Wikipedia:Good article reassessment
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | FAQ | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
| Reviewing initiatives | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Review circles | Pledges |
Semi-Automated Tools
User scripts for GAR:
|
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria and if necessary, delist them. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus.
GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment may be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles may be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.
Good article reassessment instructions
Before opening a reassessment
- Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
- Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
- Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
- If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.
Opening a reassessment
- To open a good article reassessment, use the one-click GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
- The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment). - Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
- Paste
{{subst:GAR}}to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page. - Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
- Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
- The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
- Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}}at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion. - Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
Reassessment process
- Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the criteria.
- The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
- Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
- If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
- If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at the GAN discussion page. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.
Closing a reassessment
To close a discussion, use the one-click GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
- GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days).
- Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
- If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets good article criteria, the reassessment may be closed as keep.
- If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
- If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
- After at least two weeks (14 days), if the article's issues are unresolved, and editors have clearly ceased making good-faith improvements to the article, and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist.
Manual closing steps
- Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with
{{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page. - The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
- remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
- remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
- add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
- If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
- remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
- remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
- add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
- blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
- remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
- remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
- Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)
Disputing a reassessment
- A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
- Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
- If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors may post at the GAN discussion page and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the GAR coordinators.
GAR Coordinators
The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings—work to organize GAR efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the GAN discussion page.
Articles needing possible reassessment
|
Talk notices given |
|---|
| Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project |
The good articles listed below have been flagged for the attention of reviewers for reassessment. If reassessment is appropriate, please open a reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. For cases where no reassessment is needed, remove the template from the article talk page.
- 2026-08-21 15:49:46: Trenyce
- 2026-09-13 06:32:35: Current date for reference
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
Articles listed for reassessment
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result pending
A number of the awards and nominations listed lack sources. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The latter parts of his player and coaching career are underdeveloped and have short, one sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Several film credits mentioned in the article lead are not included in the article prose, indicating that this article needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
The aritcle is quite long, at almost 11,000 words. This is about 1,000 words longer than the version listed in 2011, and over the 8,000 that WP:SS recommends considering spinning out. I think there are some sections, like "Watershed", "Early European explorers", "American frontier", "Dam-building era", and "Tourism and recreation" that could be spun out, summarised more effectively, or have additional headings to help with navigation. There are also a couple of uncited statements, which I can tag with "citation needed" templates if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- I tend to think all of the human history stuff could be spun out, but the "Dam-building era" section should remain (possibly with some cleanup or being broken down by decades or significant periods of construction). The damming of the Missouri is pretty significant and properly belongs with an article about the river, although perhaps it should be merged with the "Human impacts" section under Ecology, since dams are certainly a human impact. Parts of it are indeed poorly-written, but that's an easy fix. Spinning off the history stuff should reduce the article size, but the "Tourism and recreation" section is sufficiently small I think it can stay where it is. Intothatdarkness 12:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
The article has some uncited statements, including an entire paragraph. When the article was promoted to GAN, it was about 9,200 words. Today, it is about 14,000 words, a huge increase in size. I think information in this article can be spun out and summarised more effectively to compy with WP:SS. Some sections are long, making navigation difficult (especially for mobile users). I suggest 2-4 paragraphs per heading or sub-heading (the average length of an article lead): this should be done after the article is trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Even though it was two years ago, I stand by my assessment of the article then. If necessary I can use various means to get ahold of the few sources I could not directly assess to check for text-source integrity. -- Reconrabbit 11:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- I looked at one of the most-referenced sources that I wasn't able to check before, "Über Flechteninhaltsstoffe, I. Konstitution der Confluentinsäure". I found that the information contained there matched the text here. I do wonder about Elix and Ferguson though; it seems a bit like WP:SYNTH to cite their paper and then draw the conclusion that it marked a significant advancement in understanding of this lichen substance, enabling scientists to better study and understand the compound's structure and biological activity without relying solely on natural extraction. I was able to verify the contents of [11] w.r.t. lichen differentiation. That one sentence (and the wording of Orange et al. 2001 are my only potential issues with this article. I believe this should remain as a Good Article. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- I've axed most of that sentence: it's classic LLM-waffle, and as you note its key claim wasn't supported by the source to begin with. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- I rewrote a couple other sentences that had... editorializing? Not much to say otherwise. I honestly don't have any strong preference for retaining or delisting this article. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- I rewrote a couple other sentences that had... editorializing? Not much to say otherwise. I honestly don't have any strong preference for retaining or delisting this article. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- I've axed most of that sentence: it's classic LLM-waffle, and as you note its key claim wasn't supported by the source to begin with. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- I looked at one of the most-referenced sources that I wasn't able to check before, "Über Flechteninhaltsstoffe, I. Konstitution der Confluentinsäure". I found that the information contained there matched the text here. I do wonder about Elix and Ferguson though; it seems a bit like WP:SYNTH to cite their paper and then draw the conclusion that it marked a significant advancement in understanding of this lichen substance, enabling scientists to better study and understand the compound's structure and biological activity without relying solely on natural extraction. I was able to verify the contents of [11] w.r.t. lichen differentiation. That one sentence (and the wording of Orange et al. 2001 are my only potential issues with this article. I believe this should remain as a Good Article. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Keep LLMs, assuming they are used responsibly and within the bounds set by policy, aren't by themselves a good reason do delist a GA. This is, of course, assuming that the nominator thoroughly checked everything. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 19:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- I checked a random line (citations removed):
"This species is commonly found on decomposing wood, often in the presence of algae. It thrives on a wide variety of substrates, including bamboo, beech, cedar, poplar, and oak."
Poplar and oak are cited to [1]. But that paper doesn't say poplar and oak. It says Quercus and Populus trunks. While oak and poplar are in the Quercus and Populus families, they're not the only ones. For example, Quercus praeco isn't oak. I don't know anything about taxonomy though, so maybe I'm missing something. InfernoHues (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC) InfernoHues (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)- Quercus redirects to Oak, my friend. Seems like we consider it equivalent even if there may be technically some species exceptions. Seems to me that if the reference is using a general genus term like Quercus and Populus, it is just as accurate to use the more common terms of oak and poplar for our readers' sake. SilverserenC 23:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah fair enough. I just wanted to spot check a random line to see if everything verified. Besides the note I made above everything checked out. I just looked at a couple more random lines right now and they check out too. I don't really see the point in delisting this. InfernoHues (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- Quercus redirects to Oak, my friend. Seems like we consider it equivalent even if there may be technically some species exceptions. Seems to me that if the reference is using a general genus term like Quercus and Populus, it is just as accurate to use the more common terms of oak and poplar for our readers' sake. SilverserenC 23:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- This sentence does not seem to be backed up by the source:
"Previously considered native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe, M. mucida has been increasingly observed across most European countries and globally."
InfernoHues (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)- That's...literally what that paper is about. How it was originally described in Europe, then later in Australia by other researchers under other names that were then folded into M. mucida and the paper itself is about describing them newly in Tasmania, along with the two other Multiclavula species. Perhaps the years when things were described could be added to make things more clear of when these distinctions were made (since even the reference is from 1986, so not exactly new at this point), but otherwise, the text in the article is a proper summary of its material. SilverserenC 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- The source doesn't say "native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe," it says "known throughout the north temperate zone," a much bigger area. InfernoHues (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- The north temperate zone is stated in the source because that was the range after the folding in of the other species names that were subsequently found to be the same as M. mucida (so Clavaria and Lentaria). That's why the section on M. mucida further down in the paper states "
Thus, identification of the European taxon has been rather secure and all other distributions have been compared to it
", because the original description for M. mucida was the European taxon and not the other two. SilverserenC 03:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)- Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't mention "Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe." InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- True, that would be the range described in the sources used in the paper, the one by Petersen (1967) that is discussed in the first paragraph of the current reference's abstract. Do you want that to also be added as a source? SilverserenC 03:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Silver seren, why don't you add that source, and then we can close this as a consensus keep? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've extended the Petersen 1967 reference to cover the quoted portion. SilverserenC 01:07, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Silver seren, why don't you add that source, and then we can close this as a consensus keep? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- True, that would be the range described in the sources used in the paper, the one by Petersen (1967) that is discussed in the first paragraph of the current reference's abstract. Do you want that to also be added as a source? SilverserenC 03:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't mention "Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe." InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- The north temperate zone is stated in the source because that was the range after the folding in of the other species names that were subsequently found to be the same as M. mucida (so Clavaria and Lentaria). That's why the section on M. mucida further down in the paper states "
- The source doesn't say "native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe," it says "known throughout the north temperate zone," a much bigger area. InfernoHues (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- That's...literally what that paper is about. How it was originally described in Europe, then later in Australia by other researchers under other names that were then folded into M. mucida and the paper itself is about describing them newly in Tasmania, along with the two other Multiclavula species. Perhaps the years when things were described could be added to make things more clear of when these distinctions were made (since even the reference is from 1986, so not exactly new at this point), but otherwise, the text in the article is a proper summary of its material. SilverserenC 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Shiryaev, Anton (2008). "New and interesting clavarioid fungi from the hemiboreal zone of Finland" (PDF). Karstenia. 48: 29–32. doi:10.29203/ka.2008.426.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
As the original GAN reviewer, I vote for delist. I obviously cannot do a proper review when I do not know that the content is LLM-generated. LLMs make unexpected mistakes a human writer would never make, and a much more rigorous source review would be required (that might require even more time than was invested in generating the article in the first place). I had a look at the first paragraph, and checked this part:
It was formally described as a new species in 1753 by Carl Linnaeus, as Lichen ciliaris. Linnaeus described it as a somewhat erect, leafy, grey lichen with linear, fringe-like segments that are ciliate (having hair-like structures, or cilia). He said it resembled a tree moss with hairy edges and small shield-like structures (apothecia). Linnaeus cited multiple references that described the lichen similarly, emphasizing its larger size, hairy characteristics, and shielded appearance. Linnaeus noted that this lichen is found on trees in Europe.[4]
I don't see that this is covered by the source. Linnaeus does not seem to describe it this way himself as stated; all of this is based on his quotes of other works. Such (very significant) issues are typical for any LLM-generated article. I also do not think that we have to list "actual issues" to denominate an LLM-generated article. These issues will be found if we look for it, but that would take a lot of time, and I prefer to invest that time to help actual human editors. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Jens Lallensack: 1) You have no evidence of any of it even being LLM-generated, nor do you know how Esculenta writes their articles. 2) The source you brought up is literally one that an LLM wouldn't be able to even read or doing anything with. So it even more clearly showcases that there isn't evidence of LLM being used to write it. 3) The source is literally Linnaeus' reference book for describing plant species, Species Plantarum, and, yes, it uses other sources to create a conglomerate description. That's how Linnaeus made the work. I don't see how that makes anything that you quoted inaccurately. It is him choosing that description for the species. SilverserenC 22:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Silver seren
nor do you know how Esculenta writes their articles
: actually, yes we do, and this diff was included in the first post in the WT:GAN thread Bgsu98 linked to in their GAR rationale. Also see for further relevant evidence of LLM generation; Bgsu98 has only GAR'd articles among those 32 GAs with highest likelihood of LLM-generated text. NicheSports (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)- I know full well she had a personally made AI generation system that she used and reviewed for all articles she made. And yet every attempt I see to bring up fault in these GAs thus far has just made the claimant look like they don't understand the references they're reading. Above is yet another example of that. Unless you have actual examples of issues with the article, then you don't have an argument. SilverserenC 01:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- As laid out in the WT:GAN thread and supported by multiple editors, articles containing LLM-generated text merit an {{ai-generated}} tag which qualifies them for quick fail under criteria 3 of WP:QF. That, on its own, is enough to delist. If an editor wants to retain the rating, the onus should be on them to establish that the article has GA-level source to text integrity despite it containing - or even largely consisting of - PAG-violating text that qualifies for a quick fail. I am certainly open to such an argument but I do not see one presented here. NicheSports (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Applying a nonsense tag without any actual noted issues with an article is not an excuse, actually. Otherwise anyone could slap a neutrality tag or a globalize tag on a GA and quickfail it because they felt like it. Again, unless you have actual, specific issues with the article, you're just making up nonsense otherwise. SilverserenC 05:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- As laid out in the WT:GAN thread and supported by multiple editors, articles containing LLM-generated text merit an {{ai-generated}} tag which qualifies them for quick fail under criteria 3 of WP:QF. That, on its own, is enough to delist. If an editor wants to retain the rating, the onus should be on them to establish that the article has GA-level source to text integrity despite it containing - or even largely consisting of - PAG-violating text that qualifies for a quick fail. I am certainly open to such an argument but I do not see one presented here. NicheSports (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding Linnaeus, he only lists a number of sources with quotes how those sources describe the species. The article, however, says that he provided a single, congruent description by himself, and then, in addition, cited sources "that describe the lichen similarly". That's a sonesensical error and something a human editor would just not do (a human can misinterpreted things, but a human would not provide two interpretations of the same list as we see here). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is 100% how a human would use the Species Plantarum as a source, because that is how Linnaeus' works are used. A human editor with actual experience in plant biology would 100% use it that way, because they understand what such a source means.
