Talk:ChatGPT/GA2

Overall

Initial review of the article against the Good Article criteria.

Lead

The lead contains a large number of citations. Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are usually placed in the body of the article, the lead summarizing material cited elsewhere. Some of the citations, especially the ones on market acceptance and definition of a gpt, seem redundant to ones in the body. I think it would read easier if the lead was a simple summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleFarm (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed the sources that seemed less relevant or important, let me know if we should go further. Keeping a source for the "5 most-visited websites globally" statement can be good because ChatGPT is currently at the 5th place which could easily become outdated, so it's good to have a source for verification. Alenoach (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Length and structure

The article is quite long. Some sections (such the "Model version" section, where there is redundancy with the sub-headings) appear to contain a level of detail exceeding summary style. It may improve readability if some of the detail were condensed or moved to a dedicated sub-article, the main page then summarizing the key developments. American tech personas is a sub-heading, but somewhat lost by its distance from the heading. Starting out as in politics was clearer, maybe continue, or “Reception by American tech personas” as possible ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleFarm (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

is within what GA guidelines indicate. I will change the section heading. Czarking0 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Prose

The article is readable and understandable to a broad audience. It avoids a lot of ML jargon. Some sections, particularly those describing model releases, read more like a release log than like an encyclopedic narrative. A more summarized description of major developments would improve readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleFarm (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources

I spot-checked the sources, all seemed well-formed and appropriate. Use of archives is good.. Some sources are older than the language and tense used in the text would suggest. For time-sensitive topics such as the Financial markets section, the prose may need to be written in historical terms, or supported with recent sources when the context implies current relevance. Both may be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleFarm (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Made adjustments to the financial markets section Czarking0 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Images

Images appear appropriate for the article. However, the Time magazine cover (File:The AI Arms Race Is Changing Everything.webp) may have licensing issues. Magazine covers are typically copyrighted and should be used on Wikipedia under a non-free content rationale, not public domain. This file needs review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleFarm (talk • contribs) 20:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This image was previously discussed (may have been off wiki or at least I am forgetting where the conversation was) and the individuals I spoke with indicated this particular magazine cover was public domain due it being too simple to copyright. However, I also do not think it is critical to the page and could be replaced. Czarking0 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Stability

The article appears stable.

Overall

The article is generally well written and covers the topic broadly. Issues noted above relate to structure, sourcing age, and a possible image licensing issue. These are all fixable. I will place the article on hold to allow for improvements.

Model section

@Alenoach: this review does not look favorably on the model history section. As you know, I also do not love it. Given the review what are your thoughts on removing this section or converting to a more brief prose summary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarking0 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the table is useful to have a quick overview of the model history. It's more efficient and easier to visually parse than prose. I can improve the end of the table, which lacks descriptions and has a "citation needed". I don't know though if niche variants like o3-mini-high deserve a row in the table.

In my view, the problem is the subsections below. Having independent subsections for some of the models like this lacks cohesiveness and is quite redundant with the table. Using excerpts also means we have less flexibility. I suggest removing the subsections (integrating any really important information into the table's "description" column) and maybe adding below the table a summary of the overall trends in model development.

Would be interested to have your opinions on this proposal, Czarking0 and WhaleFarm. Alenoach (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I made some change to the model descriptions in the table. Alenoach (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed the subsections. Alenoach (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Overall, I think you make a strong argument for why this should not be prose. I see reason in dropping more niche versions like o1-preview. List of Nvidia graphics processing units has tables that I really like. Though that is a listicle. An alternative proposal would be to make a listicle and then reference it in the article.

I have no issue with your proposal to remove subsections and add info to the table. That could be done either in the article like it is now or in a listicle. Czarking0 (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)