Talk:Geocaching/GA3

Unsuccessful. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 00:28, 5 March 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: MOnTheHunt (talk · contribs) 16:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk · contribs) 19:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Starting my review. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I’ve chosen not to quickfail this nomination because I think a thorough review might help you know where to begin improving this page.

Sourcing: There are whole paragraphs without any references, which fails WP:V and WP:OR. This is a must-fix before the article could come anywhere close to being a good article. The reference list is also pretty poor. There are dozens of references to geocaching.com, which borders on WP:LINKFARM. The use of geocache websites, local news, and local laws is also not good. The article should rely on reliable, independent sources with reasonably broad audiences. If you can’t find a suitable source for a certain bit of information, that’s usually a good sign not to include it.

Copyright violations: Looking further into the sources makes things even worse, because the article directly copies information from some of its sources, like this one: . This is definitely in violation of Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

Writing: The form and structure of the article needs to be rewritten, because it has some unfortunate blog-like and user-generated problems. There’s a heavy amount of trivia, external links, and references to dubious sources. Parts of the article feel more like they’re intended to be a beginner’s guide than an encyclopedia entry.

I recommend focusing on rewriting the article from the ground up, removing unsourced or poorly sourced information if necessary. The gaps in the content should be filled in based on the sources that you are able to find.

When writing the page, you should focus on defining geocaching and explaining its history in broad terms. Finer details about methods and practices should not be included unless it is necessary to provide a broad overview, and then only if reliable sources discuss it.

I’ve included some recommendations for improvements below. This isn’t a comprehensive list, and improving these would only partially bring the article up to GA status. It’s a good start though, and will help you understand the types of changes you will need to make.

Lede

The first paragraph of the lede may be the best part of the article right now. It’s reasonably focused, mostly sourced, and explains itself clearly to readers. The second paragraph is a little weaker, it goes into unnecessary detail.

Geocaches

The list of ‘Geocache types’ is much too long and detailed. When you try listing every type of something like this, you end up with an article that is overwhelming while still being incomplete. It might be painful, but this list should probably be removed and replaced with a more general overview of what geocaching is.

Technology

I recommend merging ‘Geocaches’ and ‘Technology’ into a new section titled ‘Overview’, perhaps with a few reasonable subsections.

Ethics

This section is very short and doesn’t seem necessary for the article, if you must include it, maybe merge it into ‘History”.

Reception

This section again seems trivial. Minor incidents of arrests or false alarms related to geocaching don’t have a place in the article unless the sources show that they had a lasting impact. While it’s possible that the reception of geocaching warrants its own section, I see nothing in the article to demonstrate that.

Laws and legislation

This section does not provide a global overview of laws related to geocaching, it mentions three U.S. states and one Canadian province. That might be an impossible task, so I would advise removing the section entirely. Information on the broader strokes of geocaching’s legality (on a national and international level) can be added to ‘History”.

Notable incidents

This section should be removed, since it’s basically just a magnet for trivia. Local stories of incidents or misadventures related to geocaching don’t belong in this article. Any truly notable incidents would belong in ‘History’.

Websites and data ownership

Again, this section is overgrown with trivia. The history of the earliest and most influential websites can be added to ‘History”. Lists of WP:External links to geocaching websites don’t belong. Moreover, it looks like some promotional info or at least fan content has worked its way in over the years, like these:

The largest site is Geocaching.com, owned by Groundspeak Inc., which began operating in late 2000. With a worldwide membership and a freemium business model, the website claims millions of caches and members in over 190 countries and all seven continents including Antarctica. This really isn’t appropriate for a good article.
The Opencaching Network provides independent, non-commercial listing sites based in the cacher's country or region. The Opencaching Network lists the most types of caches, including traditional, virtual, moving, multi, quiz, webcam, BIT, guest book, USB, event, and MP3. The Opencaching Network is less restrictive than many sites, and does not charge for the use of the sites, the service being community-driven.
Terracaching.com aims to provide high-quality caches made so by the difficulty of the hide or from the quality of the location. Membership is managed through a sponsorship system, and each cache is under continual peer review from other members. Terracaching.com embraces virtual caches alongside traditional or multi-stage caches and includes many locationless caches among the thousands of caches in its database. It is increasingly attracting members who like the point system.

That type of information is totally inappropriate for a good article.

Final notes

I’m failing this article because I don’t see how this could be easily brought up to standards in time. If you spend some time working on it, it might get there eventually.

I think that the article should NOT be renominated until ALL of the above issues are addressed. This will take a lot of work from whoever decides to edit and renominate the page, but isn’t too hard if you have time and are passionate about the topic.

The last two nominations failed because no one put any effort into improving the article, this one is also failing for the same reason. Let’s make the fourth nomination a little better. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

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