Talk:Ab Khel Jamay Ga

GA review

Unsuccessful. ThrettanJuni (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ab Khel Jamay Ga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: M.Billoo2000 (talk · contribs) 12:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThrettanJuni (talk · contribs) 01:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'll look over this article. Since the article is short, I think I can go over this in the next hour. ThrettanJuni (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, but I'll have to quickfail this article. The heavy reliance on user-generated content, original synthesis, and an inadequate lead section mean it requires significant revision before it can be considered for GA status. I hope this article can be promoted in the future. Cheers! ThrettanJuni (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"...despite he initially refused..." → should be "despite initially refusing". "The song was initially released online during the first week of the year, with the music video on 29 January 2017." → should be "music video was released on 29 January 2017" or "music video following on 29 January 2017". "The tournament news was promoted by hashtag #AbKhelJamayGa..." → should be "was promoted by the hashtag "#AbKhelJamayGa"...".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article fails WP:LEAD. A two-sentence lead is insufficient to summarize the body of the article. It omits details of the song's background, critical reception, and other details.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article heavily relies on social media posts and user-generated content. Citations 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, and 28 are direct links to individual tweets and social media polls. Per WP:RS and WP:USERGENERATED, these are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Footnote [a] also explicitly states: "Fact obtained from the PSL and HBL's social media".
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article violates WP:SYNTH. The text claims the song "...is widely regarded by journalists and fans as the best PSL anthem, and has been voted a fan favourite in several online polls." Compiling individual tweets and informal online polls to construct a definitive critical consensus is original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article lacks basic information expected for a music track. There is no discussion of its musical composition, structure, production background (beyond the studio name), or commercial performance.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article fails WP:NPOV. The Reception section editorializes by using cherry-picked tweets to frame the track as the undisputed "best PSL anthem ever". It reads more like a fan page than an objective assessment.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The only image (bar the cover art) in the article has a caption that reads like body prose. The use of the word "also" makes it read like a stray sentence copied and pasted from the main text. A caption should act as a standalone description of the visual, not a continuation of the adjacent paragraph. A suitable caption would be "Ali Zafar performing 'Ab Khel Jamay Ga' at Expo 2020 in Dubai".
	7. Overall assessment.	Quickfail The article requires a rewrite of the reception section using reliable, secondary sources. The prose must also be cleaned up and the lead expanded. Once these core issues are resolved, the article can be renominated.

Close

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@ThrettanJuni: Hi, hope you are doing well. I have used the tweets by reputable Pakistani journalists which is allowed as per WP:RS/SPS / WP:SPS and WP:UBO, which definitely comply WP:RS and WP:V. Please study WP:USESPS and do not conclude without a thorough study of sources. As for cherry-picking, do you have any unbiased evidence of the song's negative reception? Also, do you have any reputable reference which discusses lyrics and composition in-depth? You also called it a WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and non-WP:NPOV, and then quick failed without even letting me respond. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ab Khel Ke Dikha. As for spell and grammar errors, you are most welcome. Thank you. M. Billoo 12:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @M.Billoo2000! Thank you for the response and for your dedication to documenting Pakistani music on Wikipedia. I understand it can be frustrating to put hard work into an article only to have it quickfailed, but the GA criteria are strict by design. I'll be more than happy to discuss my reasons.

"I have used the tweets by reputable Pakistani journalists which is allowed as per WP:RS/SPS / WP:SPS and WP:UBO, which definitely comply WP:RS and WP:V. Please study WP:USESPS and do not conclude without a thorough study of sources."

While you are definitely correct in pointing out that self-published sources from reputable journalists are allowed under WP:SPS and WP:UBO, it does not override the core requirement of WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

In this tweet containing an informal Twitter poll has zero editorial oversight and zero fact-checking. While you can use a tweet, let's say for example, to state, "Journalist Zainab Abbas stated on Twitter that she liked the song", you cannot use a collection of Twitter polls to claim in Wikipedia's voice that the song "has been voted a fan favourite in several online polls". Doing so relies on user-generated data (the poll voters) rather than a published editorial consensus. Also, Twitter polls can be easily manipulated by vote purchasing, so even if the journalist hosting the poll is highly reputable, they have no mechanism to verify the identity, authenticity, or humanity of the voters. This lack of security makes poll results entirely unreliable for establishing encyclopedic facts.

"As for cherry-picking, do you have any unbiased evidence of the song's negative reception?"

