation that matched the film's artistic and narrative excellence is PEACOCK at the very least, but that still could have been human written. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Addendum: Separate question: Why do your comments have a mixture of quote mark styles? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you think I'm over-analyzing this?

Also my comments probably have a mixture because I wrote them in Apple Notes app and copied them over to format. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 09:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC), By the way, thank you for pointing out the details about the edit history. That's a good point & I didn't check it carefully before my last review comment that pulled out specific sentences.Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 09:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Potentially. There are passages in the prose that raise my eyebrows and I am also at least a little wary of large individual edits, but these are spaced apart by multiple hours indicating an editor actively working on it before posting. For example on 14 Feb 2026 we have edits at 01:51 (+2,855 bytes), 05:37 (+3,794 bytes) and, 08:53 (+5,567 bytes). It is not unreasonable to be able to build any of those edits over the course of a couple hours and that is an indicator of human-made content. I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt. I can also ping an editor that I have crossed paths with that works heavily in dealing with AI generated content on Wikipedia if they're willing to give their considered opinion if that'd be helpful. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude I really appreciate your time. Would you be able to ping that editor you mentioned? I would love to know their take on this as well.

Everything you've pointed out makes a lot of sense to me... the edit history is very strong evidence here. I was so wrapped up in the way things sounded and comparing it to WP:AISIGNS that I didn't pay as much attention to the history as I should have. So thank you again for breaking that down for me. In the future I'll definitely start there before nitpicking individual lines (especially lines that were clearly written pre ChatGPT). Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 16:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Gnomingstuff – Your knowledge in identifying likely AI-generated content has been requested, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Disney's Aladdin (Sega Genesis video game) and giving your thoughts. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for the delay.

I do think this is at least AI-assisted, for editing and/or source summarization. I don't think it was fully AI-generated. This seems to apply mostly to the 2025-26 edits; obviously, the edits before 2023 don't count, but by definition everyone who uses AI now was not using AI in 2018, so that's irrelevant either way.

Anyway, the clusterfuck of "highlighting the blah emphasizing the whatever" is exactly how AI text would come out around this time period. The source-text integrity isn't too bad compared to some other instances I've seen, the discrepancies I've found are more subtle:

• In general -- which is the case with AI text more often than not -- a lot of the stuff that is claimed to be "highlighted"/"emphasized" is not actually highlighted or emphasized, just mentioned. For instance, highlighted the game's visual appeal as among the prettiest on the platform is referring to a brief aside in a sentence about something else. Words have meanings.
• Virgin's "Digicel" process, a marketing term for a suite of tools and techniques for digitizing hand-drawn animation, aligned with Disney's vision for a game that felt like an extension of the film. The "aligned with blah" is typical AI phrasing, and synthesis beyond what the source mentions: one interviewee speculates that Disney chose Virgin because John and Andy's team's work, but doesn't mention the vision, and it's also unclear whether it was marketed as "Digicel" at the time.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have done some LLM patrol/cleanup and a few GA reviews. I also suspect there was LLM involvement in the large content additions in February . The tone is both reminiscent of AI-assisted prose and different in style from CT's earlier edits to the article as well as clearly human-written contributions they made to other articles . I will do a deeper analysis tomorrow (including extensive source-to-text integrity checks) and will provide a third opinion once done. NicheSports (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out those edits for comparison @NicheSports. I was wondering if you've had an opportunity to analyze this any further? Also, as you've done a few GA reviews in the past, how would you recommend I proceed? I'm thinking I should do a closer inspection of sources that I spot-checked. As Gnomingstuff pointed out in at least one instance, a brief aside in a source was characterized as "highlighted", which isn't accurate. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 06:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am about 2/3 of the way through my analysis, it has taken some time. I should be able to post it today NicheSports (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The above reads like a witch hunt. There is only a single WP guideline covering AI: WP:NEWLLM which consists of a single sentence: "Large language models (LLMs) can be useful tools, but they are not good at creating entirely new Wikipedia articles. Large language models should not be used to generate new Wikipedia articles from scratch" [emphasis added]. The only WP document mentioning disclosure of AI use is WP:LLM which is merely an essay. WP:AISIGNS is merely an advice page. GA reviews should not be relying on essays when evaluating GA criteria. If the article has factual inaccuracies or peacock phrases, the reviewer should: (1) Ask the nominator review all AI-like phrases and remedy them, if needed; and (2) Perform a thorough spot check on those phrases, by asking the nominator to supply quotes from the sources that support the phrases. The GA Talk page is not the place to promote WP:LLM from essay to policy. Noleander (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Noleander, that is actually exactly the approach I am taking... focusing on source to text integrity analysis (GA criteria #2). I am also planning to post this analysis on the GA review page, not here. Hopefully that resolves some concerns. NicheSports (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Continuing this entire discussion in the GA Review talk age is a great idea. Noleander (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

In case anyone from this thread wants to add their thoughts, I posted the analysis at the GA review talk page NicheSports (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The above reads like a witch hunt is an accusation that is both spurious and incendiary. Nowhere is the nominator being attacked, and raising a concern about the possibility that AI generated errors or misrepresentations appear in a potential GA is both well within the bounds as a subject for this venue and certainly does not constitute witch-hunting. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2026 (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.

Talk:Cairn (video game)/GA1

The GAN review was started by AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk · contribs), which was then banned for being a WP:SOCK. How should we proceed with this? Should we delete the review and send it back to the queue, or list the review for second opinion? OceanHok (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I have closed that GA and sent your article back to the queue to hopefully find another reviewer. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@A412 resolved this by completing review GA2 on this article. Thank you!! -- Reconrabbit 13:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT review again

Talk:ChatGPT/GA2 was started by a user who is new to the GA process. I also think some parts are LLM-generated and it's very short. Could it be vacated? HurricaneZeta^C 02:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you clarify: When you say "it is short" are you referring to the article or the review? When you say "some parts are LLM generated": article or review? When you say "a user who is new to the GA process" do you mean the nominator or the reviewer? Noleander (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It is evident Zeta is talking about the reviewer. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 02:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Well, there is certainly something unusual happening with that article: the first GA review was a few weeks ago, and the first reviewer passed GA with a cursory review. Nominator has a GA award on their page. But the GA promotion is not shown in the article Talk page Milestones section? Now it is undergoing a 2nd GA review? This is above my pay grade. Noleander (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander that’s because the first review was vacated after WT:Good article nominations/Archive 37#ChatGPT review. I’m asking for the same thing to happen here, as I don’t think that this review was proper. @Pietrus1 already left a talk page message to the user explaining the issue. ~2026-16563-32 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the review should be vacated here. This article deserves an experienced reviewer. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I vacated the first one; I'm not going to vacate the second one, although I agree it should be vacated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Closing procedure question

Is there something else that should have been done with this old, failed GA nomination? It appears on the V&A Talk page as if the review is still in progress (i.e., there is no closing box or different background colour to indicate that the matter is no longer current). I'm not well versed in GA review procedures, but it seems that there may be a parameter that's missing somewhere. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Nothing really needs to be done. This review was probably done well before all that stuff was created. You could archive it if you wanted, since it's old, but otherwise there's no need to be adding templates to 13 year old review pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There are many reviews still done today without the archive formatting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah also true. I should clarify also since it was ambiguous, by "You could archive it" I meant like, archiving the talk page post. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos and AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for your comments above (which I just read). I'm a bit out of sequence here, apologies. I came back to amend my note above and say that I added a {{Discussion top}} and tidied this up a bit, otherwise leaving things as they were. (I'm working up the courage to re-submit the article for GA review, so it was on my list of the myriad details needing attention prior to making that move.) To my rabbit-hole prone mind (and flyspecking eye) it's better now. Hopefully I've not done anything "wrong". Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

75th GARC

Congratulations to the good article review circle initiative for posting 75 circles. Since its creation in June 2024, editors have used review circles to help clear the GAN backlog and get their nominated articles reviewed more quickly.

If interested in joining a circle, please post in GARC's the nomination pool. Thanks and happy reviewing! Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Nominations

How do you nominate a good article?

Also, I may have found a candidate for good article status, American Sign Language. Okso1 (talk, contribs) 15:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! To nominate an article for GAN, see WP:GANI. You have to be a significant contributor (authorship of >10% or top 5 authors) to nominate an article.

For American Sign Language, you are free to nominate it, provided that you meet the requirements listed in GANI. However, I would say the article is not yet ready for GAN, given it has uncited statements and some questionable sources. Also, it is a major topic and a Level 5 Vital Article, so the article is more likely to face scrutiny from other users. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Okso1, it's an interesting topic and would be a good article to improve regardless of whether it's nominated. Do you sign? It's fine if you don't of course. There is a script that will highlight all the uncited portions of the article. The section American Sign Language § History and implications needs inline citations. I see a few other sentences throughout. The main author is Mo-Al, but they don't seem that active. The first steps would be starting this discussion at Talk:American Sign Language and fixing up any issues you see in the article. Feel free to reach out, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Updates to the GA nominee template

See here; Prhartcom has updated the {{GA nominee}} template to implement some additional validation, and to make the errors show up in bold red on the article talk page, with the goal of nudging the users who sometimes misuse this template (usually because they didn't follow the instructions) to fix the errors themselves. If there are any objections to these changes, please say so. Once there is consensus to do so we'll move the sandbox version to the template. Are there any other pages where a note should be left about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:GA nominee/testcases, I asume? CMD (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Roger that. Prhartcom (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Informal GAR

Hi. Can GAR be requested informally after more than seven days of disagreement have passed and no comment was made yet from the defendent/original nominator or the original GA reviewer who may have overlooked the concerns raised afterwards? M. Billoo 04:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

List of my GANs

Is there any easy way of finding out my list of Good Article Nominations? The report says I have seven, but I can only remember five. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@KJP1 You can see them at this link. CMD (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@CMD - Super helpful, thanks. Two went to FA, which is why I didn't remember them. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

having my review/GA count fixed

hello! i changed my username from @9koyami to @Kinnimeyu a couple weeks ago and it seems to have reset my review/GA count. i've reviewed 1 (Stardust (Danny Brown album)) and have 2 GAs (Minecraft Manhunt and Ruben Sim). can my numbers be fixed? thank you! Kinnimeyu (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kinnimeyu, please consult the instructions at User:ChristieBot#What to do if your username changes. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Error in GAN statistics tool

The GAN statistics tool here lists 2025 Rajasthan Royals season as delisted; but it never was delisted or even nominated for; it's still GA. Vestrian24Bio 09:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up -- I'll take a look when I get a chance to see if I can figure out why this is happening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio: This is because the editor who promoted the article did not add it to the relevant GA listing. I've just done that, and if you run the tool again it will give you the correct answer this time. The tool assumes that if an article is not listed on one of the GA pages, it is not a GA, which means it was either promoted to FA or delisted. If it's not an FA, it must have been delisted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad! Always skipped over this; will keep it in mind. MB2437 01:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Vestrian24Bio 03:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

GAN edit summary now links to errors page if there are errors

When there are multiple GA nominee templates on a talk page, the bot doesn't know which one to use, so it doesn't create an entry on the GAN page. Unfortunately this means there's no way to see the error on the GAN page, and this is also an error that can't easily be listed in the GAN errors category or show up as an error in the nomination template. The only way it can be seen is by looking at the GAN errors page, which is here: User:ChristieBot/GAN errors. That page isn't updated every 20 minutes; it's updated only when the error changes. That means that if there's an error, and nobody happens to look at it for a day or so, it'll drop too low on watchlists to be seen.