- I know full well she had a personally made AI generation system that she used and reviewed for all articles she made. And yet every attempt I see to bring up fault in these GAs thus far has just made the claimant look like they don't understand the references they're reading. Above is yet another example of that. Unless you have actual examples of issues with the article, then you don't have an argument. SilverserenC 01:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Silver seren
- Tell me this, Jens. If a AI was used to entirely generate this info from this non-English source, what text did it use? Because, if you click the "Show Text" button on the right, you'll notice that in large part, the resulting OCR text is gibberish. It barely gets a couple Latin words in a row right before some error happens. Do you seriously think an AI will read proper words from, for example, "
Scor7onera graca faxati)is& maritima
"? No, the Latin was translated by human eye and utilized that way. SilverserenC 05:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Tell me this, Jens. If a AI was used to entirely generate this info from this non-English source, what text did it use? Because, if you click the "Show Text" button on the right, you'll notice that in large part, the resulting OCR text is gibberish. It barely gets a couple Latin words in a row right before some error happens. Do you seriously think an AI will read proper words from, for example, "
- I know Esculenta as a highly skilled expert editor, and worked with them on multiple articles. I refrain from believing that they would produce such a nonsense-paragraph on their own. Careless AI use is the only explanation that makes sense to me here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- I know Esculenta as a highly skilled expert editor, and worked with them on multiple articles. I refrain from believing that they would produce such a nonsense-paragraph on their own. Careless AI use is the only explanation that makes sense to me here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Reason for Reassessment: I am nominating the Aphrodite article for a community neutrality reassessment based on GA Criterion 4 (Neutral Point of View).
The current "Origins" section treats the Near Eastern/Semitic origin theory as an absolute, solidified fact. While this is a highly prominent theory, the article presents it as a complete consensus, severely marginalising or omitting alternative valid scholarship—specifically the Indo-European Dawn Goddess connection (the work of Janda, Boedeker, etc.) and native regional variations.
As noted by other editors on the article's Talk page, the section exhibits a clear structural imbalance, an over-reliance on a single source (Cyrino), and a lack of integration with broader, recent scholarship. The tone should be updated to present these origin routes as a nuanced, ongoing academic discussion rather than a definitive case. Atlasstar09 (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Atlasstar09 did not add
{{subst:GAR/header}}, maybe because of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#GAR not transcluding which is now fixed. I have added it so others may now discover the page and make posts. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. The 'Origins' section correctly covers both the Near Eastern and the Dawn Goddess theories. I've lightly copy-edited the Near Eastern theory for neutrality so that we don't appear to endorse the theory in Wikivoice. For such a minor matter of tone, GAR is not an appropriate forum: this could have been resolved quickly by copy-editing and perhaps a minor discussion thread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think an issue like this is enough to delist the article. It could as well be solved with a minor change in phrasing or some copyediting. Besides that, I think the article is great. UltraCobson (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2026
- Delist. I was the other editor in the discussion that the nominator references. Apologies, Atlasstar09, for taking so long to respond here; this somehow slipped off my radar. I must apologise for making this initial comment without yet providing my reasoning, but I wouldn't want to see this closed without any of the article's problems being meaningfully addressed. I'll try to explain what these issues when I have the time (which I hopefully will in the next day or two). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Michael Aurel: I believe these issues have now been addressed (since you wrote the above). I've today edited the text and the lead for neutrality and added new cited material, including a map showing multiple theories, to help provide balance. I'd be grateful if you'd look over the changes and revisit your !vote as it relates to an earlier version of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed the issues because I haven't had a chance to explain what they are yet. I'll hopefully get around to it today. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll try to address the issues you identify when you explain them; if they concern origins then please describe them in the context of the updated 'Origins' chapter in the article. I've had a go at addressing the issues identified in this thread by Atlasstar09, and Atlasstar09's thread on the talk page that you replied to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Done. It took a fair bit longer than anticipated. I'm sorry for the length of the comment, but I figured it'd be preferable to lay out everything in one go, as opposed to gradually pointing out new issues and causing others to work on solutions that would need to be redone later. Honestly, I think the page needs someone who's willing to sit down, perform a thorough survey of the scholarship, and then properly replan and rewrite much of the article. This topic falls right in my niche, so probably I'm happy to do all of this, but it'll take quite a lot of time. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll try to address the issues you identify when you explain them; if they concern origins then please describe them in the context of the updated 'Origins' chapter in the article. I've had a go at addressing the issues identified in this thread by Atlasstar09, and Atlasstar09's thread on the talk page that you replied to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed the issues because I haven't had a chance to explain what they are yet. I'll hopefully get around to it today. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Michael Aurel: I believe these issues have now been addressed (since you wrote the above). I've today edited the text and the lead for neutrality and added new cited material, including a map showing multiple theories, to help provide balance. I'd be grateful if you'd look over the changes and revisit your !vote as it relates to an earlier version of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- In my view, these are the article's issues:
- There is an overreliance on Cyrino's Aphrodite. It's cited over 200 times. Although the book has received some praise (Pickup's review, for example, is positive), it has also been heavily criticised. Papadopoulou concludes her review with:
Summing up, this book focuses on selective evidence and attributes. Thus, it is brief and accessible to the general reader. Nevertheless, it does not consider adequately these selective, yet diverse, attributes, due to the distorted analysis of two of the three ‘important ideas’ that define its content. As a result, the author restricts Aphrodite’s persona to the outdated model of ‘the Greek goddess of love, sex and beauty’ with the addition of maritime allusions, many of which are misapprehended and generalized.
The reviews by Slobodzianek and Pirenne-Delforge criticise the book for (in their view) asserting on page 1 that "Aphrodite is the ancient Greek goddess of erotic love and beauty" and then never meaningfully questioning this notion (cf. Papadopoulou's statement thatthe book does not do justice to Aphrodite’s multifaceted persona
). Pirenne-Delforge, in the conclusion of her review, writes:... the critical remarks above arise from two problems. The first problem lies in serious mistaken assertions presented as early as the introduction and continuing throughout the whole volume. The second problem is based on the fact that this study of Aphrodite had to fit the series’ intentions, which are much more ambitious, as Graf’s Apollo has shown. The necessity of following the editorial line of the series ends in a superficial and often distorted vision of the cults, artificially connected with a (debatable) literary interpretation of Aphrodite as the “embodiment of the feminine divine”.
