Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ove Almborn/1

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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. Silverseren^C 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.

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.

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. Silverseren^C 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)

• 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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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? Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 16:16, 7 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? Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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)

• I already made fixes to the two things you brought up two months ago and I said as such back then. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 22:29, 9 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. Silverseren^C 21:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)