The article Kho Ping Hoo currently has two nomination templates on the talk page, and so it is not showing up at GAN. The only indication there's an error is that the edit summary says "Errors listed!" but doesn't say why. To address this I've changed the edit summary so that "Errors listed!" is now a link that takes you to the errors page. This link will show up every time the GAN page updates. I see someone has already fixed the issue; thanks, Jacob. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

First GAN review

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.

---

I have recently reviewed Talk:Appin (company)/GA2 . Since, this is my first review, I would like to request a experienced reviewer to check if I had done all things correctly. Thanks ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Brandon since it's their nom being discussed: Based on a quick look, while there are a couple of sentences that may could have used a little more paraphrasing, the majority of what you highlighted as potential copyvios were in fact correctly quoted from their sources. Direct quotes are permitted as long as they're properly attributed and not excessive, which this article doesn't seem to run afoul of in my view. I would not have quickfailed it, but instead mentioned my concern and let the nominator either provide a rationale or have some time to work on it. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I highlight two things from your response.

• Courtesy ping to the nom.
• Copyvios infringement invalid, but I think it should be written under quotes, or any other means.
• Provide time to the nominator, and let him work upon.

Should I relist or take any other step in your means?

✓ortexPhantom (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Can I undo that ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not an expert when it comes to fixing these sorts of situations. Hopefully another watcher of this page can recommend the best course of action. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

No expert either but I would recommend undoing your edit failing the article, courtesy apologising to the nominator on their talk page, and then writing a full review. If they're not happy with your second attempt select "Ask for 2nd opinion" on GANReviewTool. I personally agree that the inclusion of direct quotes without putting them in quotation marks or attributing them is below GA level, but it's not quickfail because it's easily fixable and good faith to have arisen. Then you just hope that ChristieBot doesn't have a stroke with you unfailing it but it normally pulls through. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've tightened a few close paraphrases and the passages that remain are direct quotations from the sources cited. Happy to work through a full review. Brandon (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox, @DrOrinScrivello Thank you my friends for your response, I have reverted all my mistakes and now doing full review. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie not sure ChristieBot has recognised undoing the fail as it hasn't reappeared on WP:GAN. I thought maybe if the reviewer places it on hold then that will prompt it? JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry it seems to have resolved. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it would generally be better, if a fail is to be reversed, for the nominator to just renominate and the reviewer to restart the review with a fresh page number. That's what is really happening, after all. The problem with reopening is that ChristieBot's database is still going to record a failure for that version of the review. If this version concludes with a pass, ChristieBot's history log will show both. Then when the nominator asks the web tool to show their FAs I suspect it'll show both the fail and the pass under the same version. I'm going to clean this up in the database, so this one is fine as is, but in general once a reviewer has failed a nomination I don't think there's ever a good reason to reverse that. There's no stigma attached to a fail (for this very reason); it's not reported as a statistic, so there's no need for anyone to worry that their log will show that their GA nominations sometimes failed. I don't recall how Legobot handled this situation, but I don't think it had an underlying history database so I don't think it mattered (and that's also why its statistics were sometimes wrong). A separate question: why was the nomination timestamp reset for this nomination? The nom initially had a timestamp of 11 October 2025, but it's been changed to 7 March 2026. If we're keeping the same nomination page and just reopening it, was there a need to change that timestamp? Striking that; I see it was a normal renomination after a removal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that you agreed to fix it manually, I will generally avoid this situation of this from now. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2026 (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.

The Ancestor's Tale

Hi all

I just wanted to raise a query about this article, which was recently promoted to GA status. Apologies if I've missed something here, but to my eyes there seem to be a number of issues that were not addressed during the review.

• The bulk of the article is a tabulation of the individual chapters of the book, and each entry more or less dumping the contents of that chapter. Since we're an encyclopaedia, the article should be a concise summary of the work as a whole, rather than effectively reproducing a chapter-by-chapter breakdown (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). FA/GA articles would not normally go into such detail. (See A History of British Fishes for example).
  • Converted to text, and trimmed (a lot). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• The "Background" section is similarly more a summary of parts of the book, with lengthy quotes that don't tell us very much about the book's actual background.
  • Trimmed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned there may be copyvio issues with the article, with respect to the original book. In addition to a relatively large number of direct quotes, some of the chapter summaries closely mirror the language of the book itself, for example "John Gurdon dramatically demonstrated this in 1962 by transplanting the nucleus of an adult frog into an enucleated cell, which developed into a tadpole" in the article compared to "My former Oxford colleague John Gurdon dramatically demonstrated this in 1962 when he transformed an adult frog (well, an adult frog cell!) into a tadpole" in the book. Earwig reported "Violation suspected", 85.4% similarity when I used it to compare the article against the book itself.
  • Removed nearly all the asides about what Scientist XYZ did in 19NN. Checked using Earwig: remaining are only directly attributed quotations in 'Reception'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Minor point, but I just found some MOS:QUOTES issues with it using curly quotes and apostrophes instead of straight, which I've amended. I think a thorough copyedit would be beneficial to check out for other MOS and prose issues.
  • Seems the key editing has been done here: the rest isn't showstopping. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

My concern overall is that the article may not presently meet the GA criteria for being well-written, broad in appropriate proportion, and free of copyright problems. I'd be interested to hear what others think. Courtesy pings to @Charlie Faust and Chiswick Chap: who were involved with the GA nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The Gurdon quote is pretty similar. I wasn't consciously trying to copy it. I had read the book, and maybe the phrase "dramatically demonstrated" stuck with me? Dunno. Should we quote Dawkins directly or...?

The book and article are valuable resources, worthy of a GA. Charlie Faust (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

By my not very accurate calculation the amount of prose “summarising” the book in the tables comes to 6,000 words, or about five times the rest of the article (including the lead). Unlike MOS:PLOT, which sets a defined limit of 700 words on plot summaries for novels, non-fiction books have no such hard limit. Still, I think 6,000 words! of content summary is taking the mickey to a farcical degree. I’m surprised the GA review didn’t discuss this (fairly fundamental) issue at all, and would be inclined to nominate for GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I find a table for the different 'Tales' sensible, and note the discomfort with the length, despite the lack of a defined limit; it would be best to trim the table entries down a bit. The close paraphrases must of course be removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I don't dispute the table format overall, indeed it's had that since time immemorial it's not a recent addition, but I do think the level of detail in there at present is way too much. The maximum there should be for that is a high-level summary of what the chapter is about, in a small number of sentences. I think this article needs a lot of work to meet the GA criteria and had I reviewed this I probably would have done a quick fail. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I concur with AJ's suggestion for GAR. It looks awful and unbalanced Billsmith60 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I have trimmed the 'Background' and given people's views here, have converted the large 'Chapters' tables to text, trimming a large amount of text, including effectively all the quotations and asides about scientists. I've checked using Earwig and the section comes up clean. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Where do comic characters belong?

I've recently nominated Quicksilver (Marvel Comics) for GA, which it has achieved, but I realized that comic characters correctly subheading as a GA is pretty inconsistent.

Some are found under Language and literature / Characters and fictional items (ex. Wolverine, Kamala Khan)

Some are found under Language and literature / Comics (ex. Spider-Man, Thor)

Some are found under Media and drama / Fictional characters and technologies (ex. War Machine)

Where would be the correct spot for these comic book characters?

ModlordD (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

There's no right answer because this is a problem across all of the categories. There needs to be a major overhaul. I recently had to deal with this problem in my last several reviews. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposal - add alt-text of images to GACR #6b

I believe that the Good Article criteria section 6b should be modified to include the use of alt text. This is part of the Manual of Style and is an accepted part of the FA criteria (as an extension of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions). It is relatively simple to implement (there is and is a benefit for users with screen readers or those who cannot load images due to slow internet connections or other restrictions (ex: an internet block on Commons). Because "suitable captions" has always been part of section 6, this could be interpreted as always having been a part of the criteria, though it wasn't linked directly as it is in WP:FACR.

Current text: 6b: media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Proposed text: 6b: media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and include alt text.

The Manual of Style is already alluded to in 1b, so this isn't coming out of nowhere to mention this part of it. If this were to be implemented, it would be certainly be a project to go over the backlog of older non-compliant GAs and bring them up to the standard, but compared to more major issues that plague old GAs (unsourced passages?) it's much easier to fix. I do not see this as being an issue that would warrant a Good Article Reassessment on its own for this reason either. -- Reconrabbit 17:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm weary about adding even tighter expectations into the GA standard, especially when such standards already exist if wanting to get the article to featured status. If we add a little FA-criteria here, and a little there, the GA standard starts to become FA-lite. My view is that captions should be (and are stipulated as being) expected to accompony images, while an article isn't going to become a firmer "good" by adding alt-text to images. A reviewer may encourage it, but do we really need to mandate it for GA standard? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  I would support it, personally. It's not a big difference for the article creator - not much more work than adding the initial caption is in the first place - and is a big help for accessibility. I don't at all think it's WP:CREEP. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel this is a bit of creep of rules. Are we really going to start to fail articles because there is no alt text? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. That would be an incredibly lazy fail, since it would take the reviewer only moments to write up some of their own if that were the only barrier to GA status. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Quite - so why have it in the rules. I'd support a more general "article should meet the majority of the MOS". If someone says your images should have Alttext in a review, you just put it in. Why have a rule for it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

But "should meet the majority of the MOS" is a huge expansion over the GA criteria! -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I agree. The wording I have is bad, but I don't really support very minor additions being part of the criteria. If we are to make the criteria larger, I'd want it to be for more general adherance the MOS, rather than one or many small parts of it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be on the same level as someone saying "your images don't have captions, the GA criteria says they should". It is a straightforward fix. -- Reconrabbit 19:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Seeing your second reply that came in right as I wrote mine - I see the issue that would come up from this exactly because it is such a small change. I just feel it is a simple step to make articles more accessible; putting it in as part of these criteria could make it more visible over the whole project as well. -- Reconrabbit 19:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Weak oppose for now per Kusma; although I agree that alt text should become standard for quality articles, current on-project guidelines for alt text (MOS:ALT and Help:Alt text) are too dubious to work with at the moment—they both contradict sources like e.g. section508.gov's advice, the former contradicts itself constantly on the level of detail to be used, and the MOS:BLANKALT advice on |alt=icon / |alt=photograph / etc. for decorative non-PD images is sketchy (perhaps even its definition of decorative images—maybe images that provide visual structure aren't decorative? I tried to contact section508.gov for advice, but my email didn't reach them). I think these guidelines need to be improved before we can make alt text something to be done systematically. {{Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions}} 22:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Very good points, I often find myself trying to recommend simpler alt texts for images but struggling to find concrete guidelines on what is appropriate for a given figure. And that's just in the context of biology articles (when is it more appropriate to provide every aspect of a detailed diagram for alt text over just "diagram of a flower"?). -- Reconrabbit 13:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit and Lemondoge: I started Help:Alt text to give practical examples and links because the guideline was too confusing. Any feedback on it is appreciated. What parts contradict section508.gov? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Reading it over I don't see the contradiction to section508 either, unless it's in regards to decorative images, which should probably get a clear definition within the guidelines. There aren't many examples I can think of where using a decorative image would be appropriate regardless. (I can barely remember typing the above comment even though it was only 2 weeks ago...) -- Reconrabbit 19:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: your help page doesn't give much useful guidance for the alt text of the class of images I care most about, mathematical diagrams (where the images can be complex but are not plots of data so advice to tell users where to find the data is unhelpful). But ignoring this class of images in favor of images of physical objects, artworks, and data plots is par for the course: you're not worse than other guidelines in this respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