The burden of WP:NPOV is not simply "prove it got bad reviews". NPOV means the article must not editorialize or use Wikipedia's voice to elevate the subject. Stating in the lead that the song is "widely regarded by journalists and fans as the best PSL anthem" is a violation of MOS:PUFFERY unless the article has high-quality, secondary sources that explicitly makes that exact summary claim, specifically the "fans" part. As it stands, the article are using Twitter polls to build a narrative of universal acclaim. That is textbook WP:SYNTH.

"Also, do you have any reputable reference which discusses lyrics and composition in-depth?"

If the answer is "no", then that is exactly why the article struggles to meet GA Criteria 3a (broadness). A GA doesn't demand the exhaustive detail of a Featured Article, but an encyclopedia entry about a song must still cover the basic tenets of its musicality and production. If secondary sources simply do not exist to provide that depth, the article can absolutely remain on Wikipedia as a standard article, but it may not possess the necessary encyclopedic weight to qualify for the GA list.

"...quick failed without even letting me respond."

Regarding the quickfail: GA reviewers are instructed to quickfail articles if "it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". The GA queue is an assessment process, not a peer-review workshop for drafting. Since upon initial review, there is a need to revise the article, a quickfail is standard procedure to give editors time to rewrite it without a pending review clock running out.

"See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ab Khel Ke Dikha."

You pointed to the AfD survival of "Ab Khel Ke Dikha" to validate this article. It is crucial to separate these two processes. An AfD discussion only determines notability under WP:NMG. Passing an AfD means the article gets to stay; it has absolutely zero bearing on whether the prose, layout, and sourcing meet the GA standards.

Writing a Wikipedia article about a piece of modern pop culture, especially something with as much passionate local fandom as a Pakistan Super League anthem, is incredibly difficult. You have done an immense amount of heavy lifting here by tracking down these timelines, names, and references, and your passion for documenting Pakistani pop culture is exactly what makes Wikipedia thrive.

The jump from a standard article to a Good Article is notoriously steep because the formatting and sourcing rules become hyper-technical. This quickfail isn't a reflection on the value of your work; it's simply a mechanism to take the article off the active review clock so you have all the time you need to refine it without any pressure. Once the article is refined, you may renominate it in the future. Cheers! ThrettanJuni (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• @ThrettanJuni: Thank you for your detailed response.

• Can I use primary behind the scene videos with WP:DUE care to establish a dedicated section of lyrics and composition? While some little scattered info within the article is currently present.
• The article not only mentions three Twitter polls, but two more polls are here; one published in 2017, and the other in 2023. These are all bylined with similar reputable journalists. The singer changed his decision on public demand and performed the song in 2017 later. And due to its long lasting reception, the section header has another word "legacy", and I have now added a few more points under the section. Another video from 2021 calls it an "all time favorite PSL song". Therefore, I still would not count the lead section as SYNTH because it has been established by what is in the article body, thus complying NPOV.
• How about rephrase? The anthem is widely regarded by journalists and fans as the best PSL anthem, and has been voted a fan favourite in several online polls since its release. Change the prior into a new wording. Numerous online poles by publishers compiled fans response over the years, where the song has been voted as a fan favourite and the best PSL song since its release.

Thank you! M. Billoo 04:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

And talking about buying votes or reviews, anyone can do that regarless of their notability. The concern should be stable significant coverage over the years and how many times it had been recalled. M. Billoo 06:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