Most reviewers assess that Cyrino gives far greater weight to literary sources than the archaeological record (for the sake of space, I'll avoid including quotes for this). I think some of the article's main issues stem from the book's biases and imbalances; refer to the next two points in particular. - The conception of Aphrodite presented in the article adheres to the traditional view of her as a goddess associated with little more than love, sex, and beauty. This is an issue with respect to WP:NPOV. The general trend in recent history has been one of shifting away from this perspective, and instead approaching Aphrodite as a polyvalent figure. This has come with a placement of greater emphasis on her other spheres of influence. For example, Pickup and Smith (in their introduction to Brill's Companion to Aphrodite, p. 25) position the volume as an exploration of Aphrodite as a goddess of
not only love, sex, fertility, and abundance, but also work, war, craft, politics, and many others
, and they write (p. 21):These treatments—folktale, philosophical, or other—are to blame for Aphrodite’s subsequent reputation as the goddess of love, an interpretation that now clashes with the current understanding of her polyvalence, with discrete and overlapping spheres of influence
(although they caution against totally jettisoning the old model). In a similar vein, see Wallenstein's entry on Aphrodite in the Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Pironti, who represents a fairly radical variant of this approach, ventures so far as to declare that shecannot emphasize enough that Aphrodite is not the "goddess of love"
, considering the designation anachronistic (p. 118 in the aforementioned companion). Our article's approach is reflected in the initial sentence of the lead, which introduces Aphrodite asan ancient Greek goddess associated with love, lust, beauty, pleasure, passion, procreation, and as her syncretised Roman counterpart Venus, desire, sex, fertility, prosperity, and victory
. This picture is essentially upheld throughout (pointing to merely one example, the "Symbolism" section restates that she's theembodiment of femininity, beauty, and love from classical times onwards
). There is no meaningful discussion of her maritime, political, or civic importance, or her association with marriage, vegetation, or the earth. The "Worship" section does mention her militaristic character in Sparta and the paragraph on Roman syncretism does briefly allude to other functions, but further discussion of her military associations and her link with magistrates is needed, I think. - The "Mythology" section is too lengthy and detailed, and the "Worship" and "Iconography" sections are too brief. These are issues with respect to WP:PROPORTION and WP:DUE. Relatedly, I think there's an overemphasis on literary sources and an underemphasis on archaeological ones. Compare the article's weighting of these areas to that of classical encyclopedias such as Brill's New Pauly and the Oxford Classical Dictionary. I don't think the "Worship" section properly covers her cults. Half of the "Classical period" subsection focuses on prostitution, and the "Hellenistic and Roman periods" subsection is almost entirely about syncretism. The most important centre of Aphrodite's worship, Cyprus, and two other major regions of her cult, Cythera and Sicily, are referenced in only a single sentence (
References to Aphrodite in association with prostitution are found in Corinth as well as on the islands of Cyprus, Cythera, and Sicily
). There's no mention of her worship on Crete, on Cos, in Epizephyrian Locris, in Naucratis, in Sicyon, in Miletus, or in the Black Sea region. There is also reticence about her worshippers and the general characteristics and distribution of her cult. I think a substantial amount of the material in the "Mythology" section is superfluous or excessively detailed. For example, we don't need a full paragraph explaining who Dione is, or discussing the Adonia. Many of the myths, particularly those in the "Anger myths" section, tell us little about Aphrodite herself. An example is the paragraph about Xanthius's daughters: in 135 words, the only reference to Aphrodite isThrough the wrath of Aphrodite (reasons unknown), Leucippus fell in love with his own sister
. Although probably not required to satisfy the GA criteria, the "Iconography" section should devote more space to the develoment of her image over time and the different kinds of depictions of her, rather than focusing on little beyond her symbols and a selection of individual representations. - There are problems with the article's treatment of the controversial subject that is Aphrodite's origins. Chiswick Chap has attempted to ameliorate these issues, for which he deserves thanks. As Atlasstar09 has articulated, the "Origins" section approaches the topic non-neutrally and without the requisite level of nuance. Affixing the phrase "In the Near Eastern love goddess theory" at the start is little better, but it doesn't fix the section's substance and unfortunately implies that all the ideas there constitute a discrete "theory". Perhaps more consequential is that the rest of the article repeatedly makes points in favour of her Near Eastern derivation. I count eight instances of this (an example of what I'm talking about is the sentence
Aphrodite's Mesopotamian precursor Inanna-Ishtar was also closely associated with prostitution
in the "Worship" section). As to the recent changes to the "Origins" section: noting the controversial nature of the topic is sensible. Mentioning Pirenne-Delforge and Budin's opinions is good, though they could be expressed more precisely. My main issue with the changes (especially the introduction and chart) is that they seem to present the topic as a trichotomy, whereas in reality many recent scholars have views that incorporate elements from multiple of these positions. Most scholars who believe that Aphrodite derived from an indigenous Cypriot deity have emphasised the importance of Near Eastern influence to the goddess's development. Possibly the most influential book on Aphrodite's origins, Friedrich's The Meaning of Aphrodite, propounded a "syncretic-cybernetic model" that considered her a product of Proto-Indo-European, Old European, Near Eastern, and Minoan and Mycenaean influences (see pp. 49–54 of his book). Budin's work sees her as a combination of Cypriot, Levantine, Phoenician, Cretan, and Greek elements (see Chapter 10 of her book). I appreciate that the chart was added in the hope of improving neutrality, but I just don't think it's a good idea. It's essentially guaranteed to oversimplify each position. I also don't understand how we can confidently delineate between "influences" and "theorised influences", or why the "Proto-Indo-European" label is situated in modern-day Turkmenistan. - The article has sourcing problems. Aside from Cyrino, the main source used for mythological information is Kerényi, a mid-20th-century scholarly oddball to whom subsequent scholarship has not been particularly kind. For example, Henrichs, discussing (in The Gods of Ancient Greece, p. 29) the eccentric nature of Kerenyi and Walter Otto's scholarship, writes that:
To this day, they are not taken seriously, and understandably so
. There are a few citations to the notoriously unreliable Robert Graves, multiple to outdated scholarship like Peck and the DGRBM, among other 19th-century sources, and even one to Theoi.com. Particularly in the "Mythology" section, there are substantial chunks of text cited only to primary sources. The self-published sources are now gone from the "Modern worship" section, but I still don't think the sourcing is great: it mostly consists of writings by adherents of Neopaganism, plus a news article. The list of epithets seems to be largely unsourced. (It's also very incomplete; the RE lists over 150 epithets.) In addition, whilst it isn't strictly something the GA criteria care about, there's a great deal of modern Aphrodite scholarship that's absent from the article. - I've looked through some of the citations and have encountered quite a few issues. The "Worship" section starts with
Aphrodite's main festival, the Aphrodisia, was celebrated across Greece, but particularly in Athens and Corinth
. The sources don't call it her "main" festival, nor do they say it was celebrated "across Greece" or even in Corinth. After discussing the identification of Aphrodite and Venus, the article claims:This syncretism greatly impacted Greek worship of Aphrodite.
In the cited source, the closest claim I can find to this isin some Hellenistic Greek cities the representation of Aphrodite, along with the nature of her local religious cults, appears to have been modified, as certain Romanized elements become more pronounced
, which clearly isn't the same. As far as I can tell, the source forWhile they were still married, Hephaestus was overjoyed to be married to the goddess of beauty, and forged her beautiful jewelry, including a strophion (στρόφιον) known as the kestos himas (κεστὸς ἱμάς)
doesn't even mention Hephaestus. The statement thatthe first surviving reference to Eros as Aphrodite's son comes from Apollonius of Rhodes's Argonautica, written in the third century BC
isn't entirely true. As the source states, a possibly corrupt fragment of the 6th-to-5th-century BC poet Simonides calls him the son of Aphrodite and Ares (cf. the acceptance of the passage in Gantz's Early Greek Myth, p. 3). RegardingAppearances of Aphrodite in Greek literature vastly proliferated, usually showing Aphrodite in a characteristically Roman manner
, I don't see anything in the source about her literary sources "proliferating". – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks Michael. I think you are probably over-egging the pudding as far as GAN/GAR is concerned, where the criterion is simply that "the main points" are covered, but it would certainly be good if you took some small actions to address the points you name, at least in part (perfection is not required). I'll possibly contribute but it does sound as if you should give it a go; there is no hurry for GAR as long as the points are (gradually) being addressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- There is an overreliance on Cyrino's Aphrodite. It's cited over 200 times. Although the book has received some praise (Pickup's review, for example, is positive), it has also been heavily criticised. Papadopoulou concludes her review with:
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. YouTube influencers are used as sources, sometimes for opinion statements in "Reception" or to verify facts that should probably use a more reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I have tagged the article accordingly. I may or may not fix these issues myself later on if I have the time to do so, but hopefully tagging it should at least let other interested editors know about the issues. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 18:44, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- These issues don't seem that bad for me to fix. I'll see what i can do. Monathephantom (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Uncited statements, especially in the "Interwar period" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- The article needs more work, but I've trimmed out the material that had been added without sources as a first step. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result pending
Future habitability section have a Template:Synthesis tag and a citation needed tag Real4jyy (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- None of the sources in that section are about this planet; I don't think any of them even mention it (except for Barnes & O'Brien 2002, which apparently incorrectly refers to it as planet c). The whole section should probably just be removed. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article has some uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Some of the uncited text are one-sentence statements on events that took place after this article obtained GA status in 2019: some of this information needs to be expanded to provide more context to the reader, or removed if it is too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes the text could do with a rewrite also; some parts are redundant and others repeat information - classic Wikipedia problem of editors adding piecemeal changes without reading the whole text... --LJ Holden 03:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes the text could do with a rewrite also; some parts are redundant and others repeat information - classic Wikipedia problem of editors adding piecemeal changes without reading the whole text... --LJ Holden 03:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
In November 2025, I posted concerns on the talk page that this article (at almost 16,000 words) was too long. There was discussion on the talk page from some editors, but more editor input is needed on if this article can justify its extended length when compared to WP:GA criterion 3b (the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style"). In my opinion, I think this article is too detailed and information should be spun out or summarised more effectively in order to keep its GA status. Recent major trims happened in Nov. 2025 and March 2026. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Having just the lead, it’s written from an Australian perspective. I would expect something that is balanced instead. Schwede66 05:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- The concerns I expressed back in November remain. This article is far too long and gives what was in reality a fairly minor skirmish far too much weight in the overall context of the conflict. Its importance to the Australian understanding of the conflict isn't relevant to this. It's also worth noting there are no less that THREE articles about this one minor skirmish. I think the lack of balance relates directly to the battle's relatively small size and lack of significance in the wider conflict. Intothatdarkness 12:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- The Battle of Long Tan is the best known (for most people, the only known) action of the Vietnam War in Australia. From the Australian point of view, it had a major impact on the nation's participation in the war and the way the war is viewed today. It is commemorated every year, sometimes with a public holiday. It is regularly studied in exhaustive detail at the staff college. With the Matthew effect that comes with well-known battles, attracts a disproportionate amount of literature. Coverage from the Australian side is exhaustive, that from the Vietnamese side is meagre, many of the participants having died in subsequent actions. Getting rid of this article will not improve other articles. This nomination is just the Wikipedia equivalent of renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Seriously? You dodged the question of disproportionate coverage on the talk page as well. Does this minor engagement really need three different articles or one of this length? This is also a GAR, not an attempt to "[get] rid of this article." And the Trump analogy is perhaps a bit much. Perhaps take a step back from the Australian PoV and look at the wider context of the war. Maybe some of this would be better-suited to an article about Long Tan in Australian popular culture or something denoting its impact there. But it did not have a similar impact on the conflict writ large. Intothatdarkness 00:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- It is a bit much to say that information should be spun out and then complain about the existence of subarticles. There is no requirement for an military history article to be about a topic that has a major impact in the context of a war. All that is required to establish notability is widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Once again you're dodging the question. The main article is clearly too detailed given the context of the engagement within the wider conflict. Do we really need, for example, an Assessment of the Battle (after a link to a separate article with the same title) and a section for the Lessons learned by the Australians? Or the extended discussion of casualties? Keep in mind this action involved a company with supporting assets on the Australian side. Yet a casual reader might reasonably surmise from the length of the article we were dealing with an engagement on the scale of the Battle of the Bulge or Verdun. There is also no requirement for a military history article to try to include every scrap of minutiae published about a single engagement. Yet here we are. Intothatdarkness 01:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I did not write this article, but I have been at workshops where it was discussed. So I have feedback from readers, which is most unusual, and they do want to see an assessment and a section on lessons learned by the Australians. It would be nice if articles on other actions were as good. (Some are.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I see you're never going to actually address the issues raised. No reason to continue this discussion, then. Intothatdarkness 11:44, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I am not competent to give feedback on GA status, but as a reader I enjoyed this article right up until the Casualties section, which was so long and so detailed that my eyes glazed over. I personally like more detail and length in the narration of events in articles like this and consider it a lucky break when an article is long enough to be a good read, but the later parts could be trimmed/tightened up in my opinion. FineIllDoIt (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- If information is spun out, Wikipedia can have the best of both worlds: those that want a summary of the battle can read the main article, and those that want more detail can go to the child articles. With all the information in one article, the reader only has the option of reading detailed prose, which only benefits some. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I did not write this article, but I have been at workshops where it was discussed. So I have feedback from readers, which is most unusual, and they do want to see an assessment and a section on lessons learned by the Australians. It would be nice if articles on other actions were as good. (Some are.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Once again you're dodging the question. The main article is clearly too detailed given the context of the engagement within the wider conflict. Do we really need, for example, an Assessment of the Battle (after a link to a separate article with the same title) and a section for the Lessons learned by the Australians? Or the extended discussion of casualties? Keep in mind this action involved a company with supporting assets on the Australian side. Yet a casual reader might reasonably surmise from the length of the article we were dealing with an engagement on the scale of the Battle of the Bulge or Verdun. There is also no requirement for a military history article to try to include every scrap of minutiae published about a single engagement. Yet here we are. Intothatdarkness 01:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- It is a bit much to say that information should be spun out and then complain about the existence of subarticles. There is no requirement for an military history article to be about a topic that has a major impact in the context of a war. All that is required to establish notability is widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Seriously? You dodged the question of disproportionate coverage on the talk page as well. Does this minor engagement really need three different articles or one of this length? This is also a GAR, not an attempt to "[get] rid of this article." And the Trump analogy is perhaps a bit much. Perhaps take a step back from the Australian PoV and look at the wider context of the war. Maybe some of this would be better-suited to an article about Long Tan in Australian popular culture or something denoting its impact there. But it did not have a similar impact on the conflict writ large. Intothatdarkness 00:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- The Battle of Long Tan is the best known (for most people, the only known) action of the Vietnam War in Australia. From the Australian point of view, it had a major impact on the nation's participation in the war and the way the war is viewed today. It is commemorated every year, sometimes with a public holiday. It is regularly studied in exhaustive detail at the staff college. With the Matthew effect that comes with well-known battles, attracts a disproportionate amount of literature. Coverage from the Australian side is exhaustive, that from the Vietnamese side is meagre, many of the participants having died in subsequent actions. Getting rid of this article will not improve other articles. This nomination is just the Wikipedia equivalent of renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- That's the idea behind WP:SUMMARYSTYLE but
Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic
. I already picked the low hanging fruit by splitting off the assessment into its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- That's the idea behind WP:SUMMARYSTYLE but
- Good luck with that, I'm afraid. Again, I remain unconvinced a company-level skirmish requires this much detail (let alone supplemental articles). Interest in Australia does not equal wider interest. Intothatdarkness 16:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether there is wider interest in ice skating, poisonous mushrooms or hip hop songs. Wikipedia is compendium of knowledge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Nice to see you remain consistent. Good luck trimming this one, @Z1720. At the very least, though, it should be removed from GA status based on the overwhelming minutiae. Intothatdarkness 21:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether there is wider interest in ice skating, poisonous mushrooms or hip hop songs. Wikipedia is compendium of knowledge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- The basic prose is, honestly, overdone. The size of the article could be reduced a fair amount with some simple (but aggressive) copy editing. The first two sentences in the 11 Platoon Isolated section provide an example. As written, it's "Amid the noise of machine gun and rifle fire and the VC bugle calls, Stanley brought the 161st Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery into action to support the Australian infantry. Yet as he was unable to see them, for safety reasons the initial rounds were directed a distance from 11 Platoon's known location, before "walking" the fire in to between 200 and 300 metres (220 and 330 yd) of their position, aided by D Company's favourable location between the VC and the gunline at Nui Dat, which allowed the rounds to pass over their heads and fall away from them." This doesn't appear to be a direct quote from the cited work (and if it is it's improperly attributed), so it could be cut back to something like "Stanley directed the 161st Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery to fire in support of the infantry. The initial rounds were targeted away from the Australian infantry and "walked" in closer since Stanley didn't have a direct view of their position." I'm not ever sure the second sentence in the suggested revision is needed. There's quite a bit of this kind of thing in the article, and if we can't get rid of the minutiae we might at least be able to reduce its impact on the general reader. Intothatdarkness 14:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- I like your example rewrite, so +1 FWIW FineIllDoIt (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- I like your example rewrite, so +1 FWIW FineIllDoIt (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
I am nominating this article because I believe it fails criterion 3(a), which is essentially impossible to fulfill by practically failing to cite Romanian-language sources about a man who spent his entire political career in Romania.