So I looked online but don't really see advice for diagrams where the data is derived mathematically, just where it's derived from some type of recorded data. When Spring Break ends next week, I'll reach out to some folks at LSVI and see if they have any input. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Our GA rules deliberately include only some of the MOS and I'm not sure either way about whether we should incorporate all of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions (which does include alt-text). However, I have a broader concern, that the more we creep our rules towards mechanically checkable things like the presence of footnotes and alt-text in certain positions, the more we are also encouraging reviewers and article maintainers to pass over the other aspects of our rules that are not so mechanical: are these references, images, and content the right references, images, and content for an encyclopedia article on this topic? For that matter, checking whether alt text exists is far from the same as checking whether it is good as alt text. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Generally, having reasonable ALT text would be a plus, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images is not a usable guideline that tells us how to write good ALT text and may even mislead us (see the discussion on the talk page). I do not think "images have ALT text, but it is not useful" is a big step up from "no ALT text", so I oppose for the moment. —Kusma (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  A related question: supposing I want to make sure an article has appropriate alt text. Is there an easy way to do so, without groveling through the source code view of the article and without adding third-party extensions to my browser (Firefox)? My default user interface does not appear to show alt text. Going to the Firefox accessibility property inspector separately for each image works but is cumbersome and non-obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  One of the features of Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups is to show the ALT text for images on hover. —Kusma (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, it seems you also have to disable "Redirect image links to Commons for files hosted there" (which I use much more frequently than wanting to find out about alt text) for this to work. Otherwise it does nothing on image hover. And after disabling commons redirects, as well as getting uglier popups on wikilinks, I get a popup on an image that shows me what its commons landing page would look like except that the templates are unexpanded. Because it's entirely about the commons landing page, I see nothing about its alt text here. Am I doing something wrong or is that what the gadget is supposed to do? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  If you hover over an image that does have ALT text, it shows what it is (try those on the Main Page). If there is no ALT text, it is not mentioned. —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• This is getting into WP:instructions creep territory. We already have extra hoops with the new mandatory source review, and it hasn't exactly helped with the backlog, more the contrary. GAN risks becoming a single person FAC review (where alt-text isn't exactly required, just encouraged), which would be fine if we had a corresponding reviewer pool to pull from, but we don't. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak support. I don't think this is instruction creep; it takes like less than 5 minutes to describe an image so I wouldn't mind I guess (I also think that failing articles solely because they don't contain alt text is incredibly lazy... it's like failing an article for failing to meet Criterion 1b because its lead violates MOS:FIRST despite the rest of it being fine). However, I am concerned that if we add it as part of the GAN criteria, then it would be a lot of work to add alt texts to existing GAs. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 09:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose; however, alt text can be made encouraged without being made mandatory (like advising that a good article candidate with un- or sloppily formatted citations have the citations formatted correctly for a future FA candidacy). I see that at least two other users have expressed concerns of instruction creep, so that's that. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I think adding alt text is always best practice, but GA is already strict enough as is and I can't imagine I'd ever support delisting a GA based on missing alt text alone. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  I also oppose this for the same reason as TAOT. While alt text in every article would be good, the absence of it should not be necessary in order for an article to maintain its quality as a GA. Also, Lee has a valid point - this might lead to people failing articles for the trivial issue of not having alt text. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who had input here. It reads as clear that this isn't something that will be added to the GA criteria. I'd like to bring the issue of the alt-text guidelines up with WikiProject Policies and Guidelines as something that should be made more clear. I was looking to propose this addition as something that would be similar to the requirement of "having a consistent citation style/reference layout", that is, something that can be noticed and fixed rather than causing an article to fail review. Looks like the underlying guidance should be tidied up first. -- Reconrabbit 13:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per Kusma, and explicitly not per CREEP. I think it's a reasonable thing to mandate, but the guideline is not currently sufficiently clear for us to mandate it. See also this discussion at FAC . Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Trainsandotherthings, this shouldn't be mandated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Moral support I don't think it's possible for an article to be good if it's inaccessible to the many readers who rely on alt text, but I don't think we can mandate it until we actually have working guidelines and essays detailing what alt text should look like. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Use of unassessed and situationally reliable sources

GA criteria asks of the reviewer undertaking source analysis: At a minimum, check that the sources used are reliable. I am encountering a little confusion on my end that is holding up a recent GA review I've put up for 2O. My issue is on how to strike a constructive and fair approach in a nomination that, after some disagreement, is still written in a way largely using unassessed or situational sources against the relevant project sourcing guideline. Whilst I don't expect GAs are exclusively written from RS, am I being too harsh as suggested by the nominator, in strongly expecting that an article wanting to meet a GA standard should derive most of its content from significant coverage in available WP:RS? If I am being too harsh, I would genuinely appreciate feedback on how I can do better next time, as well as how best to support this nomination without adding more of a headache for the nominator. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You're correct to challenge unreliable sources. The sources don't have to all be listed at WP:RSP as reliable (and, of course, there are many reasons why sources listed there as "generally reliable" might not be reliable for any particular claim in the article), but the nominator should be able to defend any of the sourcing choices in the article. -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. To follow up, my confusion lies in this grey area: where the GAN process has removed most of the unreliable sources, but the nominator and reviewer are at a disagreement on how much the subsequent article content should use remaining situational or unassessed sources, is a 2O the most appropriate path forward - notwithstanding I can still help them with general feedback? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, past that it doesn't look to me like you've done any reviewing of the sources, and neither has the nominator, so that's what comes next. If there are any particular claims you think can't be made given the sourcing available, you should challenge them. A source check isn't a matter of comparing the source list to RSP, though things like the citeunseen gadget based on it do help speed up the process. Do the sources verify the information in the article? Is there any reason to believe they may be inaccurate? Is it particularly inappropriate to use any of those sources for some reason? Is there copyvio or close paraphrasing involved? Those are the kinds of questions you're trying to answer. You haven't really started asking them yet. -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, appreciate it. I agree whatever umbrage I have with sourcing standards, leveraging analysis of use of the actual sources in the here and now to help the nominator should be the priority. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

14 April 2026

Hi, my nomination has been open for a few weeks. I would really appreciate it if someone could review it. Thank you.

Wonsan Kalma Coastal Tourist Area TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024: Well, there are currently 940 pending nominations with 781 unreviewed ones; if you're in a hurry, try participating in WP:GARC or WP:GARP to get your article reviewed... Vestrian24Bio 05:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I understand the backlog. I’m not quite ready to review another article yet, so I’ll wait for a reviewer to pick this up. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Stalled review with inactive reviewer

Would anyone be willing to take over Talk:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (collection)/GA1? The original reviewer dropped out following a misunderstanding about time frames, and Spintendo took over from them. While they left comments for some sections, they have not finished the review - a few sections are outstanding and there's no spot check or image check. Their last edit was March 15, they have not responded to my ping, and there are no edits indicating a wikibreak or what's going on otherwise. I would be very grateful to have someone finish it up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I could finish it up if need be. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be amazing, thank you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Automated source verification

Hi all, a few editors (@It is a wonderful world, @Vestrian24Bio, @Turini2) have been trying out Source Verifier on GA and candidate articles and u:IAWW suggested posting it here. I hope that this tool can save the time you spend on reviews and improve the quality of GA.

The tool checks claims against the sources supporting it using an LLM. You can either use an open-source model available free of charge courtesy of PublicAI or a model of your choice if you have an API key. The output looks like this Talk:2026_Men's_T20_World_Cup_final#Citation_verification_report. The tool found at least one inaccuracy in the article regarding the location of a cricket match. The tool is not perfect and you can find the list of limitations at the script page. The biggest source of false positives: when several citations are bundled together and each supports only part of the passage, the tool flags each one of them (real-life examples).

I'd be grateful for any feedback: what works well, what doesn't work and what capabilities you'd like to see in such a tool. Alaexis_¿question? 20:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to work for me. Can't see the "Verify" tab next to "article" or "talk". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

For me, it's under the same tab that move and GAN are under, next to "view history". 1brianm7 (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7@AirshipJungleman29 which skin are you using? I'll update the instructions. Alaexis_¿question? 08:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. Alaexis, I believe I'm using the legacy Vector skin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I have successfully installed it and tested it on a current GAN of my own, St Mary and All Saints, Great Stambridge. I found that it is too lenient; for example, I was using two sources to verify the statement "[renovation[ under the guidance of rector George Wilson Keightley". The first was that the renovation was under his guidance, but that source only said "G. W. Keightley". The second verified that the rector at the time was a George Wilson Keightley, and therefore I could combine the two to include his full name in the article.

However, for the source that merely said "G. W. Keightley" it returned "supported" when it should have been partial, claiming The name 'G.W. Keightley' is a standard abbreviation for George Wilson Keightley. – this is not true. Had I made up his name from G.W. it would have let me off for failed verification. The only "partial support" it referred to was the following:

While the windows themselves are often older, the stained glass originates from the 1800s and the marble was replaced in the 1900s. The entire church has colourful 1800s tiled floors.

— Article

The source text confirms that the church has 'C19 coloured tiled floors throughout' (19th century) and 'C19 stained glass to windows' (19th century). It also mentions a 'C20 marble reredos' (20th century), which aligns with the claim that 'the marble was replaced in the 1900s.' However, the source does not explicitly state that 'the windows themselves are often older,' though it does mention 'C19 stained glass to windows,' which could imply that the original windows may have been older before being replaced or restored in the 19th century. The claim is partially supported by the source.

— Verification

Now maybe I'm being too lenient myself here, but the source frequently refers to the windows' origins as ranging from the 1000s to the 1900s. The word 'often', of course, is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any windows simply omitted by the source. I think it's been to harsh here. Overall, however, it is a very interesting tool and possibly beneficial to run in addition to spotchecks, but I think it's a long way off replacing it, especially because it (obviously) can't read certain sources. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The second example is interesting, it looks like the free model was a bit out of its depth. I checked the same reference using Claude and it returned "Partial". I think that it's correct regarding the windows and regarding the reredos

“ The source states 'C19 coloured tiled floors throughout,' 'C19 stained glass to windows,' and 'C20 marble reredos,' supporting the claim about 1800s tiled floors, 1800s stained glass, and 1900s marble. However, the source specifies only a 'marble reredos' (altar screen), not marble generally, and the claim loosely describes this as 'the marble was replaced.' The implication that windows predate the stained glass is supported by the source listing windows of C13–C15 date with C19 stained glass. ”

The claim about the replacement of marble in the 20th century is indeed not quite supported by the source. We don't know if another marble reredos was there before. Alaexis_¿question? 09:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I saw the tool and tried it out (on Neuro-sama, ironically). Of 136 cites, it said 53 were supported, 7 partially, 1 not, and it failed to check 75. It missed some edge-cases and made some dumb errors ("first created" into "was the first created") that would probably be fixed using an AI with a API key, but it was mostly correct. That's probably accurate, errors were most dense in the one part of the article I haven't rewritten (although the part's I have rewritten had the most failed cited, so eh). I definitely saw it saying info was not supported by a cite that was supported by another cite co-parallel to it. Maybe have an option to check by paragraph or (sub)section, instead of one cite or the entire article. It failed to check a bunch of sources, mostly those archived on archive.org or using {{harvnb}}, even if the cite linked to a freely-accessible text. 1brianm7 (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7 I've added the support for harvnb/sfn references recently so there might be some rough edges. Can you share an example of harvnb citation with a freely-accessible text it couldn't check?