With the clarification M.Billoo2000 made to meamemg that the dispute is regarding whether the social media posts he used as sources should be considered reliable sources, I'll try to focus solely on that without giving an opinion on the other GA criteria being scrutinized here too. To that end, it seems that the question should be whether those sources align with the criteria listed at WP:V, with references to other pages such as WP:RS merely elucidating that policy. When I look at it, I see an emphasis on the reliability of the source itself, independence from its subject, and publication from a third-party. However, these three criteria are applied tentatively, only insofar as we can gauge the extent to which the source meets them according to other factors such as the type of source it is, any conflicts of interest, and the reputation of its publisher. If any of the sources in question violate any of those three criteria as determined by how implicated they are by any of those other factors, I'd consider it an unreliable source and consequently consider the GA nomination as it is to be justified. Below, I'll try to address this question, then the points that M.Billoo2000 have brought up, and finally try to draw a conclusion based on these two considerations. The citations ThrettanJuni noted as having failed WP:RS are citations 15, 16, 17, 23, and 28. Looking at each of those sources individually, citations 15, 16, and 17 are Twitter polls asking which songs used by the Pakistan Super League was the best out of a selection, with one song in that selection being the article's subject. While the tweet isn't being used to directly defend a claim about fan reception, even left alone, I still feel that it's inappropriate to include in this article because it would be based on user-generated content. The informal nature of a Twitter poll is distinguished from a more systematized poll because of its lack of control over confounding factors that influence how well you can extrapolate the results of the poll to an audience at large, such as selection bias or forced choices. That's the principal reason why user-generated content is viewed with less regard than other types of sources in general: they're not as controlled. With this, I don't think these citations can be considered reliable. I find it a bit easier to countenance the use of citation 23 even though it's also a tweet. Here, it seems that it's being used as a primary source to support a direct claim about the poster of the tweet, which is conditionally allowed by WP:SELFSOURCE. What policies like that make clear is that such sources need to readily support any conclusions pulled from it such that any reasonably educated person can take away that conclusion without needing to further synthesize or extrapolate between that source or other sources. In the tweet, Omair Alavi called another song his second favorite after "Ab Khel Jamay Ga," so it would follow that "Ab Khel Jamay Ga" is his favorite song, which is what the claim the source is attached to states. Regarding citation 26, however, I think the use of that source violates WP:PRIMARY, specifically the fourth point in the section, which states that sources "close to an event"—a video taken of a concert—cannot have conclusions drawn from it via independent analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. The claim it's being used to defend is that someone used to perform the song in their concerts during a certain period. A single YouTube video would likely be a weak source for that because it doesn't establish a pattern of the person performing the song repeatedly throughout a specific time period. It stands to reason that such a conclusion would thereby be drawn from interpretation of the primary source, making it unsuitable for inclusion. Throughout this dispute, M.Billoo2000 has brought up pages related to the suitability of self-published sources with respect to factors like how they're used by other sources, namely WP:SPS and WP:UBO. I want to briefly summarize what the policy on self-published sources says, how it relates to WP:UBO, and how applicable it is to the sources being scrutinized. Self-published works are looked at with more scrunity because they're not as controlled as something like a journal article or book. Journal articles are often peer-reviewed by impersonal third-parties, and books are often reviewed by its publisher. Self-publication skips that intermediate step of third-party review, and you'll have to determine the reliability of it some other way, such as the reputation of the author or how other sources have already evaluated it. If the author is well-respected in their field and has a reputation of being unbiased, that's one way of vetting a source as reliable. If other already-vetted sources determine a source to be reliable, that's another way of vetting it as such. For the citations in question—here, the three Twitter polls: citations 15, 16, and 17—we'd have to determine not whether the authors are reliable for discussing the actual song, but whether they're reliable for gathering controlled data from polls since the claim is refrencing the results of those polls, not anything about the song itself. About that, there's nothing to me that indicates any of the authors have particular experience in experimental design or data analysis, meaning that their reliability can't be vetted through the first route. There's also no indication that other high-quality sources use those particular tweets to defend their own conclusions, which occludes the second route as well. Because of this, I don't think any of the aforementioned policies can argue that those three sources are more reliable. I believe that four out of five of the sources in question violate some aspect of our policies on verifiability and reliability. Citations 15, 16, and 17 are user-generated polls that lack scientific rigor to defend their data. The data themselves can be misleading because of this lack of rigor, to say nothing of any conclusions that are drawn from them. Citation 23 may be acceptable to use as a source because it's a statement by a particular individual about their own opinion, making it straightforward to draw the conclusion that they indeed have that opinion. Citation 26 is a primary source that is being interpreted to draw a conclusion in violation of WP:OR, notwithstanding its flaws as an actual source because of its nature as a primary source. With that, I must tell you, M.Billoo2000, to not let any of this discourage you. Whether I or any other user disagree that the article meets all of the GA criteria in its current state, as ThrettanJuni noted, you've done an extraordinary job getting it to where it is already. GA criteria are indeed rigorous by design—they represent some of the most high-quality articles we have on this encyclopedia of millions of articles. You're clearly able to reach that level with a bit more work and effort, though. For another opinion about the reliability of these sources, you may wish to consult those at the reliable sources noticeboard, who are more experienced with issues like this. Best of luck! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Salmon of Knowledge: Hi. I went through your opinion more than once but I am unable to understand it completely for now.

• One concern was the fan-voting; three journalists on Twitter called the polls independently (refs 15, 16, 17); two more journalists also reported other polls in external media publications (refs 13, 18). All happened in different years since the song released.
• And please do not call it a dispute, it was merely a disagreement as stated at the 3O and already mentioned below as well. Disputes go at the WP:DRN. A basic Google AI search says, "A disagreement is simply a difference of opinion, whereas a dispute is an active, unresolved clash where one party formally challenges or rejects another's claim. Nature: A disagreement is passive (e.g., "I like chocolate, you like vanilla"). A dispute is active (e.g., "You owe me money for the damaged fence")."
• The disagreement was further about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for the lead's second para, which I tried justifying from the other references inside the reception and legacy section, not only by focusing on Twitter refs only.
• The performances are definitely primary, but those are published by the secondary sources like ARY Digital, Kamran Tessori, and ARY Zap/Mishoo Travel Vlogs (refs 12, 25, 26, and an image). ARY Digital in their video title also calls it an "all time favorite", as also stated above. Two videos from 2022 and one video/image from 2025 definitely are here to support the claim that "Zafar also used to perform the song during his concerts in subsequent years". Plus another performance in 2024 (ref 27). This was not the concern of the 3O, but I replied because I do not understand the reason of your emphasis on ref 26.
• While there is no local reputable music chart in Pakistan, commercial performance can only be judged using the available resources.