The four sources that are cited are hardly up to standard. One is a speech made in 2003 on the floor of the Romanian parliament. I need hardly say that this cannot be considered a reliable source about anything. Another, while a slight improvement, is essentially hagiography, relying on interviews with his aged daughter. A third, while quoting a bona fide expert, is rather superficial. Source four duplicates #3 and can be eliminated on that basis.
As noted, Roth spent over three decades at the highest levels of the Romanian state. He was written about extensively by his fellow citizens: in newspapers, in magazines, in diaries and essays. Similarly, Romanian historians have been writing about him for at least three decades, if not significantly longer. The fact that none of this material has made its way into the article raises serious questions about its comprehensiveness. — Biruitorul Talk 23:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Pinging author, reviewer and recent commenter: @Apollo468: @Thebiguglyalien: @Dahn: — Biruitorul Talk 23:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- I believe that this is holding the article to a standard above the bare-minimum requirements of the GA criteria and these are issues that would be raised if it were being compared to the more stringent FA criteria. But I'm just the guy who checked the boxes, so do what you will with it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- The whitewashing of Roth's Nazism is a troublesome concern: the article manages to mention that he opposed the Romanian Nazi Party from within without ever bothering to even mention what he was doing therein in the first place -- are we to believe that he was kidnapped by the Nazis and forced to wear the uniform? I want to emphasize the level of bad writing that went into this: it's not just that his Nazi affiliation is mentioned only to be immediately qualified as irrelevant; it is also that the reader is not given a basic fact (which would have incidentally been available in local sources) about when he joined a political party, in fact even that he joined that party. Imagine an article about Trump switching directly from when he owned casinos to when he was president -- "and that, boys and girls, is the whole story".
- Now I'm not saying that Roth was literally Hitler -- it is quite evident that he came to oppose Nazim (very lightly so, and at very little personal risk, and after having joined with it knowing full well what it stood for). Though even on that note, the article manages to be infuriatingly lopsided: it coaches us on how Roth supposedly once told Hitler to, as it were, cool it with the antisemitism, but we are spared having think about how he only did so after having himself joined a movement and a party that he knew to be antisemitic!
- But true enough: he wasn't Hitler, and even Schindler was a Nazi before he was anything else. But it is still poor form, and it should have struck the reviewers as poor form, that this aspect, of his voluntary political commitments in that controversial era, is only lightly touched, in what is a text that manages to dwell mostly on his martyrdom and the many services he did to the world by always being in power. This is the sort of article that you get when you only mix in encomiums, and the exact part of the sources you use that reassure the reader "all is okay", instead of doing proper, dispassionate, research into what the sources actually say. It also strikes me as odd that the editors were apparently aware of the abundance of Romanian (and Hungarian, and local Saxon) sources, but made a conscious editorial decision not to use them -- see the mention of Arcanum hits on the talk page. ("I can see through Arcanum that there were a lot of attacks at the time by doing date range from multiple newspapers" -- you see, the editor saw that there were articles critical of Roth, but gleefully concluded that we should ignore their content. The editor didn't even search for a monograph that would synthesize what those articles said, and if they were at any point correct. The editor just made a conscious choice to ignore them, as we, the idiot readers, and Roth's wonderful legacy as well, need to be protected from a grown-up discussion about Roth and the Völkisch movement. Let's take a moment to put these two things together: the article uses interviews with Roth's daughter, but consciously glosses over articles mentioning his dealings with the far-right. What sort of article do you imagine emerges from that mix, if not puffery and defense of the great man? Is there even a single source used that outright criticizes Roth for anything?)
- This is a study-case in how not to write an article, and it should be removed from the GA list pronto, pending massive improvements.
- (The structure of the article is incidentally incoherent, at various points driven by the editor's personal musings into how each new thought should be a section -- why is there, as a random example, a two-line separate section for "Roles in Transylvanian Saxon institutions"? how can this be methodologically different from what is in the rest of the article? Just who thought this was a way to write an article, let alone an example of what constitutes good writing on wikipedia?) Dahn (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- The question about primary sources, of political speeches, used as RSes is not, btw, "above the bare-minimum requirements". Such sourcing is prevented by the bare-minimum criteria for writing an article, let alone a GA. Dahn (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- It also does not work that an article barely checks the GA criteria but then "something happens" and a myriad of sources get added to where it is good for the FA. Nah. What we get in that promotional line-up is a fruit of the poisonous tree -- a half-assed, encomiastic article gets plastered with two or three more sources, all of the same nature, all used in the same unilateral think-happy-thoughts manner, and the half-assed GA becomes a half-assed FA. And from then on it becomes cited as a model for how to write other articles -- someone recently mentioned the FA on W. B. Yeats which is less detailed than the preface in a paperback Yeats I used to own, incidentally by, among many other things, also having very little and timidly worded material on his Blueshirts involvement (imagine the chutzpah it took to say that the article on that monument of Anglo-Irish culture and European poetry was "complete" in that form). Dahn (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Bringing this here after discussion at DYKT. I believe the review did not properly assess the sourcing under GACR 2(a) and 2(b). It uses self-published sources extensively when reliable sources are required per 2(a), and it uses primary sources extensively, when 2(b) requires no original research.
- 9 claims are sourced to Petr Hlousek's self-published rum label archive. Even if this were to be considered an appropriate source somehow, the rum labels would still be primary sources.
- A Medium post by Javaun Francis. The nominator said in the review
Javaun Francis is a rum educator with a Youtube channel where he does in-depth videos about rum, and owns a company, Louisiana Cane Spirits, and a website, booksrumandthensome.com. Again, I normally avoid Medium for that exact reason, but Javaun Francis is genuinely an expert in the field and his credibility should carry over.
I'm sorry, but there is no evidence provided that Francis meets the requirements of WP:SPSEXPERT, and his other website named is a personal Substack. - 39 claims are attributed to two videos featuring interviews with J. Wray personnel published by J. Wray & Nephew's trade association. These are primary and non-independent sources, and while such sources can be used sparingly, here they are used extensively and not just for straightforward, non-contentious claims. Here, for instance, one of these videos is used as a source for a negative claim about a competitor:
Unlike some other distilleries, such as Hampden Estate, which re-use dunder during fermentation to increase the concentration of esters, producing higher-ester "funky" rums, J. Wray & Nephew does not re-use it and treats dunder purely as waste.
Or for promotional/exceptional claims, such asTheir more premium line of rums is Appleton Estate
orPark Avenue, a liquor store in Manhattan, at one point was the exclusive distributor of a 20-year-old column still Appleton rum.
Two additional claims are sourced to the company's own website - 23 claims are sourced to Matt Pietrek's blogs Cocktail Wonk and RumWonk. There was some discussion as to whether Pietrek's blogs would count as WP:SPSEXPERT since he has published a few articles in otherwise reliable sources, but this RSN discussion indicates some skepticism about it.
- 8 claims are attributed to a Wordpress blog by a "Michael Mosley". The nominator says
but the author, Michael Mosley, is a BBC journalist, so I think his credibility on reporting should carry over to his wordpress.
But the Michael Mosley who was a BBC journalist died in 2024 and was married to Clare Bailey, while the Michael Mosley of the Wordpress blog does not claim to be a BBC journalist and is married to Bonita. Any claim of WP:SPSEXPERT falls apart. - Other problematic sources: sponsored content from the company, a self-published family genealogy site, more primary sources.
All told, dozens of claims (a significant majority of this article) are based on primary, non-independent, and/or self-published sources. This should never have been passed at GAN and should be delisted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- Would like to apologize for any shortcomings I have not looked up on, but will try to rectify the issues. Thanks. brachy08 (chat here lol) 23:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971 I will try my best to improve the article on 10art's behalf and have removed as many dubious sources as I can. https://singlecaskrum.com/countries/jamaica/appleton-estate-new-yarmouth/ seems promising, but I'm not sure. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have canned an entire section about New Yarmouth, and until I can resolve the claims myself, I'll have to support demoting this article. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort you put into this.