For now there are two modes: Verify All and single check, maybe the latter can work when you only want to check one section. Alaexis_¿question? 09:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah apologies, I had run this on April 11 and assumed it hadn't changed. Running it again, it was able to go through {{harvnb}} citations; I got 55 supported, 5 partial, 1 not, failed to check 74, and 1 error (intended to be a support, "Failed to parse AI response: {"confidence": 90, "verdict": "SUPPORTED",..."). I do not think it successfully checked a harvnb citation, although I am not sure if that was due to them not being freely-accessible texts (they work for me freely, but my IP address is powerful); it frequently returned "too long to check", or appeared to check only the abstract, etc. Looking at the responses closer, it is very forgiving (e.g., if a sentence is supported by two cites and it is unable to access one, it went "this has plausibility" for a statement not supported by one source). I ran Verify on this article, which definitely uses harvnb for freely-accessible text, and it didn't work with this response: "The source text appears to be a webpage with navigation, article titles, and other non-content elements, but no actual article content is provided that would allow verification of the claim..."

For above, I have the same appearance with vector legacy (2010) as AirshipJungleman. 1brianm7 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

With Inugami Korone you ran into another known limitation of the free model - it struggles with most non-English content. The contents were loaded successfully but the model failed to analyse the Japanese text and didn't even admit it. I used Claude for the same citation and it did a much better job. The reason you see "Too long to check" is to keep the token budget under control. As to checking only abstracts, usually it has the same access a normal user has but there are exceptions as some websites prevent scraping. WMF research measured it and had about 75% fetch success rate. The parallel-citation behavior you noticed is the bundled-citations limitation I mentioned up top. It's the biggest source of false positives right now and something I want to fix it eventually.

Do you see yourself using this tool, and if yes, how? Of all the limitations, fixing which one would've made the most difference for you? Alaexis_¿question? 14:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. On Neuro-sama, it had more success, successfully parsing large French and Japanese texts. I think I'll make use of the tool, it seems useful for quickly gaining some familiarity with the source-text integrity of an article. On Neuro-sama, at least, it quickly picked up some errors I had long-ago glazed over. It would presumably be even better if I got my hands on some API keys. The source-bundling citation is the biggest problem, IMO, with other issues I am able to quickly figure out it's mistake or the issue, but that mistake doesn't tell me anything and would take some time to fix. 1brianm7 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response! Alaexis_¿question? 15:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this tool as is extremely useful as a "first net" for catching issues. I hope GA reviewers consider using it in conjunction with manual checking to identify more TSI issues. IAWW (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Stalled review with seemingly inactive reviewer

Hello, it appears Talk:2023 Jetline roller coaster accident/GA1 has stalled. It's been 23 days since the reviewer last contributed to Wikipedia, 16 days since the review was supposed to go off hold, and 10 days since I left a reminder on the reviewer's talk page. I am not sure what to do. Please help. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@AllegedlyAPhotographer follow the instructions at WP:GANI#N4a. You have done the first step (contacted the reviewer). Now, you may have find a new reviewer using the link I provided, although you may wish to give a final ping/talk page reminder and give them a few days before moving to the next step. Its up to you JuniperChill (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

User:AllegedlyAPhotographer: Would you like me to reset this GAN for you? It will send it back to the queue in the same position it held before, and hopefully you will be able to snag a new reviewer. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Election consequences criticized as WP:COATRACK

Main page: Talk:1985 Greek presidential election/GA1

I have the following article under GA review, 1985 Greek presidential election (currently 2095 words), where I and the reviewer (Launchballer) have different opinions as to what is relevant and what is not, and a second opinion was requested. Given that a second reviewer might take forever to appear, I seek the input of the community on how to proceed, i.e., implement or not the changes.

I pledge that if this sorted it out soon, I will review two GANs.A.Cython(talk) 03:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

My rule of thumb for aftermath/legacy sections of topic A is whether sources dedicated to topic A raise them, and ideally raise them prominently/consistently. I don't know if I have access to these various sources, but for example Close 2004 only being used in that section is an initial first indicator to me that due weight would have to be looked at. CMD (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Happy to share quotes/sources, if you are interested. The sources place considerable emphasis on the polarization of mid 1980s in Greece. The presidential election was the spark of all this.

• David Close 2004 pp. 267-271 provides the following (framing part of general elections): In general, in their election campaigns both leftwing parties emphasized strongly the events of the past - particularly the 1940s - and ND reciprocated. Papandreou and the then ND leader Konstantinos Mitsotakis traded accusations of dishonourable behaviour relating to events as far back as the 1930s. PASOK of course emphasized Mitsotakis' 'apostasy' from Andreas' former party of the Centre Union in 1965, after the king had dismissed Yeoryios Papandreou as prime minister. [...] Thus the civil conflicts of the 1940s were treated not in isolation, but as a phase in an extended conflict between mythologized political camps. So fierce did the party controversy now appear that in a leading editorial on 25 May 1985 headed 'A country divided', the influential British periodical The Economist expressed concern that Greece was tearing itself apart by reopening the wounds of its civil war.
  It was clearly PASOK that made the running in this controversy about the past (parelthondoloyia), and among its motives was evidently the need to prevent its leftwing supporters from turning to the KKE, especially after PASOK had weakened its leftwing credentials by the record of its first term in government. In particular, PASOK needed to divert public attention from the fact that it had accepted Greece's membership of NATO and the EEC, while agreeing to a renewal of the agreement for the maintenance in Greece of US military bases, with their nuclear missiles and long-range spying facilities. The importance of the past to the leftwing parties' electoral strategies was indicated by the competition between PASOK and the KKE for the votes of resistance veterans. [...]
  The explanation for these trends seems to lie in surveys of the ideological identification of voters conducted in 1985 and 1989, which show that the alignments of the early 1980s had to a large extent stabilized. 34 It can be argued, therefore, that the alignments based largely on retrospective attitudes to the civil war had an enduring effect on voting behaviour. He spends several pages describing how the past (Civil War, etc) was used in the 1985 elections, shaping the political front between the major parties and what happended afterwards. A.Cython(talk) 05:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

This quote doe snot read as a dedicated source on the 1985 election. The first 1985 mention is about one moment in an extended political divide dating back to the 1940s. The second puts groups the 1985 and 1989 elections together, and in the context of the elections reflecting broader trends, rather than causing them. Ideally there would be a page that could collect these longer-term trends that stretched beyond individual elections. Sadly History of the Hellenic Republic is very very very undeveloped. CMD (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Close 2004 is a book about the civil war rather than about the presidential election. Content from an unrelated section of the book is not relevant for this article.--Launchballer 13:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis The disagreement about the events in 1940s, 50s, and 60s, was the political discourse in choosing the president, changing the constitution, and the state of the economy. The political discourse was not about the merits of who would be a better presidential candidate or improve the institutions of the state or the economy. This was the paradox that attracted the historians to write about this presidential election. The past was the main subject that defined the particular moment.

Here is from Koliopoulos & Veremis who links the presidential election with the economic issues and with the parliamentary elections as well with events of the past, Civil War via Iouliana, etc.

Firms managed to survive by keeping investment at a minimum and profits low. Others continued borrowing from state banks until they faced bankruptcy, at which point the state-owned Industrial Reconstruction Organization (OAE), created by PASOK, took them over and continued to run them at a loss.10 As difficulties accumulated, Andreas did not change his policies but rushed forward to award himself the greatest possible room for maneuver. On March 29, 1985, PASOK declined to support Karamanlis for a second term as president of the republic and Christos Sartzetakis, a judge, was elected president by Parliament in a constitutionally questionable procedure that was not as secret as it should have been because of the colored ballot papers used by those in favor of the Sartzetakis candidacy. The new president duly authorized elections to be held on June 2, 1985. Papandreou’s slogan was to promise “even better days” if PASOK was re-elected. His second-in-command, Agamemnon Koutsogiorgas, explained that what was at issue during these elections was not “oranges and tomatoes but the confrontation between two worlds.” Papandreou soon followed suit describing the electoral contest as the fight of light against darkness.
In a program over 200 pages long, PASOK boasted of having freed Greece from the clutches of foreign powers, pledged to resist any pressures to engage in a dialogue with Turkey, and claimed to have defended Greece’s interests in the EEC by linking the question of the implementation of the “Integrated Mediterranean Programs” to that of the admission of Spain and Portugal that Greece had otherwise threatened to veto. The economic program contained promises of further socialization of the means of production, promotion of investment through agricultural cooperatives, a substantial increase of pensions, and general improvement of welfare provision. Almost as an afterthought PASOK also promised to combat inflation.
The June 1984 elections for the Greek representatives to the European Parliament gave 38.05% to New Democracy, 41.58% to PASOK, 11.64% to the Communist Party and 3.42% to the Eurocommunists. The New Democracy Party, which had faced an acute identity crisis after its founder Karamanlis opted for the presidency of the republic in 1980, changed leadership twice before the position was offered to the forceful Constantinos Mitsotakis at the end of August 1984. A one-time Center Union Party deputy who had clashed with its leader George Papandreou in 1965, Constantine Mitsotakis was faced with the double task of consolidating his leadership in New Democracy as well as dodging the attacks of PASOK deputies who sought to divert public interest from current problems to past political conflicts.
The parliamentary elections of June 1985 gave PASOK a comfortable margin (45.82% and 172 deputies) allowing it to pursue its program unhindered by leftist or rightist opposition. PASOK’s wage-price indexation permitted people of low and medium income to beat the rate of inflation. Price controls and the protection of workers from lay-offs had a negative effect on business but won the support of a larger section of the population. There was therefore a clearer correlation of income level and electoral behavior in 1985 than in 1981. ...
The elections were dominated by the verbal exchanges between Papandreou and Mitsotakis but the concerns of all party platforms revolved around the economy and its uncertain future. New Democracy adopted a liberal prescription promising to decrease the role of the state and provide incentives for a revival of the private sector. Mitsotakis’s constant references to the country’s ever-increasing dependence on foreign loans in order to finance a cumbersome and expensive state underlined the most sensitive issue of the contest. Greece’s economy, which has always been sensitive to international developments, became even more dependent on foreign capital under PASOK.
A short-lived stabilization program introduced by PASOK in October 1985 was an attempt to put things right and as such secured a $1.75 billion loan from the EEC.

A second passage from Koliopoulos & Veremis:

PASOK’s fall from grace was not unexpected. The 1985 elections had already contained early signs of dissatisfaction of the electorate. The party’s poor performance in conjunction with allegations of corruption and favoritism caused the loss of a number of voters in Athens. When Andreas realized that his appeal was slipping he tried to boost his position by bringing about institutional changes to strengthen his grip on power. So in 1986 he changed the constitution to restrict considerably the president’s powers, turning him into a ceremonial figure who could no longer dissolve parliament, dismiss the government, proclaim elections, suspend certain articles of the constitution, or declare a state of siege. Papandreou thus made sure that any future president of whatever hue would never be in a position to endanger a Socialist government, even though Karamanlis had never opposed any of Papandreou’s moves and had never used the powers that he held under the 1975 constitution to create problems for the government. In fact the Greek version of “cohabitation” proved smooth enough for Papandreou to have acknowledged as much publicly, more than once.
Any extra powers that the new constitution gave Andreas proved of little use to him, however. By the late 1980s Greece had fallen behind both Portugal and Ireland in the movement toward convergence with the EEC average GDP while the IMF, the OECD, and the Commission were producing alarming reports on Greece. The economy, they all noted, seemed stuck in a vicious circle of low investment, sluggish growth, dependence on state subsidies, deficit financing by the government, high inflation, and tight credit.

Featherstone 1990b In 1985 attention had been diverted away from economic policy issues by the controversy over the decision of Pasok not to support the re-election as president of Constantine Karamanlis and also to reduce the powers of the office. In June 1989 the focus of the opposition parties was on the need for Katharsis, and this placed the Papandreou government on the defensive. Throughout, ND and the Synaspismos emphasised the need for Katharsis in the party-State.