Please elaborate your concern(s) but in quick points or paragraph. Because apparently it seems that my concerns as raised remain un-addressed and the opinion was largely confusing. Please do not mind; sorry and thank you. M. Billoo 18:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: Thanks for the reply. I must note that the question I was addressing in my response was whether the sources scrutinized in the GA review—to wit, the five sources ThrettanJuni mentioned—were actually unreliable, that scope having been ascertained from how you worded your 3O request. I looked over other concerns that didn't relate to those sources because they fell outside of that stated scope. If you'd like for me to provide my opinion on those other concerns, I'd be happy to do so, but right now, I'll focus on trying to elucidate my initial response by addressing your points one-by-one.

One concern was the fan-voting; three journalists on Twitter called the polls independently (refs 15, 16, 17); two more journalists also reported other polls in external media publications (refs 13, 18). All happened in different years since the song released.

Fan-voting was a concern because I considered the Twitter polls to have amounted to user-generated content, which has a slew of problems not limited to selection bias, forced choices, and other methodological failures. That would hold true regardless of whether the people who ran those polls were journalists or did so independently, as it's not journalistic rigor that's expected, but methodological rigor, and however independent it is from what's being gathered wouldn't serve to ameliorate the inherent flaws of user-generated content.

At the risk of being presumptuous, might you be confusing my points on user-generated content with my points on self-published sources? User-generated content is generally viewed with even less regard than sources that are self-published because there's almost no guarantee that the facts or data collected thereout are sound, to wit, free of bias or inaccuracy. I mention this because even though the use of self-published sources by sources deemed reliable themselves could support that quality in the former, that's largely a byproduct of the fact that there'd be few other means to determine that; to make that argument would beg the question of whether citations 13 and 18 are actually reliable, to say nothing of the fact that this also wouldn't address the flaws of user-generated content, which is what was distinguished in my earlier response.

About the sources being published in different years from each other, I'm not too sure about the significance of that. If you're using that to support the independence of the sources, what I wrote earlier would apply there as well.

And please do not call it a dispute, it was merely a disagreement as stated at the 3O and already mentioned below as well. Disputes go at the WP:DRN. A basic Google AI search says, "A disagreement is simply a difference of opinion, whereas a dispute is an active, unresolved clash where one party formally challenges or rejects another's claim. Nature: A disagreement is passive (e.g., "I like chocolate, you like vanilla"). A dispute is active (e.g., "You owe me money for the damaged fence")."

I understand where you're coming from, and if you don't want me to call this a dispute, then I'll try my best to avoid calling it one. For the sake of posterity, I should note that disputes on Wikipedia have a looser meaning than the definition you provided. When searching for it, I couldn't find a distinction between the terms disagreement and dispute as they're used on this platform. In fact, I found them to have been used almost interchangeably, such as throughout WP:DR. At any rate, I couldn't find any mention of the active and passive nature of the two terms in any major dictionary's definitions of the terms. Personally, I would trust that there isn't one more than I would trust Google AI saying there is.

The disagreement was further about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for the lead's second para, which I tried justifying from the other references inside the reception and legacy section, not only by focusing on Twitter refs only..

I have to admit that this falls a bit outside of my scope here, which is simply to elucidate the response you replied to about the reliability of select citations. That's to say I hadn't looked into your arguments, sources, and relevant policies regarding the lead section's section paragraph as much as I looked into them regarding the five citations mentioned in the GA review. I'm sorry if this seems abrasive. For what it's worth, I can offer these general remarks: for something to be considered original research via synthesis, you'd have to form conclusions by combining information from multiple sources. Those conclusions wouldn't be expressly stated in any of those sources, but inferred from them. For instance, if source A states, "This song has been voted the best song by Alice," and source B states, "This song has been voted the best song by Bob," it'd be from synthesis to conclude, "This song has been voted the best song by multiple people since it's release," as none of the sourced mentioned any time frame.