- I'm not going to lie, I have not been active lately, since I submitted this article for GA just to see if I have been doing a good job editing wikipedia, and to hear that I have been doing it all wrong, and the person I rely on for probably over a quarter of my citations across all articles is not reliable at all, just made me want to step away from editing wikipedia. 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 19:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- You have been doing a good job, but we do make mistakes sometimes.
- If you want to take a break, be my guest, but you're not doing it all wrong and he's just not reliable enough. You've done a lot of research on the subject, so you're on the right track. Please don't get disheartened over one failure. brachy08 (chat here lol) 01:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll take a break and consider things.
- Pietrek also wrote for Bevvy by the way, he has a column there called "Ruminations" https://bevvy.co/articles/author/matt-pietrek 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 16:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- I have canned an entire section about New Yarmouth, and until I can resolve the claims myself, I'll have to support demoting this article. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971 I will try my best to improve the article on 10art's behalf and have removed as many dubious sources as I can. https://singlecaskrum.com/countries/jamaica/appleton-estate-new-yarmouth/ seems promising, but I'm not sure. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
An orange {{Unreliable sources}} tag is placed on top of the article, indicating that the article may have unreliable sources. ScarletViolet ★ 14:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- My Source analysis found these:
- Scribd - unreliable source
- jamescameron.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog
- Daily Express - unreliable source
- New York Post - unreliable source
- marketsaw.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog (x2)
- upcomingfilmscores.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog
- PR Newswire - unreliable source
- Herald Sun - unreliable source
- blu-ray.com - unreliable source (x2)
Vestrian24Bio 11:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delist. A criterion of WP:GACR6 is that there must be reliable sources. I still see sources from PR Newswire, Facebook, Blu-ray.com, and various Blogspot sites in the references. Furthermore, I see an {{Additional citations needed}} template for the Video game subsection. Unless these issues are resolved soon, I believe we should delist this article. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Let me take and rework this one. It's typical franchise bloat and the article is too long. The good news is the multiple attributions should allow me to slim down sourcing to the best of the bunch. I was looking for a new GA nom anyway and it would be a shame to delist this one. Deborah.artemis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- I plan to work on this one after the weekend. We're all fine if I'm given a couple of weeks? Thanks. Deborah.artemis (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- I plan to work on this one after the weekend. We're all fine if I'm given a couple of weeks? Thanks. Deborah.artemis (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'd welcome a new review to know what needs to be done to keep this as a good article. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Re-reading the review after reading the thread, I can absolutely see what you mean. Fair enough. To be honest there was enough eyes on the article after DYK so I suspect that the reassessment would be fairly straightforward. Joe (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA is suspected of having been generated by a LLM. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delist as AI generated. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I wrote and nominated this article, so I don’t think I am allowed to give an opinion here on if it should stay a GA (obviously I think it should since I nominated it), but I am curious as to what will happen now? Will people here assess the article to see if it meets the criteria or not and decide that way, or will it simply be delisted entirely because of the AI generated review? Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 20:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- You are of course allowed and encouraged to offer your opinions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- You are of course allowed and encouraged to offer your opinions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA is suspected of having been generated by a LLM. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- When I reviewed this one, I was ambivalent whether to pass or fail. I was not too happy with the overall narrative, but it was decent enough. Well at least to what I know about the subject, which was not deep enough to write myself but enough to feel that it was not quite there. I leaned over pass because it will some more exposure by other editors who might be able to contribute beyond my skills. Here we are. A.Cython(talk) 00:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article fails GA criterion 3a (broadness of coverage). It never explains the basic agricultural rationale behind the events it describes, leaving readers unable to follow the causal logic.
- Purpose of mercury seed treatment is unexplained.
The Context section states only that "Mercury was found to be an effective fungicide in the early 1900s." It does not explain that this treatment was applied specifically to seed grain to protect it from fungal spoilage during shipping/storage prior to planting — not to the crop that would eventually be harvested. Without this, readers cannot understand why seed grain in particular was treated with a toxin, or why such a practice existed.
- Fate of mercury after planting is unaddressed.
The article never states whether wheat/barley grown from properly planted treated seed would itself have been safe to eat. This is the central premise that makes the disaster comprehensible: the poisoning occurred specifically because farmers consumed the raw seed grain rather than planting it and eating the resulting harvest. Without addressing what would have happened under intended use, the article leaves this foundational question open.
These are coverage gaps, not merely prose-clarity issues, and I believe they warrant reassessment.流山隆一 (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- This page was first transcluded at WP:GAR 19 August due to a now fixed bug. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- How odd, I looked at GAR on 9 August and bookmarked it then, so it was certainly visible to ordinary editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe you actually saw Talk:1971 Iraq poison grain disaster in Category:Good article reassessment nominees and followed the link here. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I did not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- The transclusion was so I don't know how you found the page to make an edit 9 August but never mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- I did not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe you actually saw Talk:1971 Iraq poison grain disaster in Category:Good article reassessment nominees and followed the link here. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- How odd, I looked at GAR on 9 August and bookmarked it then, so it was certainly visible to ordinary editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- KEEP: The Context already states that (methyl)mercury fungicides are toxic; I have added a cited statement that mercury was used in seed dressings as you suggest. Your objection is in a way too strong for its own good: it would apply to all pesticides used on any crop at any stage, as it is always the case that the harvested parts are claimed to be safe to eat after any properly-conducted pesticide treatment. I have all the same added a direct cited statement that seed dressings are supposed not to leave harmful residues in harvested cereal crops. I believe that resolves this matter, which really should not have required a GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
After being reminded about F.A.T.A.L. in KamSandwich's video on bad TTRPGs, I thought I'd check out the article.
While I'm not expecting miracles from this subject matter, I still feel this article fails in its breadth and quality of sourcing.
- Of the 15 citations, three are the game itself, one is the game's website, and four more are interviews. 8/15 being primary sources is a bit concerning, but not quite to the point of me wanting to slap a {{primary sources}} on.
- One citation is Vice Media, which according to WP:VICE has no consensus on its reliability.
- Two citations are to RPGnet reviews, one of a different game entirely whose review only name-drops F.A.T.A.L. in passing. According to their website, their reviews are all user-submitted and therefore should not be cited in the article at all.
- Is Something Awful a reliable source? Shockingly, I've found no discussion in either direction on WP:RSN or WP:RSP.
Pinging reviewer @Premeditated Chaos: and main contributor @Vaticidalprophet:. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 16:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Vice's rating is pretty complicated by its many ownership changes and wide area of interest. For entertainment in 2015, I'd rate it as a very respectable and reliable source. I think the current summary on WP:RSP is a poor assessment of past discussions that has lucked into being correct because a recent ownership change was... very poor. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I no longer believe Wikipedia's definition of an RS is compatible enough with modern information dissemination for me to involve myself much with it, unless something dramatically changed when I wasn't looking. That said, RPGnet was pretty different in 2003 to today. Vaticidalprophet 09:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
From Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#2012 emo killings in Iraq: "2012 emo killings in Iraq was assessed as a Good Article ... and made its way to AfD. It was considered notable - the title is. It was nominated for Did You Know where huge errors were found. I changed the lede to reflect that the article misrepresented and confused different events under the wrong titles. Its bad. I was assured that it was going to be merged... but nothing has happened. I am concerned that it says its a Good Article and it is not even close. No idea how to create a reassessment/major edit.... but this comment might help. 2012 emo killings in Iraq is not a Good Article. Victuallers" Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- My bad. @Bgsu98 and @HerrHeulsuse, I'm fine with the article being merged into LGBTQ rights in Iraq, if it's not that notable - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:31, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- The confusing of two closely related events seems like evidence of AI usage. Probably not the strongest, but the article should be vetted for AI whether or not it is to be merged. I am personally of the opinion that the people who voted at the AfD did not really understand the notability of events. Of course, I was the one who nominated this, so that's to be expected.
- I am pretty sure a merge discussion should take place at AfD before merging, since it was previously kept. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- I still don't see how it isn't notable given the sources at the AfD. Many of the sources discussed there plainly do mention emo killings in Iraq for multiple paragraphs. When I voted I didn't check all of them but I did see enough to convince me this passes NEVENT, namely WP:LASTING. That the article may be bad is another thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- And also I concur with the removal of GA status. Merge might be an option per WP:PAGEDECIDE if that is a better way to cover the material; but it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Parakanyaa. There is enough secondary coverage. If the article isn't up to standards, then the GA status should be removed. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 05:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Parakanyaa. There is enough secondary coverage. If the article isn't up to standards, then the GA status should be removed. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 05:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- And also I concur with the removal of GA status. Merge might be an option per WP:PAGEDECIDE if that is a better way to cover the material; but it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I still don't see how it isn't notable given the sources at the AfD. Many of the sources discussed there plainly do mention emo killings in Iraq for multiple paragraphs. When I voted I didn't check all of them but I did see enough to convince me this passes NEVENT, namely WP:LASTING. That the article may be bad is another thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article should never have been passed in the first place. Most critically, it fails GAC 3, with no information whatsoever on warnings issued, flooding, and numbers for precipitation, storm surge, or other quantitative impacts. It also fails criterion 1a, with redundancies like "equivalent to a Category 5 tropical cyclone" and the failure to spell out the acronym in "The state government of Odisha and its agency OSDMA ". It fails criteiron 1b with the use of an ampersand in the "Impacts & aftermath" section. Since the failure of criterion 3 is not an easy fix, a GAR is needed. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- More than happy to redo this, but I ask you please wait until I’m done moving in two weeks time. – LuniZunie(talk) 03:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- We can pause this until then, but I would still like the original reviewer to answer why they thought writing like I fixed here could possibly pass for criterion 1A. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- The GA criteria make clear that
Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status
. It's true that there are some places where the article's prose could probably be improved, but I don't agree that there are major issues that prevent it from meeting the GA criteria of beingclear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience
. GAs don't have to meet the stricter FACR standard of having prose that isengaging and of a professional standard
. The examples given in the GAR nomination of minor redundancies and failing to spell out an acronym in my view wouldn't be an adequate reason to fail a GA nomination on the basis of criteria 1. MCE89 (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)- The sentences I fixed in my diff were egregiously bad, to the point of being confusing, as is not spelling out an obscure acronym. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that your copyedit is an improvement, although I find "egregiously bad" and "glaring horrible sentences" to be fairly hyperbolic. I don't think the failure to spell out the acronym is likely to confuse readers — OSDMA is wikilinked and the surrounding context makes its meaning fairly clear. I've edited the article to spell it out regardless. Are there other any issues that you believe prevent the article's prose from being "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience"? MCE89 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- I stand by my original assessment because basic, glaring, grammar errors like saying it peaked "at an" ESCS really obstructs clarity for readers. ESCS is a common noun that is fully lower-case per MOS:CASE. The original sentence was akin to this: "John Doe peaking at an Olympic-caliber sprinter", which fails to convey that John Doe became an Olympic-caliber sprinter. Also, the lack of distinguishing between 1- and 3-minute sustained winds made the article almost contradictory in the eyes of readers. None of these can be said not to affect the clarity of the lede. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that your copyedit is an improvement, although I find "egregiously bad" and "glaring horrible sentences" to be fairly hyperbolic. I don't think the failure to spell out the acronym is likely to confuse readers — OSDMA is wikilinked and the surrounding context makes its meaning fairly clear. I've edited the article to spell it out regardless. Are there other any issues that you believe prevent the article's prose from being "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience"? MCE89 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- The sentences I fixed in my diff were egregiously bad, to the point of being confusing, as is not spelling out an obscure acronym. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Cheers mate. I'll ping you back here when I'm available. – LuniZunie(talk) 13:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Back, will fix up the article over the coming days. – LuniZunie(talk) 11:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- @LuniZunie: It has been almost a week. If you don't intend to make progress on this soon the article may have to be delisted by default. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I’m aware, I’ve been doing research in the background. – LuniZunie(talk) 10:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- @LuniZunie: This is something you should've done before submitting this article for GAC. If you're not making at least some edits within another week, this will be deemed to be a delist by default. Jasper Deng (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I know, I'm trying my best, there is a lot going on right now as I start college. By research in the background, I mean I am compiling sources and figuring out what to write to meat criteria, hence why no edits are published. Can't push an edit to a page if the edit is only half complete. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I know, I'm trying my best, there is a lot going on right now as I start college. By research in the background, I mean I am compiling sources and figuring out what to write to meat criteria, hence why no edits are published. Can't push an edit to a page if the edit is only half complete. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- @LuniZunie: This is something you should've done before submitting this article for GAC. If you're not making at least some edits within another week, this will be deemed to be a delist by default. Jasper Deng (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- I’m aware, I’ve been doing research in the background. – LuniZunie(talk) 10:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- @LuniZunie: It has been almost a week. If you don't intend to make progress on this soon the article may have to be delisted by default. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Back, will fix up the article over the coming days. – LuniZunie(talk) 11:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- The GA criteria make clear that
- We can pause this until then, but I would still like the original reviewer to answer why they thought writing like I fixed here could possibly pass for criterion 1A. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
In the course of reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Purple Rain (song), I observed a few factual errors (detailed here). The original reviewer endorsed the opening of GAR. I observed further issues of fact (detailed here and here). The editor responsible for the article has tried to remedy these issues but has not properly explained why there were substantial deviations from the sources. Additionally, based on the substantial quantity of sources, I am not completely convinced that this quite brief article sufficiently covers the topic to meet the GA criteria regarding comprehensiveness. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- The reason there were verifiability problems with mainly one source is because when I started working on the article, there was a massive amount of unsourced content, specifically in the "Background and recording" section, that I had to fix; some sentences that I didn't fix for verifiability then had deviations from the source. That source was also one that Gommeh didn't include in the spotcheck, which he already explained to you.