The narrative here is As difficulties accumulated --> presidential election to win the general election --> Papandreou continues to rule without opposition (taking another big loan, corruption multiples, etc) --> the unthinkable happens: opposition realigns leading to Papandreou's indictment. Note that the change in the constitution initiated with the presidential election.A.Cython(talk) 15:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a narrative, but it does not seem to be about the 1985 election. The impact of the election seems to be "The new president duly authorized elections to be held on June 2, 1985.", much of the other impact is attributed to the parliamentary election. There is a bit about the lead-up to 1985, but that would be earlier in the article than the Aftermath section. CMD (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I have difficulty understanding what's deemed too lengthy here. Which sections or paragraphs are under discussion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

See the nom for specifics, but it's most of the Aftermath section and some other bits.--Launchballer 16:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 The reviewer asks for

• complete removal of 1985_Greek_presidential_election#Opposition_realignment
• removal of economic/austerity aspects in 1985_Greek_presidential_election#Fallout_and_austerity
• removal of the disputes (as part of political debate in the presidential election) between the prime minister and opposition leader that were personal and invoked events of the past in 1985_Greek_presidential_election#Parliamentary_votes_for_president
• removal of concerns by foreign observers about he impact of the presidential election in 1985_Greek_presidential_election#Background

A.Cython(talk) 16:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the sources I can't see how a wholesale removal of "#Opposition realignment" would be justified, but there is a little overlap between the second and third paragraphs, and the second paragraph of "#Fallout and austerity" is a little tangential to the article subject.

That said, the disputes in "#Parliamentary votes for president" seem absolutely central to the article, and NATO's concerns are certainly relevant, so I can't see any reason why either should be removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy to improve along these directions. What I was objecting the complete removal of material. A.Cython(talk) 16:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Some areas of the article may be unduly detailed, but there is no reason to label it a WP:COATRACK article, which "fails to give a truthful impression of the subject". Also, this is a GA review; I'd think the aftermath section would need to be half as long again for me to worry about GA criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I find these details emphasized in various sources and I also try to be careful with the narration of the events as this may be a contentious topic. Eventually, I want to take it to FA level (one day).

Anyhow, I made a few changes along your directions:

• Merged & trimmed the 2nd and 3rd paragraph in 1985_Greek_presidential_election#Opposition_realignment
• Trimmed the austerity narrative.

Let me know if this helped. A.Cython(talk) 17:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding to this. The fact that there were disputes is certainly worth mentioning, but the actual minutiae of what they said to each other strikes me as trivial. I can't see where I commented on NATO's concerns, please point it out to me. The Aftermath section is a summary of the parliamentary election article and things like "Mitsotakis declared, "In voting, the Greek people will also be voting for a president"[26] and also warned that there is a danger of sliding towards an authoritarian one-party state." belong there. (No "Premiership of" article?) I'm going to inspect the article in the morning.--Launchballer 03:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Also things like "The Economist magazine described Greece as a "country divided," tearing itself apart and opening the wounds of Civil War." - great for the parliamentary article, not so for this one. I should probably comment at the nom.--Launchballer 16:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

About the Economist magazine quote, it is given to explain the previous sentence where political polarization reached new heights. We are supposed to provide concrete evidence to backup specific statements. How am I suppose to summarize several pages of extreme polarization. Anyhow, I removed it if this means to conclude the review. A.Cython(talk) 22:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If the source specifically says "where political polarization reached new heights", examples are unnecessary; if it doesn't, that's WP:SYNTH.--Launchballer 11:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

In general, what Chipmunkdavis said above—My rule of thumb for aftermath/legacy sections of topic A is whether sources dedicated to topic A raise them, and ideally raise them prominently/consistently—is broadly speaking correct. More specifically, Wikipedia's non-negotiable WP:Core content policy on WP:Balancing aspects states that articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. "On the subject" is key: an article on topic A should reflect the balance of aspects in sources on topic A. If sources on topic A treat a particular facet of that topic as a WP:MINORASPECT, the Wikipedia article should follow suit—which may mean not mentioning it at all, depending on the overall balance. TompaDompa (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The sources have been very clear in framing the presidential election within the extreme political polarization in mid 1980s in Greece. No evidence have been provided otherwise. The reasoning by the reviewer was that he/she sought the length the Aftermath section to be 1-2 paragraphs to have conformity with other election articles. This reasoning is in direct violation of Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#Broad: Mistakes to avoid [...] Imposing arbitrary size restrictions, rather than directly addressing GA issues of coverage, conciseness, focus and the use of summary style. No engagement was done on the content other than hand-waving arguments. A.Cython(talk) 02:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

That policy also says "where an aspect of the topic involves information which is or could be covered in more detail by another article, the article itself should summarize this information with suitable links". Regurgitating seven ninths of another article surely does not meet that.--Launchballer 11:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Evidence have been presented and more can be presented that necessitate their description at the Aftermath section. So it is relevant. You on the other hand have not presented evidence to counter the evidence. Note also

1. There is no dedicated article on the Greek political realignment for the period 1985-1989.
2. These are summaries of the summaries. The historians dedicate far too many pages so these events are not only relevant but they are described in the most laconic way.

So you continue to refuse to engage with content by invoking arbitrary size rules that are explicitly prohibited by WP rules. A.Cython(talk) 14:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

To further demonstrate Launchballer's violation with the reviewer's own words:

Diff: : I can't see where I commented on NATO's concerns, please point it out to me.

Diff: : I'm saying the specific corruption and NATO's concerns are out of scope for this article. It was the last comment before asking for a second opinion. I (and I assume others too) have very hard time believing that you failed to see what you wrote especially since the tone of the writing is so absolute.

From the second opinion on the matter provided by AirshipJungleman29 flatly rejecting the reviewer's position:

• I can't see how a wholesale removal of "#Opposition realignment" would be justified
• the disputes in "#Parliamentary votes for president" seem absolutely central to the article, and NATO's concerns are certainly relevant, so I can't see any reason why either should be removed

Since then three paragraphs for the Opposition realignment have been merged into one small one, and the rest of the Aftermath section has been trimmed per suggestions by AirshipJungleman29. The reviewer had ample time to provide a reasonable explanation, but he/she has failed to do so. So there is no reason to keep the review hostage to advance a WP:POV. A.Cython(talk) 16:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination by sockpuppet

Talk:The Joy of Sect/GA1 was nominated by a sockpuppet, so should the review be deleted (the reviewer hasn't actually left comments yet) and the article removed from the queue, or what is normally done in a situation like this? -- ZooBlazer 01:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

That was easy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Given there is no review yet, removal is the simplest path forward. Crystal Drawers, if you want to fix this up, I suggest nominating it yourself. CMD (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

41 likely LLM-generated GAs

I originally posted this at WP:AINB § Esculenta and GAs but didn't get a lot of direct suggestions there. The summary is that Esculenta has successfully nominated 41 articles that are very likely originally LLM-generated; detailed rationale is at the AINB link. While Esculenta has a reputation - which I agree with - for higher-than-average skill in LLM-assisted article creation, editors at AINB have found source-to-text integrity issues in several of Esculenta's articles, including in the most recently promoted GA , Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes. Esculenta has been open about their editing process so there is not much doubt about how these articles were created. As a result, each of the 41 could reasonably be tagged as {{ai-generated}}, which I think is reason for a quick fail under criteria 3. What should we do about this? I am aware of the relevant RFC which was closed with the summary "NO AI IN GA'S PLEASE" but without consensus to promote, which makes me unsure how to proceed here. Pinging @GAR coordinators:User:Lee Vilenski User:Trainsandotherthings User:Chipmunkdavis for advice NicheSports (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Do we really want to load down GAR with 41 nominations? I’m not sure what other option there is short of revoking the GA status outright. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I think quickly revoking status would be an reasonable, as they are all are known to violate criteria 3 due to their ai generated status. All respect to Esculenta, who is very talented, but these should be repromoted after source-text integrity can be more firmly established, IMO. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

All GAs starting with Buellia frigida would need to be assessed for LLM generation. Their first 20 GAs predate LLMs NicheSports (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

There are two ways I can see us proceeding: speedily delist all ~21 GAs nominated after LLMs became a thing, or list all affected articles at GAR (through a structured process because dumping ~21 articles at once is too much to ask of anyone, I'd suggest 5 to 10 at a time). I would be ok with either, what do others think is the best course of action? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I think GAR is probably the better way. If reviewers aren't going to properly do a source check when they promote the GA, demoting the GA and forcing it to go back through that same queue isn't going to get us anywhere. If they're at GAR with the express purpose of ensuring source-text integrity, I have better hopes that this will actually be checked properly. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I recommend sending them to GAR. If no one addresses an article and no efforts are made to fix the underlying problem, it will be delisted after two weeks. Someone can always renominate the article in the future if the quality improves. And to be honest, if someone wants to dump them all in there at once, go for it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I had a look at Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes when it was raised at the AI noticeboard. From what I could look at there were some issues, and I've removed part that seemed a hallucinated connection. However, the bulk of the article is sourced to a dedicated offline source. If the other articles are similar, it will be very tricky to assess, let alone fix if needed, the articles. CMD (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer GAR. Also sorry I wasn't clear above - I accounted for the first 20 in my original post. Esculenta has 61 GAs, the first I noticed with unambiguous signs of LLM generated text was Buellia frigida, their 21st by promotion date. I would strongly prefer some sort of structure instead of delisting everything starting with Buellia frigida. While many GAs promoted afterwards do display signs of LLM generation, I did not check all 40 of them for such signs, and as I noted at AINB, some reviews may be substantive enough to stand even if the article was created or expanded post LLM. NicheSports (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings sorry for so many posts. I have now gone through and categorized the 41 articles based on article history. If we send these to GAR, I would suggest that we send the 32 articles in Category 1.

Article classification

Category 1: major one-shot article creation or expansion post LLM (diff included)

• Buellia frigida:
• Femoral gland:
• Anaptychia ciliaris:
• Chrysothrix chlorina:
• Ramalina peruviana:
• Hydropunctaria amphibia:
• Gustaf Einar Du Rietz:
• Lecideaceae:
• Confluentic acid:
• Multiclavula mucida:
• Xylopsora canopeorum:
• Ove Almborn:
• Umbilicaria torrefacta:
• Peltigera castanea:
• Parmotrema perlatum:
• Peltigera cinnamomea:
• Roccellaceae:
• Linnaean Herbarium:
• Kew Herbarium:
• Brodoa oroarctica:
• Tuckermannopsis ciliaris:
• Normandina pulchella:
• Melanohalea exasperatula:
• Fallacinol:
• Nephroma arcticum:
• Hypotrachyna catawbiensis:
• Xanthoria parietina:
• Spilonema revertens:
• Isidium:
• Lecanora albellula:
• Parmelia submontana:
• Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes:

Category 2: meaningful expansion post LLM, but not one-shot

• Allocalicium
• Cladoniaceae
• Parmelia sulcata

Category 3: primarily created pre LLM

• Elke Mackenzie
• Placidium arboreum
• Pulchrocladia retipora
• Punctelia
• Spot test (lichen)
• Melanohalea

NicheSports (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I have sent the first 12 articles from category 1 to GAR. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

OK. FYI I have added all of Esculenta's GAs not in Category 1 to my watchlist to ensure those articles are not reassessed on grounds of being LLM-generated on the basis of this thread. NicheSports (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes has a very strong smell of LLM use from the lead alone. Is the thinking here simply to drip-feed them to GAR to avoid overwhelming the process? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

That was my thinking, but I can submit the rest... I was going to wait a little while longer. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Methodus was discussed here, and I've done small fixes based on that. I have also fixed small parts of Ove Almborn, although you can see the puffery there still even without checking the sources. Suffice to say someone does need to dig into these at some point, GA or not. CMD (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed topic split