The performances are definitely primary, but those are published by the secondary sources like ARY Digital, Kamran Tessori, and ARY Zap/Mishoo Travel Vlogs (refs 12, 25, 26, and an image). ARY Digital in their video title also calls it an "all time favorite", as also stated above. Two videos from 2022 and one video/image from 2025 definitely are here to support the claim that "Zafar also used to perform the song during his concerts in subsequent years". Plus another performance in 2024 (ref 27). This was not the concern of the 3O, but I replied because I do not understand the reason of your emphasis on ref 26.

The publishers you named appear to be the usernames of those who posted the primary sources on platforms such as Dailymotion and Twitter, not sources in and of themselves. To clarify what primary and secondary sources are, primary sources are firsthand accounts of an event. They include sources like videos, diaries, and photographs. Secondary sources are secondhand accounts of an event. They interpret primary sources and include sources like books, journal articles, and documentaries. Given this, citation 12 would still be considered a primary source because it's the direct publication of an event. I can't see what primary sources it interprets, so I can't agree that they're secondary sources. Instead, are you trying to say that those sources corroborate your claim that Zafar performed the song following a certain period? If so, rather than providing multiple sources from which you can infer that claim, you'd have to provide a source that expressly states something to that effect to not violate WP:OR, mentioning both the frequency and time period he'd perform it. I don't see that in your reply.

While there is no local reputable music chart in Pakistan, commercial performance can only be judged using the available resources.

Perhaps, but this doesn't supersede WP:OR, nor does it give any leeway in its application. An article would still be barred from combining statements from multiple sources to infer a conclusion even if that's the only way to for substantive conclusions, as that wouldn't affect its nature as original research and would still incur all the flaws original research brings in terms of lack of rigor and unverifiability. I don't think this can serve as an argument for why it didn't violate any policies, only that those violations should be countenanced, which is an entirely different topic with issues of its own.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted any of your points or if this wasn't an adequate response for you. To close, I'd like to note that I'm simply giving my personal opinion at this point. If you disagree with this, you can always go along other dispute resolution processes such as bringing this up on relevant noticeboards or making a request for comment. In any case, I wish you good luck, and if you need any more from me, just let me know. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It appears this dispute is just over whether or not the article passes the GA criteria, not over a specific dispute over what the article says. Discussion of whether or not something passes or a review is adequate should be taken to Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations, not WP:3O. I've therefore removed it from the list. If I'm misunderstanding the nature of the dispute, please explain here and re-list at 3O. meamemg (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Meamemg: whether or not the article passes the GA criteria, not over a specific dispute over what the article says Hi. In response of your this statement, I would say that the disagreement, not a dispute, is about the quality of the sources and their inclusion. My 3O application said it already. GA criteria will be the secondary issue once the disagreement resolves. Therefore, I am reposting the application which was removed with a misunderstanding. Thank you. M. Billoo 20:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• @ThrettanJuni, Meamemg, and Salmon of Knowledge: As of this reply, I have reworded the prose without removing the context. Two more points according to the article's prose to deny the call for OR and SYNTH:

• Journalist Arfa Feroz conducted poll soon in 2019, and concluded later in 2024 as well. Fans had voted "best", he also called it "best".
• Journalist Zainab Sabir Mir compiled poll in 2023. She concluded with fans voting it "best" and "OG".

Please check, thank you. M. Billoo 21:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Please also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Tweets from journalists at reputable sources. Also please note that the reception and legacy section has been more expanded since the concerns were raised. The tweets may be opinions but are used here under WP:INTEXT WP:ATTRIBution, and not in wikipedia voice. And, the article does not solely rely on the tweets only, but many bylined articles which are not cherry picked also support the claim that is made in the lead section, thus it is not WP:UNDUE and it is complying WP:NPOV. Thank you! M. Billoo 01:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• @ThrettanJuni: I have tried asking twice that you please discuss this matter. I am going to proceed a new GAN with my updated version. If you revert without responding here, then I am going to have to file a complaint against you at the WP:ANI for WP:DE. Thank you! M. Billoo 17:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @M.Billoo2000 My sincerest apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I recently relocated several hours away from my hometown to start a new job, so my availability over the past month or so has been quite limited as I get settled in.

  Thank you for updating your references. Your recent edits are the right direction for the article's overall quality. However, since this review is concluded, I will be stepping back from this page.

  You are fully within your rights as an editor to re-nominate the updated version at WP:GAN whenever you feel it is ready. Since you chose to submit a new nomination, it will enter the standard queue and be picked up by a reviewer in due course.

  Again, I apologize for not responding. I wish you the best of luck with the updated nomination and the continued improvement of the article. ThrettanJuni (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)