- Also, not sure how a 15-paragraph article is "quite brief", but that's beside the point: What concerns brought up on the talk page have not yet been addressed? You went through all the problems on the talk page and I promptly fixed them. I'm struggling to see why you felt it was necessary to bring this article to reassessment. NP (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would also like to point out that saying Gommeh endorsed a GAR is twisting his words, since all he said is "
feel free to start GAR
". That doesn't mean he endorsed it or found it necessary. NP (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)- NP2026, you need to stand down you confrontational language. Please remember that these processes are for the sake of bettering the encyclopedia. I have no problem with you, but you have repeatedly used escalatory phrasing and made personalizing comments. Do not do that. Additionally, it would seem that your recent additions support the assessment that a
12-15-paragraph article might not be long enough to be comprehensive. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)- I'm sorry if I'm coming off as escalatory. I don't have a problem with you either, I'm just a bit irked because I've spent a lot of time on the article, and because you accused me of using LLM. Also, I added an American Songwriter source that should fix most—if not all—remaining verifiability issues you might have. As for comprehensiveness, I'm not sure what more you want from the article. NP (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- NP2026, you need to stand down you confrontational language. Please remember that these processes are for the sake of bettering the encyclopedia. I have no problem with you, but you have repeatedly used escalatory phrasing and made personalizing comments. Do not do that. Additionally, it would seem that your recent additions support the assessment that a
- Taking into consideration the widespread success of the song a commercial performance section should be included on this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Commercial and critical reception are one section. NP (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to look at other song GAs. The depth of coverage on Fifteen (song) is a good rule of them for GAs (and represents a song article within an album containing songs with FA articles). I'd say that only 70% of the required depth for a modern GA is present here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I couldn't find much more coverage in reliable sources on the song's commercial performance. I'll try to add more where possible. NP (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- It mentions it was number one in the Netherlands and Belgium. I guess France and Scotland are not worth mentioning. Since you are going with the top two, perhaps mention Spain. I'm not saying mention every country but a top three it would illustrate the success of the song alongside some certifications. I strongly believe a commercial performance section out of the wider reception is in order to be created. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- While I'm all for the information's inclusion, I would not agree that these things alone that you've listed are long enough to make an entire section dedicated to commercial performance. I'll admit that may come off a little biased considering I am of the opinion that commercial performance requires an audience to receive the media, and thus can be defined as and included in reception, but when it is big enough I too can understand splitting it. Is there something more you're suggesting that you know should be and can be included? mftp dan oops 20:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to look at other song GAs. The depth of coverage on Fifteen (song) is a good rule of them for GAs (and represents a song article within an album containing songs with FA articles). I'd say that only 70% of the required depth for a modern GA is present here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Commercial and critical reception are one section. NP (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
I would like to point out to everyone that "comprehensive" is distinctively not a GA criterion. Per a footnote at the GA criteria for criterion 3a (broadness of main aspects): "The 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." As far as I can observe, this article does not neglect this requirement. I would vote keep if that's the main gripe here. mftp dan oops 17:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sold that it meets that 3a criteria. Reception sections for GAs of influential songs typically feature multiple contemporary reviews. In this case, there's a single Billboard review paired with a single piece of much later commentary. That said, the almost 300 words added to the article since this GAR was launched have definitely brought the article within a whisker of the GA standard. Much has also been done to correct multiple errors of fact. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have access to newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. If I add reviews from its time, would you then consider keeping? I reiterate that I do not think it is necessarily amiss from the good article criteria and could be kept almost as is today. In fairness, I think it just sneaks by that bar; anything further is quite a ways. If it helps, I do not think it would be difficult for some additional reviews from when the single was new. mftp dan oops 00:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have access to newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. If I add reviews from its time, would you then consider keeping? I reiterate that I do not think it is necessarily amiss from the good article criteria and could be kept almost as is today. In fairness, I think it just sneaks by that bar; anything further is quite a ways. If it helps, I do not think it would be difficult for some additional reviews from when the single was new. mftp dan oops 00:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
I was expecting this article about the second tallest mountain in the U.S. to be much longer. Schierbecker (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep -- however the history section could be expanded a bit. splains (💬/📝) 07:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep -- however the history section could be expanded a bit. splains (💬/📝) 07:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per my comment on the article's talk page:
Since becoming a GA in 2011, this article no longer meets the good article criteria. I've listed below all the things I've found:
- Not sure where the CC BY 3.0 license comes from for File:DC - 6 của Hàng Không Việt Nam tham gia chở bộ đội bảo vệ biên giới phía Bắc năm 1979.png;
- It's kind of misleading to use a 2009 image of Vietnam Airlines' economy class meal and present it as if it still is the same today (File:A Vietnam Airlines Economy Class meal.jpg);
- I'm unsure of the reliability of Vinafour (ref. 16). It may be a travel agency, but what makes it reliable to use?
- I don't see how VeloAsia (ref. 21) a bicycling tour website, is a reliable source;
- Wikimapia (ref. 244) comprises user-generated content and is not reliable
- "
These four aircraft, along with six others of the same type that are leased from International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC), are the flagships of the airline, and serve on medium and long-haul routes, respectively." This passage has been tagged as needing update since July 2014;- "
... which were never delivered to the airline." Tagged with[citation needed]since September 2025;- "
... an earlier attempt was stalled by the 2008 financial crisis." – Tagged with[citation needed]since July 2014- The § Destinations table is largely unsourced;
- The list of § Codeshare agreements is largely unsourced;
- The list of aircraft § Previously operated is largely unsourced;
- The section about § Services largely relies on primary sources, including Vietnam Airlines' website, which has been flagged as so since December 2023.
That's all that I've found for now. I've done a bit of work in the § Accidents and incidents to shorten its length and some other stylistic and date format changes, but hopefully, someone can address these issues.
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oh hello here, you can update about the Vietnam Airlines destinations please? They already have some new destinations on it (Amsterdam, Colombo...) thanks! Dungz1512 (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result pending
This article is not very comprehensive and inconsistent with modern GA-class astronomy articles. This GA was promoted a very long time ago (2007), when quality standards were not as high.
That being said, here's stuff missing from this article:
- Dedicated sections for its orbit, geology, origin. I don't like how everything is shoved into a very broad "Description" section. It's not very organized. For reference, look at the FAs Ceres (dwarf planet) and Makemake, the GAs (84522) 2002 TC302 and 208996 Achlys, and the GA-worthy articles 52246 Donaldjohanson and 1998 KY26.
- Missing info on how Mathilde formed.
- Does not adequately explain how Mathilde got its slow rotation. The article briefly mentions it might be caused by a moon, but contradicts it right after. I'm pretty sure papers have discussed other alternatives that aren't disproven.
- I see that this 1999 paper mentions how the impact are responsible for Mathilde's slow rotation. This article does not talk about this.
- Looks like only one peer-reviewed paper about Mathilde has been published after 2007. This article is missing this 2025 paper on its internal structure.
- Lack of discussion on the names of Mathilde's surface features. There should be a least some mention of them before recommending the "List of named craters" article.
- Escape velocity unreferenced
- Bad sandwiching issues between image and infobox
- "tumbling" mentioned nonchalantly only in lead, and unaddressed afterward. This issue was pointed in the talk page, but nobody has responded.
I might consider rewriting the entire article. If I do that, I believe it would be more beneficial if this article goes through the GAN review process instead of GA reassessment. People are more interested in reviewing GANs than doing GARs; as a result GARs have very long waiting periods and not very in-depth reviews. For this reason, I believe this article should be demoted. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- Delist per the given reasons. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Wait a bit, I’ll try to fix the issues. I’m on a vacation with limited WiFi as of tomorrow, and will get back a few weeks later, do I might need some time. In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 21:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Per comment below. In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)- @Nrco0e, @Bgsu98:
- Notes:
- Tumbling is the same as rotation (I think)
- Added information on that the tumbling may be due to impacts
- Fixed sandwich In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Wikipedian12512:
Tumbling is the same as rotation (I think)
- It is not. Tumbling refers to precession or non-principal axis rotation, which involves two or more periods (see 52246 Donaldjohanson which I rewrote recently and is waiting for GA review). I've linked the paper mentioning Mathilde's two tumbling periods in the talk page Talk:253 Mathilde#Tumbling.