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I would like to propose changing the UK rail transport subcategories. Currently, the only UK specific subtopic is

• Rail bridges, tunnels and facilities — United Kingdom (95 articles)

I would like to propose splitting this into:

• Railway bridges, viaducts, and tunnels — United Kingdom (10 articles) (3 GANs)
• Railway stations — United Kingdom (91 articles) (0 GANs)
• Railway lines and companies — United Kingdom (26 articles) (0 GANs)

These would also pick up a lot of articles that are just sitting in the general "Rail transport" section. This will make it easier to navigate the section and more helpful for splitting the articles up by subtopic. UK train-related articles that will still not be split for being UK-related are:

• People
• Train accidents
• Locomotives/rolling stock

Please let me know your thoughts. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 16:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Same with Singapore's MRT stations, seeing as there are almost 100 of them at a GA (out of 143) JuniperChill (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind Jacob's proposal. On Juniper's comment, I wonder if we would need to do that for other systems, like the NYC subway or any of Seattle's rail transport systems; I know Epicgenius and SounderBruce (respectively) have promoted a lot of station articles. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 00:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

A 10-article subsection is very small. What is the benefit of splitting that off? CMD (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

There are 3 GANs at the moment in that category (Hitchin Flyover, Copenhagen Tunnel, Welwyn Tunnels) and I plan to keep sending more of these articles about East Coast Main Line infrastructure to GA. I would rather one mini topic of 10–15 articles than their being lost in a sea of 88 articles on stations, or just being assigned to nothing, as would be the case otherwise. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 13:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I support this suggestion, especially as Jacob intends to continue creating GA-quality articles in this subject area. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

As this has attracted mild support, please may someone let me know how this can be implemented? I'm too scared to start editing bot-dependent pages. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

And support from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support. When working to split off topics, I've liked to avoid articles in misc categories like "Rail transport", and I think the sub-category is more helpful for readers to find specific articles. This proposal is aligned with that preference. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this GA is AI-generated

Seeing a thread where 41 GAs were identified to have AI text, I feel like I found another GA with possible AI, which is 2002

The prose is repetitive but in a weird way, kind of corny. Some highlights:

South America endured an economic crisis, and the telecommunications and information technology industries faced their own economic declines.

The Documenta11 exhibition took place in Kassel, Germany, contributing to the early movement of art globalization with its focus on experimental and documentary works from developing nations

Islam grappled with the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2002, facing both the expansion of Islamic terrorism and of United States military action in combating it.

China blocked Google Search and AltaVista in August,  provoking a hacktivist movement in the United States that worked to circumvent such restrictions in authoritarian nations

The whole article reads like this. There's so many present participles and specific word combinations unique to AI. As a result, it feels like it's longer than it could've been.

p.s. found this place by clicking on some editor's talk page and seeing good article gazette mail. -- just someone who reads good articles a lot ~2026-25675-74 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-25675-74, thank you for the comment. I understand your suspicion due to the present participles, but I do not think this GA was AI-generated. Some of the excerpts you provided above do not look like AI; the first is a bit awkwardly written, with two unrelated independent clauses spliced together, while the bolded dangling phrase in facing both the expansion of Islamic terrorism and of United States military action in combating it is not something I think an LLM would tack on the end of a sentence. You also would probably not know this but the nominator and primary contributor, Thebiguglyalien, is also one of the more active editors at WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup. I'm glad you enjoy reading GAs and I hope you stick around... we'd love to have you as a contributor here. NicheSports (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Winter Spring Summer or Fall/GA1

Er, exactly what's going on in this review? The reviewer failed the nomination a few months ago but for some reason, the nominator insists that the review was "unendorsed" or something. I would appreciate it if a GA coordinator intervened. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Billoo2000, I have restored the correct version of the talkpage template. Please resubmit the article for GAN using the instructions at WP:GANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Parenthetical citations

Since when does GACR implicitly add another criterion of prohibiting parenthetical citations? This happened when Z1720 proposed to rewrite the history section in Znam's problem per Talk:Znám's problem#Article review. I don't think that GACR states that none of the paragraphs should have parenthetical citations and that using inline citations instead. Have I missed something regarding the current GACR? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Parenthetical referencing is deprecated on Wikipedia, and, per WP:PAREN "should be replaced with footnotes if encountered". This means that, in addition to adding the inline citation, the parenthetical reference should be removed and rephrased in the article text. Since WP:GA? 2b says a good article should have inline citations, I assumed that WP:CITE would be applicable here (WP:PAREN is part of WP:CITE) and therefore a GA would require parenthetical referenced to be removed. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Examples of parenthetical citations in Znam's problem include the "History" and the "Connection to Egyptian fractions" sections. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I think this is a WP:SOFIXIT issue, not a GAR one. Many old articles have parenthetical references; I've changed them to inline citations from time to time. It is not hard. It does not take long. An entire GAR is very a expensive demand on the community time when compared to something in the realm of 2 minutes in the source text editor. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• @GreenLipstickLesbian: Per WP:GAR, "Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes." The PAREN concern was not the only issue that I posted about in my talk page review. Z1720 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  And I didn't say anything about the other issues. Did I?

  And no, Wikipedia is not compulsory. Neither is AFD, but it is still annoying when somebody sends an article through PROD or AFD without doing so much as a vague WP:BEFORE. It's annoying when somebody at NPP draftifies an article for having parenthetical refs, or bare URLs, or turns down that article at AFC. Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Now, I think that has limits - I don't think it's up to somebody to rewrite a G11, G12, or G15-able article rather than just tag. But I do think that when it comes to citation formatting... if your options are fix the citation formatting, or start a very expensive formal discussion about said citation formatting, the choice is obvious. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Those weren’t parenthetical referencing, and the article is now less readable with them removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of WP:INTEXT attribution rather than parenthetical referencing. Compare the examples at WP:PAREN ("The Sun is pretty big (Miller 2005, p. 1)") vs this article ("and Domaratzki et al. (2005) describe an application to the theory of nondeterministic finite automata."). I also note that footnotes are supplied for each, making the in-text attribution and links purely supplementary convenience links to the reader. An argument can be made that more material should be in wikivoice rather than attributed, but that is beyond the good article criteria. Whonting (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Parenthetical references is deprecated and should be replaced per Wikipedia:Inline citation, which is linked to as part of criteria 2b. CMD (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That was done long ago.

When Znám's problem passed GA in 2006 it had some article text attributing material to authors, in inconsistent formats ("As Janák and Skula (1978) showed ..." but "Brenton and Vasiliu calculated" without a date). It had no inline citations in any format. When it underwent a GAR in 2007 it had some parenthetical citations (" earlier results proving the existence of fewer solutions (Cao, Liu & Zhang 1987, Sun & Cao 1988)" and still the inconsistent attributive article text.

In the current version it still has attributive text, in various formats that might or might not include a year ("named after the Slovak mathematician Štefan Znám, who suggested it in 1972") but the inline parenthetical citations (harv rather than harvtxt) have all been converted to footnotes.

I hope you are not suggesting that "Znám, who suggested it in 1972" is a parenthetical citation that needs conversion. So why would you suggest that any other word order that says the same thing in article text is a citation, when there are separate citations that are not in a deprecated style and that are distinct and consistent in format?

I might point out also that, according to WP:GACR, "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required" for citations, although in this case the formatting of the actual citations is consistent. I wonder where the idea that "deprecation" of parenthetical citations (which do not exist in this example) became such a strong prohibition that even article text resembling them must be forbidden, when other citation formatting issues are explicitly not to be considered. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You know quite well which parts are formatted like parenthetical citations, which you also already know happen not to be part you quoted. Why pretend otherwise? What is the purpose of this comment? CMD (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I might ask the same question about your reply, which is formatted in an attacking way ("why pretend otherwise") and in its substance merely repeats the implication that deprecation of actual parenthetical citations somehow implies a strict prohibition on non-citation article text "formatted like parenthetical citations" without addressing any of my points about the substantive differences between those two things. What is the purpose of your reply? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of my reply was to ask for the purpose of yours, which I was hoping to receive and understand. The original question asked what was missed in the GACR. I pointed to the relevant part of the GACR and the relevant content of the information page it linked to. For some reason, this very short pointing to the relevant part of the GACR of mine got this reply which included the obvious non-example "I hope you are not suggesting that "Znám, who suggested it in 1972" is a parenthetical citation that needs conversion", which is an example that is so not formatted like a parenthetical citation that it lacks even a single parentheses. There's no point about substantive difference above, because I do not believe you genuinely are concerned that the "Znám, who suggested it in 1972" part of the prose has been raised. Posting "I hope you are not..." etc. and then suggesting others are formatting their posts in an attacking way does not come off well. CMD (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the article text was article text, and certain people here have what I think is an irrational dislike for putting year numbers in parentheses in article text (and insisting despite all evidence that doing so can only be a deprecatedforbidden citation format), I have reworked the article's text to put the year numbers in a different format. It's just prose; anyone can copyedit it rather than raising a big stink at a Wikipedia talk page about it. Because it's just prose, and not a citation, changing it doesn't even raise WP:CITEVAR issues.

That said, I have come to realize that there is a reader-convenience reason for formatting article prose attributing discoveries to their authors by using {{harvtxt}} rather than in other prose formats: if you do it that way readers looking for the reference have a bluelink that leads them to it. If you do it any other way it is much more difficult to provide that link for them, and instead they have to try scanning the references themselves or looking for a footnote that leads them to a short footnote that leads them to the citation. As a case in point, in Znám's problem, most of the in-text attributive text that comes with an author and a year corresponds to a cited reference, but the most important one, "Znám, who suggested it in 1972" does not. (Apparently Znám told people about the problem but did not publish about it; at least, I don't know of a reference to a publication, but we have other references that credit him with that date.) In the previous versions of the article you might have had a clue about this from the fact that this was formatted only as text while the other in-text attributions had bluelinks pointing to cited works. Now, instead, if you read this sentence in the lead, you have to search for the corresponding statement in the article text, find its footnote, read there that the attribution comes from a review of a different paper by someone else, guess that there is no publication listed, and confirm that by scanning the list of cited works. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

While short footnotes are indeed somewhat unhelpful to readers, using wikilinks to point to references is a novel diversion from the purpose of wikilinks and is unlikely to be intuitive. When sub-referencing goes live it may provide opportunities for other solutions. CMD (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have high hopes for subreferencing being useful for this purpose. Anyway, I agree that using wikilinks on longer spelled-out attributions rather than the shorter Author (year) format is likely to be problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Bogotá conference/GA1

After reading this review, I felt compelled to add comments about its quality. I'm giving you a heads-up only for now, because we need to see how things progress. Jack (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why a standard interaction needed broader attention... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

For anyone interested in this, here is a summary of my interaction with one of BlackJack's sock puppet accounts (Spartathenian) for which he was previously blocked. I am surprised they have decided to start involving themself with me again. Czarking0 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

How is a user with such a lengthy history of sockpuppetry still allowed to continue editing on WP? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Community consensus at WP:AN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at this again made me realize the Talk:Heinz Vietze/GA1 and Talk:Nannau Hall/GA1 reviews were never closed. I think these should be closed and will do so. They were closed just not with the archive heading. Czarking0 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:GAI does not say anything about putting archive boxes around a closed review. I didn't do so in my earlier reviews but have tried to do so more consistently in later ones, mostly as a way of telling the nominator that the time for responding to suggestions is past. Do you think maybe something about this should be added to GAI, or is that overly bureaucratic? (I don't use the one-click script; maybe it automatically does this, but the GAI instructions say it should not be necessary to use the script and appear to be mostly written for people who don't use the script.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is 'Magazines and Print Journalism' under 'Social sciences and society'?

Seems like a clunky place for it - especially cause with magazines there's obvious crossover with things like short stories and comics. I feel like it should, like with FA, be grouped with literature. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

That would make sense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. -- asilvering (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 I agree with this. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 08:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to implement this change by editing Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary, Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society, and Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature. If anyone objects or if this screwed anything up please revert my latest changes. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know which ones are, but the Category:Wikipedia good articles templates templates and modules also are to be updated. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, this pages needs the update, which leads to the question, if the section is moved to Lang, will the bot restore it under Soc? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the only thing that has to be edited is Wikipedia:Good article nominations which is template-protected. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Talking Flower/GA1

A first time reviewer did this one and removed all the info that would include the nominator and reviewer details. Is there an easy way to add those in without having to manually get time stamps? When I try to add the info in that is normally there when starting a review it just sees me as the reviewer. -- ZooBlazer 18:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing about that review is acceptable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't much of a review so it may be best to put the article back into the queue unless someone wants to clean up the current review page. -- ZooBlazer 18:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted the review page and put the article back into queue. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Gerda's GA noms

As many of you will be aware, Gerda Arendt is currently blocked. This has given Bgsu98 the cue to remove all her nominations with the rationale "Nominator is blocked".

Is this standard procedure? I can see the point if a user was banned or indeffed, especially if the sanction was directly related to GA nominations, but I don't believe that's the case here. Gerda will be back editing in mainspace in a few days, and there's no reason these nominations can't sit in the queue until then. This seems unnecessarily harsh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's silly, it's a timed block, not an indef. I think you can feel free to revert. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Wholly inappropriate. Revert with a warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted the noms so they are active again. I'll leave this thread open so Bgsu98 can comment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If you believe restoring them is best, then I won't object. I think Gerda is awesome, and this is a better place because of her, but I don't think it's appropriate to have GA nominations in the queue where the nominator is unable to participate in the process. Afterall, we don't know for certain that she will return, and I certainly hope she does. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

For substantial blocks nominations should probably be removed for potential mistiming reasons. However, one week is the recommended hold period, let alone the time needed to do the initial review. It would not prevent participation even if a GAN is begun immediately after the block. CMD (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed! Even if she gets comments, it won't be the end of the world if she doesn't respond for a few days. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, I'm not sure how you can say "we don't know for certain that she will return" when her block is a timed one and she's still active on her talk page. Even if she were blocked for as long as a month, with review and queue times being what they are, I don't think it would be appropriate to remove the articles from the list. -- asilvering (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Her talk page access had been revoked when I checked. Like I said, I hope she comes back, but that is not a guarantee until it actually happens. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You understand that it's a short time limited block, right? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to have GA nominations in the queue where the nominator is unable to participate in the process. Great, we get you feel that way, but please don't act unilaterally again. Everyone here disagrees with you. Take that criticism on board. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m not fucking arguing with anyone. Someone asked for an explanation, so I gave it. Jesus Christ. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully I think you need to take a deep breath and back down here. I think you may have misunderstood that the block literally expires tomorrow, May 8th. Based on that, can you see why people think it might have been unnecessary for you to remove the GANs under the rationale that Gerda might not return? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

And, just for the record, her TPA has not been revoked. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

At least you said earlier that you aren't against restoring Gerda's GAs. If the user was blocked for sockpuppetry, then fair enough. But removing it because she was blocked for a week isn't. Even a few users would request a block to prevent them from editing for, say, a week or so, in order to take a wikibreak (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Self-requested blocks). I would only remove it if the user hasn't edited for over a couple months (which includes due to blocks), if a user has a 'retired tag', has vanished or has given permission to do so. JuniperChill (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Bgsu98 is continuing their pattern of gross incivility in this thread. I'm this close to referring this matter to ANI and probably would have had they not backed down on this matter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Go find something useful to do and leave me alone. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, to ANI you go. This has been going on long enough that you have proven yourself incapable of self-regulation so we are going to have to discuss how to do that for you. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Drive

Hi ! I hope you all are doing well. As per scheduled here, Will it be fine to organize drive in June? I hope for positive response. Thank You ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fade258 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine if we organise a backlog drive in June. How did the last drive go? Did it go well? Was it a success or not? How can we improve the efficiency of the incoming drive? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

This one is the newbie drive. So we need some experienced, highly patient co-ords, and some pre-drive flyering of places where the GAN-curious hang about. -- asilvering (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering. Yes, It is. Can you tell me some experienced and having high patient coordinate who may want to coordinate the drive? Fade258 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My advice would be to get people within WikiProjects to help each other, as familiarity with the subject material is very helpful. I also think we should get more experienced nominators (dare I include myself in that?) to take on these reviews and help the reviewer, especially in terms of being patient with any confusion about the criteria. Maybe we create a list of people with more than 5(?) GAs who are happy to work with a new reviewer and help them to learn how to review, and then the people who just want to get through the formalities and have their article pass don't have to be involved with this 'training'. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to agree with asilvering. We'll need experienced coordinators with this one. I already have some plans in mind, so I'll jump in as the main coordinator of this drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0. Thank You for coordinating. I just want to get feedback, Is there any things that I need to be improved regarding coordinating the GAN drive? Fade258 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Fade258, I think it's mostly a matter of being experienced with the process. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Thank you for the feedback. Fade258 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0. Since, I was a coordinator in the last drive, still I dont think that the drive was success because we are not able to reduce the outstanding nominations in big numbers. Fade258 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, here are my 2 cents:

• We need highly skilled coordinators, not just for the upcoming drive, but for other drives in general. "Skilled" here means someone who has brought several articles to GA status or have completed several high-quality reviews. I don't think that the quantity matters in this case, I'd rather just want to see people who know what they're throwing themselves in. I appreciate the work that others have done in the past, but the job of coordinators is not just to tick off reviews, but also to completely go through them and check if they were done in a good manner. I'm not saying that this was not followed in the past few drives, but I have more trust in skilled users following this rule than those who are less experienced.
• The goal of the newbie drives is to mostly gather newbie GAN participants / potential reviewers. Not long-standing ones. Newbies are our main target audience. We need to emphasise that here (on the GAN talk page), watchlist notice, and the mass message that will be sent to new GAN participants. My plan is also to promote the drive on large, active, and relevant WikiProjects.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Vacant0, glad to see newbie drive is in good hands. I'm happy to help out but I don't think I can commit to being a co-ord this time around either. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, asilvering. Your help is always appreciated. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been looking for an opportunity to help out in a drive. I would be happy to fill the role of a coordinator if it's needed this June. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks @Reconrabbit. -- asilvering (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's a bit early but it doesn't hurt to be prepared. The third coordinator spot is still open. Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2026 -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's early. Setting up a month in advance and getting notice out is a big help. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the page, Reconrabbit. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0 and @Reconrabbit; if it is of interest, I'd be willing to participate as a coordinator in the upcoming drive. kline / talk / contribs 19:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Let's wait to see what others have to say. Just a question for: @LEvalyn:, are you still interested in helping out? (for the sake of transparency, LEvalyn and I have talked privately) No pressure, of course. It's up to you. It'd be great to have more coordinators for the newbie drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm game to pitch in! In particular, I can commit to helping with review-of-reviews in the latter two weeks of June. (I will unfortunately be unavailable May 31 to June 14.) Personally, I would like to take this as an opportunity to give some personal talkpage feedback to new reviewers, thanking them for their work and potentially also clarifying some criteria. In particular, I sometimes see new reviewers impose higher standards than the criteria actually require, which can lead to unsustainable scope creep. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: I think that we should continue the discussion here. It'd be good to plan out our strategy on time. I've already listed some things that we should work on. The backlog drive page has been already created. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I can write a short notice on Wikipedia:Community bulletin board, but let's plan on sending out mass-messages around the 25th, a week before the drive starts. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That'd be great. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

List of my own reviews?

Is there a way to find a list of reviews I've done? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/g_editor_query/?editor_name=Mr%20Serjeant%20Buzfuz. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. I was confused because when I signed up to do one the other day, it said I'd done four reviews. I thought it was just three. The software apparently counts the one I just signed up to do as a review, even though I've not completed it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

GA reviews from User:Thepharoah17

The following GAs were just passed with minimal documentation: Talk:Natalie Harp/GA1, Talk:Nick Luna/GA1, Talk:James Blair (political advisor)/GA1. Thoughts? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just looking into this. They seem to be a reasonably competent editor, though these are the first three GA reviews they've ever done. We could ask them to document their reviews more thoroughly, and if nothing comes of it, I could step in and finish them. nub :) 00:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, these were the first three reviews that I have ever done. These were short articles too, though. I was just trying to help with the backlog. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

You're okay! :) I know I, for one, appreciate your effort to help with the backlog. The GA instructions are simply very specific about what needs to be on a review page. If you could review them more thoroughly (even though they're short), I think that this'd be resolved. nub :) 02:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

On a (very) quick scan, the articles seem likely to meet the GA standards -- fully cited to reliable sources, reasonable level of prose and polish, images all licensed and no sign of copyvio. In most cases I think this is a matter of actually saying on the GAN page that (for example) you've spotchecked sources 1, 2 and 6 and they all came out OK, that all the images have appropriate licenses, that the sources all meet WP:RS, and so on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

New reviewer requested

Sadly I must request a new reviewer for Kafka (Honkai: Star Rail), as the original reviewer @Olliefant has not made any progress on the review since they accepted it two months ago despite several messages from me. I'm not sure what's happening on their end, but I'd appreciate it if someone could start the review on the article. Thanks! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Olliefant picked up 4 GANs at the exact same minute on 28 April at 21:06 UTC: Talk:Kafka (Honkai: Star Rail)/GA1, Talk:Ryan Davis (video game journalist)/GA1, Talk:Horizon Zero Dawn: The Frozen Wilds/GA1, and Talk:Invisible Woman (Marvel Rivals)/GA1. She has not made any progress on the reviews since and she has stopped editing since 5 May. Skyshiftertalk 18:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

For the record I've reset the nomination of Ryan Davis (video game journalist) (which was my nomination). Skyshiftertalk 21:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, you nominated it two months ago. They accepted it on April 28. Your point still stands, though. I could pick it up if need be. nub :) 19:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead! Talk:Kafka (Honkai: Star Rail)/GA2 Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Gommeh: I have reset the nomination for you, and returned it to the queue in the same spot it occupied before. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Gommeh: I'm not sure what you did to the GA template which I reset on the article's talk page for you, but User:Skyshifter has adjusted it back to reflect the original date that the article was first sent to GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Collapsed

Hello! Can we please make the "Manual Closing Steps" for GAR not collapsed by default? I did not see the "show" button indicating that it's a collapsed header, and spent a whole lot of time being very confused. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

OrdinaryOtter, I'm sorry you were confused; we want the instructions to be clear. I agree that it may be hard to spot the "[show]" UI that appears after the header 'Manual closing steps', but did you see the automatic closing steps instructed in the first sentence to "use the one-step GANReviewTool"? I think it's neater remaining collapsed. Prhartcom (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC) But I would be open to removing the code to collapse the manual instructions (I remember I helped write those instructions); I wonder if others have comments. Prhartcom (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Killing of Osama bin Laden/1

This GAR was closed as Delist, yet is still showing the GA icon on the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators:User:Lee Vilenski User:Trainsandotherthings User:Chipmunkdavis I’ve tried, but I cannot figure out what the problem here is. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The GAR log at the time has a few errors. Most relate to GA subpages not being updated, but perhaps there is more. @Novem Linguae CMD (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

seems to have fixed it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That manually removes the icon, but the script should do that as well as remove the article from Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare. CMD (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I tried several different fixes, but none of them took. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like there is a bug in the GARCloser user script. As the main user of the user script, you seem to encounter it more often than other people: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool/GARLog#Failed to build! Unrecognized token:. I'll work on debugging it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98. I was unable to reproduce the bug using the following steps to reproduce. If I am getting any of these steps wrong, please let me know:

• copy the 5 relevant GAR pages to https://test.wikipedia.org, using their wikicode as they appeared on 2026-04-12:
  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Killing of Osama bin Laden/1
  • Killing of Osama bin Laden
  • Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden
  • Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare
  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 68
• change my signature to be similar to Bgsu98's
• GAR -> delist -> reason = "Issues have not been resolved."