- I really really would much prefer if you use peer reviewed papers instead of websites (which tend to gloss over and oversimplify details) for getting info about Mathilde. Although many papers are paywalled, you can easily access them via Sci-Hub (sci-hub.ru/[insert DOI link]) or The Wikipedia Library. Ideally, I think this article should be written by a subject-matter expert (like me; also wow I sound pretentious for saying that). Unfortunately I'm busy with 44 Nysa and my motivation for Mathilde is sorta dead. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- If that’s the case, then I’ll strike my statement. Hope you have time to get around to it! In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding, have fun with your vacation! :) Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding, have fun with your vacation! :) Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- If that’s the case, then I’ll strike my statement. Hope you have time to get around to it! In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This was made a GA a long time ago, when some of the recently deleted refs were between reliable and unreliable, and were not strictly enforced to be removed. Due to lack of alternate refs, this article cannot continue as a GA. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: Looking at the article now, I do not see any obviously unreliable sources. Have all the unreliable sources been removed? If so, is there any major information missing from the article? If not, then this should probably be declared as keep. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- No, let it be delisted. If it needs to be GA, it must be bigger than this. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: Can you list the unreliable sources used in the article, and the major topics missing from the article prose? There is no minimum article length for a GA, and GAs are not expected to have all information (that would be a requirement for featured articles). Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that it was shot in New Zealand was covered only by IndiaGlitz which is not considered reliable per WP:ICTF. Moreover the release reception and production sections are in the midst of reworking due to the discovery of new sources but I'm finding little time to do so. Maybe we could hold the verdict off by two weeks? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that it was shot in New Zealand was covered only by IndiaGlitz which is not considered reliable per WP:ICTF. Moreover the release reception and production sections are in the midst of reworking due to the discovery of new sources but I'm finding little time to do so. Maybe we could hold the verdict off by two weeks? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: Can you list the unreliable sources used in the article, and the major topics missing from the article prose? There is no minimum article length for a GA, and GAs are not expected to have all information (that would be a requirement for featured articles). Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article has a number of issues which I believe require a GAR. Ordinarily I would attempt to fix these myself, however I'm aware that editors, such as @Daniel Case, have been working on this article for many years. So I think a community discussion would be more helpful, especially as I would prefer the outcome to be for this to remain a GA. (It has the potential to go all the way to FA, should the main contributors also want that.) But these issues need to be addressed first:
The following is based on this revision.
- PRIMARY sources: 1, 6, 11-15, 18, 26, 33-36. At least 13 in use.
- Unreliable sources:
11-13: Primary blogs. WP:BLOGSPOT is not reliable.
17, 30: International Business Times is not reliable per WP:IBTIMES due to poor editorial practices noted by reliable sources. (Have been replaced. 
)
47: TV.com is not reliable per WP:RS/PS due to being a WP:USERGEN site. Was shut down in 2021. This should be replaced. (Has been replaced. )
- Questionable sources:
4: Daily Maverick is a South African not-for-profit newspaper currently tagged with [better source needed] in the article.
16: Refinery29 is a marginal source according to RS/PS. It's had a few issues in the past as explained in its article.
29: LA Weekly is flagged in WP:NPPSG as being the subject of an LTA Wikipedia editor and for having poor editorial standards.
50: Marginal on Chinese Wikipedia.
56: Unknown site. Presumably a Substack according to the homepage.
- There are other sources, such as 41, which is a YouTube video from an unknown individual. This seems to have information that violates WP:SYNTH based on the this comment from the 2019 GAR.
- There are citations in the lead, which should be removed per WP:LEADCITE. (Fixed. )
- The final paragraph of Elevator video is an WP:MNA and reads as speculative. This is an WP:UNDUE inclusion from a questionable source in my opinion, and should either be resourced or removed entirely.
- The Theories and speculation section is almost entirely sourced to Daily Maverick and is UNDUE. This requires major trimming to comply with policy.
- The popular culture section is bloated with unsourced paragraphs and needs a complete rewrite. (Reliable sources have been added. Done)
If this article were being reviewed by me today, it would fail points 1, 2 and 4 of WP:GACR6. This article has already had a previous GAR, which had sound reasoning and many editors raised issues with its heavy reliance on PRIMARY sources. This is clearly a very notable case, so I think these issues can be sorted relatively easily. I would be happy to help with this (when time permits). 11WB (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- A note on this article from Daily Maverick. It is almost entirely speculation, and makes claims of "speaking to doctors", without any links to back this up. It does however link to this Blogger article, which they claim are "body language experts". WP:BLOGGER is USERGEN and is therefore unreliable. I will give DM credit for their current detailed about page. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine only has the about page saved from this year, and that article is from 2014. One has to question why the about page wasn't archived before this year...
- I'm not convinced that they are reliable based on this. I think a discussion at WP:RS/N may be warranted, especially as it's cited 13 times. 11WB (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- Daily Maverick is pretty good afaik. The article individually might not be, but Daily Maverick is one of the most reputable papers in South Africa. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Daily Maverick is pretty good afaik. The article individually might not be, but Daily Maverick is one of the most reputable papers in South Africa. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Nominated 15+ years ago and now has many of the same prose issues as other chess biographies to my eyes. Requesting for a more experienced readers opinion. Thanks. BrotherGunk (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Sometimes GA (or FA) status can be a burden. The problem with reassessments is they force a large number of changes over a short space of time without interested parties really having enough time to properly review them. Unsourced statements get removed despite being well known to people familiar with the subject because someone doesn't have some book or other, while poorly researched stuff on a random web page gets accepted as a source.... I don't really care if this loses GA status. I'd much rather the article just got demoteed to B status already than go through a "reassessment". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. BrotherGunk (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Last month I removed a completely false claim (which was unsourced) in the article about his opening preferences, which makes me worried that there are other false claims hiding. Dayshade (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Statements must be supported by a source otherwise it is just spreading or starting a rumour. EulerianTrail (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Even cited claims could be wrong, either because the source was wrong, or misinterpreted, etc. In this case it both was wrong and had no inline citation. Also can you be more specific about what you mean? Are you saying every statement in the article should have an inline citation or something else? Or are you referring to my own claim about a false claim? Dayshade (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Statements must be supported by a source otherwise it is just spreading or starting a rumour. EulerianTrail (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with the GAR process. With the GA process, there is a single "nominator", a single "reviewer", and a template for the set of questions the reviewer should be asking and the nominator should be addressing. Are there anything like those things for GAR? I am interested in this because I know that these ancient articles about chess world champions have problems (because I've noticed problems before), but I don't know how to get from this to having a specific and comprehensive list of work items. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- I believe so yes, although I am admittedly in the same boat. We might have luck with the copyeditors guild as well. Cheers. BrotherGunk (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hi all, I will have limited availability on wiki for the next few weeks, but I'd like to take on reviewing/improving this important article as a project for the fall. If people can give me through end of October I will see what I can do here. NicheSports (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
The lead is quite short: it doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article and I think needs to be expanded. At the same time, this article is over 10,800 words, which will only get bigger once the lead is expanded. This is larger than the recommended length at WP:SS and I do not think the article's topic justifies the extended length. I suggest that information be spun out or summarised more effectively. The first paragraph of "Background" is also uncited. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
User:Z1720: Some work has been done on this article, but it appears to be superficial, and does not address any of your concerns identified above. Do you agree? Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- I've done a little trimming although this is mostly around the edges and won't be enough to offset an expansion of the lead yet. I'll try and get some done on this over the next little while. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Having spent some more time on this, and also having a couple of the sources used (Price 1990 and Bungay 2000), this article is looking to have more issues than just its overall length and the size of the lead. Some of the text hews uncomfortably close to the sources and furthermore, some of the material is not supported by the sources (or the sources only support part of what is cited to it). This is going to take a significant amount of time to resolve. Zawed (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
User:Zawed: Do you want me to leave this GAR open for you (or anyone else) to work on, or would you recommend I close it? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep this open for another a couple weeks please. I have been chipping away at this one and off. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Nine months after I noticed the article, concerns remain so I think this is ready to be reviewed. The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and sections. It is 11,800 words, and I think some sections can be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too much detail (such as the "notable cases" section). The "Since eradication" section might need to be formatted more effectively to remove the short paragraphs for more recent events, and post-2019 should be added. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Z1720 I will get right on this once i’ve wrapped up the asthma page. If no edits have been made by May 10th please harass me (just ping me here) to remind me but this page has a lot of promise. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
- Okay here's my initial breakdown:
- Classification: I tried to reorganize this myself but it still needs some work. some info from classification may be better for the symptoms section. quite a bit of unsourced info.
- Cause: the subsection "Evolution" could be summarized better. Four orthopoxviruses cause infection in humans: variola, vaccinia, cowpox, and monkeypox. Variola virus infects only humans in nature, although primates and other animals have been infected in an experimental setting. Vaccinia, cowpox, and monkeypox viruses can infect both humans and other animals in nature. can probaly be trimmed
- will continue later IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Continueing on, Variola virus should probaly be made its own article to help keep the smallpox article at a decent size
- Causes: not sure Concern about possible use of smallpox for biological warfare led in 2002 to Donald K. Milton's detailed review of existing research on its transmission and of then-current recommendations for controlling its spread. He agreed, citing Rao, Fenner and others, that "careful epidemiologic investigation rarely implicated fomites as a source of infection"; noted that "Current recommendations for control of secondary smallpox infections emphasize transmission 'by expelled droplets to close contacts (those within 6–7 feet)'"; but warned that the "emphasis on spread via large droplets may reduce the vigilance with which more difficult airborne precautions [i.e. against finer droplets capable of traveling longer distances and penetrating deeply into the lower respiratory tract] are maintained". needs to be there
- Mechanism: all unsourced
- diagnosis: needs further simplification and some adittional sources
- Prevention: could probably be trimmed or reordered to history section
- for both the history and society sections, I'll look into anything that could be made less wordy and for sources.
- IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Continueing on, Variola virus should probaly be made its own article to help keep the smallpox article at a decent size
- Okay here's my initial breakdown:
- At still around 12k words, this article is way, way too big. The weight of the sections vary wildly; we have a massive history section in spite of a dedicated article, that contains just as much information about eradication, which itself does not have a separate page. Meanwhile, there is a level 2 section about "Mechanism" that is three sentences long, and may or may not be able to be folded into the preceding virology section. This article should likely be a big high-level summary-style overview with better delineated subpages, but that represents a considerable amount of work. Choucas 🐦⬛ 15:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- Circling back to this, there are still uncited statements and the article is at about 11,700 words. @IntentionallyDense: or anyone else, is there interest in continuing to fix up this article? Z1720 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- I wish i could but unfortunately i don’t have the time currently. i’m okay with this being closed as demoted but i also wish other medical editors would take on some of the bigger articles because i can’t keep rewriting these huge medical topics every month. (not a rant to you, Z1720, just general frustration). IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: I have addressed the issue by hiving off the sections 'Prevention' and 'History' which already had "main" links, i.e. they should just be short summaries of their subsidiary articles. I've moved their original text to the talk pages of Smallpox vaccine and History of smallpox respectively, in case anybody wishes to rescue any of the overlapping materials that were here to the text of those articles. Both sections now have a "main" link and a short summary-style text reflecting the contents of the subsidiary article. I've moved the Virology and the Society and culture sections to new article Variola virus and Smallpox in society and culture, replacing them with summary-style paragraphs and "main" links. Smallpox is now at 5,000 words which is easily within the acceptable length range, and the sections are as a result in much better balance. The article is shortened by more than 50%, and I've removed or fixed the uncited claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- I wish i could but unfortunately i don’t have the time currently. i’m okay with this being closed as demoted but i also wish other medical editors would take on some of the bigger articles because i can’t keep rewriting these huge medical topics every month. (not a rant to you, Z1720, just general frustration). IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Concerns addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Does [15] support its statement? No. Does [26] support its statement? No, but it might be a good assumption if you pull a few threads. Is "Beyond his scientific contributions, Almborn's dedication to the botanical community at Lund University was evident in his generous donations" either written in an appropriate tone? No, and that sentence is a conclusion not made in the source. Further, that tone isn't in the source; that and the following sentences have been made more effusive in the article. I would not go with the nom wording, but procedural keeps that ignore the issues noted within it do not help either. CMD (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- [15] does support the statement, but the issue is with how Species Fungorum organizes their pages. The link is to the genus page, which is appropriate, but the actual subsummation of the genus is more clearly shown with the two species pages, such as this. And [26] also supports its statement, noting the prior noted subsummation change by altering Almbornia cafferensis to instead be Xanthoparmelia ovealmborni to retain the scientist being referenced.