Worked fine for me. However the entry in the error log indicates that something is definitely broken, and it is definitely from GANReviewTool. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I have found that if there are oddball characters in the text of the review or maybe on the article's talk page (like emojis), they interfere with the script. For example, that bin Laden review had a heart emoji in the reviewer's signature. I tried removing it and then re-running it. In this case, I don't think it worked, but on previous closes, I have found that that works. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you. Would you be able to find and post a diff or oldid for me containing one of these heart characters? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

See here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Is Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) the unicode characters in question? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe that's it? Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I am unable to reproduce the bug using 🌕🐶 as the unicode characters. Can you provide a different diff or oldid? Also, what browser and version are you using? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Old reviews that need a second opinion

Below is a list of GANs where a second reviewer is requested, either because the original reviewer hasn't responded in a while or because there is a concern. Please consider picking one of these up to help clear out the backlog.

• Kiddush levana
• Bill Pulte
• Constantine tramway
• Crash Landing on You
• Megistaspis
• Coffee Houser Sei Addata
• Fae Farm
• Kidnapping of Arbel Yehoud
• Millat Times
• It's a Beautiful Place
• Appin (company)

If you pick up one of these reviews, please strike it from the list. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I should also add Talk:Super Kirby Clash/GA1 to the list, given that this is the oldest video game article (and one of the oldest) under GAN. JuniperChill (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oldid value for completed reviews

Hi folks, I'm just wondering if the revision number intended to be posted in the 'oldid' parameter in Template:FailedGA. It is not immediately clear as written on the instructions page. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, and my thanks in advance.

All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The template page states that oldid is "the ID of the reviewed version." The way I understand it is the oldid is the version of the article at the time you decide to fail it, regardless whether or not there have been changes to the article by the nominator and the reviewer during the review period. But I'm still new to this GA review process so maybe more experienced reviewers can provide a more accurate answer. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

CSGinger14, I agree with AdaCiccone. Per the instructions at WP:GANI#FAIL, Fill the |oldid= parameter with the revision number for the current revision at the time of failure. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to you both

CSGinger14 (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

LLM-generated GAs at GAR

Per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 37#41 likely LLM-generated GAs, twelve GAs suspected of having been written in part using LLM software were sent to GAR. They have received very limited feedback. I am often the GAR closer, but obviously can't touch any of these. Pinging User:NicheSports, User:Generalissima, User:Trainsandotherthings, User:asilvering, User:Chipmunkdavis, and User:UndercoverClassicist, who all participated in the original discussion, and User:Z1720, the GAR King. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• To save other editors some time, the GAR pages are here:

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Buellia frigida/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Femoral gland/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Anaptychia ciliaris/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chrysothrix chlorina/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ramalina peruviana/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hydropunctaria amphibia/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gustaf Einar Du Rietz/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lecideaceae/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Confluentic acid/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Multiclavula mucida/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Xylopsora canopeorum/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ove Almborn/1

I note that Silver_seren has added Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate to each of them; few have much engagement, if any, beyond that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thus far, any claims of issues with source to content compatibility hasn't stood up to scrutiny. The sources appear to be accurate and applied appropriately, with reframing to avoid close paraphrasing. I've already reworded one paragraph that a complaint was brought up about anyways to improve timeline flow. Feel free to let me know if you find any perceived issues, but please actually read the sources properly. If you're not familiar with biology-related sources and databases and how those references are routinely used in this topic area, that might be more difficult. Silverseren^C 20:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Multiple TSI issues have been found, despite the template response made to each GAR. CMD (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You have literally not presented a single one. You commented on puffery, which I fixed. The rest was you not being able to read the sources properly, such as how the Species Fungorum database is organized. Silverseren^C 01:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The puffery is still there. Multiple have been presented. Which source supported "mentoring students with a supportive and systematic approach"? CMD (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure accusing people who disagree with you of "not being able to read the sources properly" is AGF. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

In running the 32 through GAR I was hoping to give editors a chance to make one of two arguments

1. There is evidence that the article was not LLM-generated/expanded
2. That they would "adopt" it and go line-by-line to address TSI issues

Instead, the arguments against de-listing seem to fall into two categories

1. There are no actual problems with the article, i.e.
2. The original review was sufficient to address issues associated with LLM text

The first argument contradicts community consensus, as we have determined that LLM-generated text in articles is in and of itself a problem. The second argument could be valid, and while I have respect for the reviewers, in looking at the relevant reviews I am unconvinced. Addressing LLM-generated text in a GA candidate requires comprehensive TSI checks which are not expected in a normal review. Meanwhile, TSI and/or CLOP issues have been found in several of the articles at GAR . I would suggest the 12 articles currently at GAR be delisted. NicheSports (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

User:NicheSports: If you have a few minutes, please go add your $.02 at the relevant GARs. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I could if others think helpful, but I'm not a big fan of copy and pasting arguments. I was hoping this thread would be resolved more centrally by the GAR coordinators (thank you for re-raising btw) NicheSports (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I think, in future, it may be worth considering not opening up several GARs, but rather a methodical approach more similar to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 -- reach consensus for all the articles/a selection of articles in a central area, allow editors to pick out articles they're interested in saving, then do a batch delist. And, perhaps more importantly though outside the scope of this board, stubification/deletion. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

My instinct is that an editor would be more likely to pick up something to save from individual GARs than from a joint process, so I'm not opposed to the small-test of sending a sample to GAR to help gauge interest, especially when the articles are topically related. CMD (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

User:NicheSports: I know I can't close any of those GARs since I'm the one who started them, so however and by whomever they're settled are fine with me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I didn't have the skills I do now in recognizing inappropriate use of sources back when I reviewed confluentic acid, but I added some additional comments to the GAR there. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Monitoring GAs?

This link allows you to monitor changes across all FAs. Is there a comparable single link for GAs? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You’ll have to make do with two: and . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm just surprised to see The Human Centipede is a Featured Article! Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, IIRC it was the choice for Halloween one year. 31 October is one of those "themed" days, like 1 April and 25 December, where they try to pick something appropriate to the day's celebrations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Reverted some template moves; administrator help needed

See this closed move discussion and my note after it; I've had to revert some of these moves as they broke ChristieBot. The moves can be redone once ChristieBot is updated to allow for them. I reverted the moves of the four GA-related templates but I see there are protection settings changes that need to be made there, and I'm not an admin so can't make those changes. If anyone reading this has admin rights and knows how to fix this, please do so. I'll leave a note at AN pointing here so someone else may end up doing it.

The four moves that had to be reverted (along with scores of subpages), and which now need protected settings updated, are

• {{Good article nominee}} moved back to {{GA nominee}}
• {{Good article reassessment}} moved back to {{GAR}}
• {{Good article banner}} moved back to {{GA}}
• {{Good article nomination}} moved back to {{GAN}}

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Both templates and the new redirects have the same protection settings. Should the protections be removed from the redirects? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It is normal that when a protected page is moved, the resultant redirect inherits the prot. Consider this: if the redir became unprotected, any unconfirmed user could then edit it to point somewhere totally different, which for a template redirect can have far-reaching undesirable consequences. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, here are the prot logs for those eight pages:

• Good article nominee
• GA nominee
• Good article reassessment (no entries)
• GAR (no entries)
• Good article banner
• GA
• Good article nomination (no entries)
• GAN (no entries)

Reconrabbit, why do you think that the second and fourth pairs involve protection? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I was in a hurry this morning (had fix the broken bot before going to work) and I could swear I saw in some log or history page something that said protection settings were not copied over. Sounds like I misinterpreted whatever I saw so there's nothing to do. I'm still at work; will try to find whatever that page was later today. Thanks for the explanation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I only looked at the first and third pairs. "Unprotected" is only a protection setting if I'm being pedantic... -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What to do about an MIA nominator

Hi all. I just took on the review for Fear and Trembling and noticed that its nominator was part of a WikiEdu course which finished earlier this month. His last edit was on the 4th, and I'm uncertain as to whether or not he'll end up responding to my initial message on the review page. I imagine I'll find some discrepancies in the article, some major, some minor, that would need to be addressed. I also imagine it would create a serious COI were I to attempt to determine whether or not the article were up to standard if I were the one making the majority of corrective improvements / additions. I don't want to automatically fail it either, but I'm uncertain if a call for a vigilante editor on WikiProject Philosophy would yield any substantive results. Any thoughts on what to do, in any event, would be greatly appreciated. My thanks in advance, and looking forward to a response.

All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Two of the articles I’m currently reviewing were nominated by editors inactive for multiple months at the point of review. Both have subsequently returned to activity to help finish the review. Perform the review, and if the nominator doesn’t show up in seven days, fail it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Authorship

I'm bit curious with this part. When we archive all sources of the article (manually or using IAbot), our authorship could be measured quite high since archiving causes a large number of text bytes. Then is it fine to just nominate GA in that state? IMO the nominators at least should revise or add some contents of the article, but they just can nominate the article only after archiving all sources there, which I lowkey believe to be unfair. Any thoughts? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly what happened when I added archives to citations on Matilda (novel), putting me at #1 unintenionally. (link to authorship and page history I think its still best to (at least) try to reach out to significant editor(s) before nominating it for GA or make a post to the talk page because they can seee that you edited just to archive citations. It can also happen as a result of a page being merged/redirected. I thought authorship only concerns prose size as defined by WP:DYKPROSE JuniperChill (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree. I think that editors should also work on the article they're nominating (e.g. prose, expanding the article with more content) to gain at least some genuine authorship of the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Xtools calculate the authorships including archiving texts, so it would be nice if there's a tool that could easily check the authorship for the prose, seperate from archiving. Also it will be better to add new guideline for this in good article criteria page ig Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

New GA Reviewer

Hey! I'm brand new to GA reviews, and I just opened up Talk:Mario & Luigi/GA1. If anyone minds just maybe watching the page or even reviewing along side me for my first review, that'd be much appreciated. I will happily take any feedback I can get. Thanks :) 「Norellia.sh」Formally NuggFrog (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Let me know once you finish and I'll take a look at the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Initiating Review Circle

Hello. I am unsure how the circles are initiated. Can anyone initiate a circle? There are now four nominations in circle-pool. I have never done so before, if so. So, I would not know how to act as one. Could someone leave instructions for doing so below if this is the case?

Pietrus1 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pietrus1: It's in step 2 of WP:GARC: "Once four articles are in the nominations pool, any experienced editor may initiate a circle by following (the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article review circles/Coordinator instructions#Creating a new review circle)." Ping me if you get stuck.--Launchballer 17:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Change category?

Hello, I just nominated Maurille de Sombreuil, but I categorized her nomination as "World history" and almost immediately realized that "Royalty, nobility and heraldry" would be a more appropriate category. Can I just change the category? Is that possible and acceptable? Thanks for your help. Chao Garden (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You can update the nomination info on the article's talk page and the bot will move it to the correct category. -- ZooBlazer 22:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)