- Does [15] support its statement? No. Does [26] support its statement? No, but it might be a good assumption if you pull a few threads. Is "Beyond his scientific contributions, Almborn's dedication to the botanical community at Lund University was evident in his generous donations" either written in an appropriate tone? No, and that sentence is a conclusion not made in the source. Further, that tone isn't in the source; that and the following sentences have been made more effusive in the article. I would not go with the nom wording, but procedural keeps that ignore the issues noted within it do not help either. CMD (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- So, yes, both references support their statements. As for tone issues, that seems extremely minor and easy to fix. Particularly since the source stating "
laid the ground for future lichenological research in Lund, both through his donation of his large lichen library and all his possessions and also the collections he incorporated at the Botanical Museum in Lund
" makes the phrasing arguable. Seems like decent use of the source, but also something that can arguably be altered either way.
- So, yes, both references support their statements. As for tone issues, that seems extremely minor and easy to fix. Particularly since the source stating "
- Regardless, it doesn't seem like you're actually trying to review the article properly considering every single thing you've mentioned has been wrong or misleading. SilverserenC 03:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Entirely possible a different page supports a statement, but that's not the one cited. Source [26] doesn't seem to provide the rationale asserted, although as I said it's a solid assumption. It is true that I did not do a full review, I spot-checked 3 sources, described the results. CMD (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Regardless, it doesn't seem like you're actually trying to review the article properly considering every single thing you've mentioned has been wrong or misleading. SilverserenC 03:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delist, we're coming up on a couple of weeks and there hasn't been much movement in fixing up the article. I made some fixes from the second sentence to the last, but more is needed and this would take a bit of time plus full access to the sources. CMD (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- What fixes, Chipmunkdavis? Literally no fixes have been suggested in this discussion or even what parts of the article have an issue. There's been no actual problems with the text noted anywhere. SilverserenC 15:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Some were suggested above, and I've actioned them, plus some others I didn't mention here. Issues with the text are readily apparent on a simple read, full of obvious WP:PUFFERY for a start. Combine that with the TSI issues, plus the many similar issues found in other articles when sources could be accessed, someone with access to the sources needs to go through this properly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have any actual TSI issues to present? Because those above were not convincing and seemed more like your lack of understanding of how to read or navigate the sources in question. As for puffery, give actual actionable examples. SilverserenC 20:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- I understand you are not convinced, but they were there nonetheless, as they have been in other GARs you have also commented on. If you want to look, MOS:PUFFERY provides examples of adjectives that get strewn through articles, consider "extensive", "historic", "enriching", "renowned", etc. Everything about the student mentoring is strange, like if an llm was trying to generate content without much underlying substance. "Ove Almborn was also known for mentoring students in lichenology", apparently, sourced to a birthday letter which doesn't mention this outside of the general fact he was a professor with students. What does it mean to "mentoring students with a supportive and systematic approach"? Not in the source, but the impression is there that the llm saw "Department of Systematic Botany" and ran with it. Why is there more than one paragraph repeating that a professor mentored the same student over multiple sentences each time anyway? At least some vacuous sentences aren't repeated, such as the sentence covering how students at Lund undertook field excursions, collaborated with colleagues, and met with other academics. Working through llm text is a chore, especially if it's to list out the really surface level stuff (and that seems to be after the GAN led to even more surface level stuff being removed), but you and anyone else are welcome to edit the article if you wish to improve it. CMD (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- I've fixed them both. Anything else to take a look at? SilverserenC 03:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure what both refers to, but yes, per above. CMD (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- I've re-organized and altered the text for those two separate paragraphs you mentioned in your comment above, making things flow better both in timeline and in discussion of the graduate students. SilverserenC 16:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure what both refers to, but yes, per above. CMD (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- I've fixed them both. Anything else to take a look at? SilverserenC 03:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- I understand you are not convinced, but they were there nonetheless, as they have been in other GARs you have also commented on. If you want to look, MOS:PUFFERY provides examples of adjectives that get strewn through articles, consider "extensive", "historic", "enriching", "renowned", etc. Everything about the student mentoring is strange, like if an llm was trying to generate content without much underlying substance. "Ove Almborn was also known for mentoring students in lichenology", apparently, sourced to a birthday letter which doesn't mention this outside of the general fact he was a professor with students. What does it mean to "mentoring students with a supportive and systematic approach"? Not in the source, but the impression is there that the llm saw "Department of Systematic Botany" and ran with it. Why is there more than one paragraph repeating that a professor mentored the same student over multiple sentences each time anyway? At least some vacuous sentences aren't repeated, such as the sentence covering how students at Lund undertook field excursions, collaborated with colleagues, and met with other academics. Working through llm text is a chore, especially if it's to list out the really surface level stuff (and that seems to be after the GAN led to even more surface level stuff being removed), but you and anyone else are welcome to edit the article if you wish to improve it. CMD (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have any actual TSI issues to present? Because those above were not convincing and seemed more like your lack of understanding of how to read or navigate the sources in question. As for puffery, give actual actionable examples. SilverserenC 20:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Some were suggested above, and I've actioned them, plus some others I didn't mention here. Issues with the text are readily apparent on a simple read, full of obvious WP:PUFFERY for a start. Combine that with the TSI issues, plus the many similar issues found in other articles when sources could be accessed, someone with access to the sources needs to go through this properly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- What fixes, Chipmunkdavis? Literally no fixes have been suggested in this discussion or even what parts of the article have an issue. There's been no actual problems with the text noted anywhere. SilverserenC 15:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delist - The prose reads quite clearly as AI-generated to me; it is thoroughly repetitive, circular, and oddly generalized. A few (non-exhaustive) examples:
"From 1954 to 1966, Almborn balanced his role as a high school teacher in Malmö with his passion for lichenology, contributing to the field through various publications and research. During this period he combined teaching with research and publication in lichenology"
- the second sentence confers zero new information, it's just a vaguer restating of the previous one- The article mentions that his work led to his doctoral dissertation on the
"distribution and ecology of lichens in southern Scandinavia"
three separate times across the lead and early life sections, including back-to-back sentences in the latter "where he relished the social ambiance of congress dinners and similar gatherings. His anecdotes about renowned botanists engaged and entertained his colleagues, and were well known among colleagues."
repetitive and lacks an encyclopedic tone"His insights helped shape the field, ensuring rigorous academic standards and fostering a scholarly dialogue among his peers."
vague puffery that could be said about pretty much any notable academic in any field. basically reads as LLM speak for "He did a good job at his job"
Zzz plant (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Seems eminently fixable.
- 1) I moved the first sentence up to the beginning of that section, since that flows way better, and removed the second sentence.
- 2) I removed the second duplication in Early Life, the lede and the first instance work fine with lede summarization in mind.
- 3) Per the source, I moved the conferences with the prior sentence and changed the existing one to botanical meetings he was invited as a guest to, adding a quote for his activities that allows a side-stepping of encyclopedic tone problems.
- 4) I removed that sentence, combined the paragraphs, and added a quote at the end that explains how it was the library and collections that were the major contribution and legacy of his work.
- You said those were "non-exhaustive" examples, so what else do you have, Zzz plant? SilverserenC 23:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment So, Chipmunkdavis, Zzz plant, do you have anything else to bring up? Per the Reassessment Process for GAR, the purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. I've made all the changes for things you've brought up. If nothing else gets noted for improvement and change, then your Delist votes are discarded as not relevant, since this is not a vote based process, but one where actual problems are noted as a reason for delisting. SilverserenC 20:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Fixing the most egregious sentences one-by-one does not resolve the overall lack of encyclopedic tone, nor the article's pervasive circularity and vagueness. GAR is not a game of whack-a-mole where reviewers have to list every single flawed sentence; we can identify systemic problems by using critical thinking and outlining core examples. But since you've asked twice, here's another example:
"Almborn's work on the lichen flora of southern Scandinavia and southern Africa contributed to the documentation and study of these regions. His meticulous studies, particularly on the lichen flora of southern Scandinavia and southern Africa, significantly advanced the understanding of these ecosystems."
These two sentences convey essentially the same information, just with different levels of puffery. And another example:"Field excursions, collaborative work with colleagues, and informal academic gatherings formed part of the environment in which students associated with Lund University's botanical department carried out their work with Almborn."
This is a vacuous sentence; it pumps up the word count by describing with granularity how any science department operates rather than providing sourced historical details. Since the article requires substantial work by someone with full access to the sources, my stance remains that it should be delisted. There's no need to ping me again. Zzz plant (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- I explicitly mentioned some of the puffery above almost two months ago. If even the easy surface level issues are not being resolved after such time, the GAR is clearly not attracting interested editors. CMD (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Fixing the most egregious sentences one-by-one does not resolve the overall lack of encyclopedic tone, nor the article's pervasive circularity and vagueness. GAR is not a game of whack-a-mole where reviewers have to list every single flawed sentence; we can identify systemic problems by using critical thinking and outlining core examples. But since you've asked twice, here's another example:
- I already made fixes to the two things you brought up two months ago and I said as such back then. SilverserenC 21:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- I mentioned more than two things two months ago, and noted that in my reply to your linked message. CMD (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- I rewrote those entire two paragraphs about the students and mentorship back then based on info from the references. So, all of what you mentioned was changed. SilverserenC 23:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- That is not all that I mentioned. This is a weirdly repetitive discussion, so I refer back to my initial delist statement that GAR has not attracted much movement, although now at over two months rather than two weeks. CMD (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- Because you seem to not want to specify what you're talking about that still needs to be changed. I've rewritten the section you were talking about two months ago. You've given no followup on that whatsoever and seemingly refuse to. You don't seem to be attempting whatsoever to follow the actual GAR improvement process. SilverserenC 22:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- That is not all that I mentioned. This is a weirdly repetitive discussion, so I refer back to my initial delist statement that GAR has not attracted much movement, although now at over two months rather than two weeks. CMD (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- I rewrote those entire two paragraphs about the students and mentorship back then based on info from the references. So, all of what you mentioned was changed. SilverserenC 23:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I mentioned more than two things two months ago, and noted that in my reply to your linked message. CMD (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- I already made fixes to the two things you brought up two months ago and I said as such back then. SilverserenC 21:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- We've gone through most of the article at this point, which is why I was asking. I've combined the first two sentence into a single more direct one and rewritten your second example to more directly eschew to the source's wording. SilverserenC 21:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing
