Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 38

My comments from the previous discussion:

• We need highly skilled coordinators, not just for the upcoming drive, but for other drives in general. "Skilled" here means someone who has brought several articles to GA status or have completed several high-quality reviews. I don't think that the quantity matters in this case, I'd rather just want to see people who know what they're throwing themselves in. I appreciate the work that others have done in the past, but the job of coordinators is not just to tick off reviews, but also to completely go through them and check if they were done in a good manner. I'm not saying that this was not followed in the past few drives, but I have more trust in skilled users following this rule than those who are less experienced.
• The goal of the newbie drives is to mostly gather newbie GAN participants / potential reviewers. Not long-standing ones. Newbies are our main target audience. We need to emphasise that here (on the GAN talk page), watchlist notice, and the mass message that will be sent to new GAN participants. My plan is also to promote the drive on large, active, and relevant WikiProjects.

@Reconrabbit, Kline, and LEvalyn: we have agreed that the mass message should be sent on the 25th (week before the drive). Same should be done to WikiProject notices. A short notice can be sent on Wikipedia:Community bulletin board. A watchlist notice should be put up on 1 June. The WP:GAG will also run on 1 June and will notify the subscribers.

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

We can modify the message I created (comments are welcomed). @Mike Christie: can create the mass-message list for us. This list would preferably contain editors:

1. who have performed a good article review this year
2. who have participated in the last backlog drive
3. who have nominated an article for the good article status this year but have not performed any reviews

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the message, the first bullet point should probably read Are you a newbie and want to become more experienced in the GA process? (emphasis used only to highlight the addition). Everything else looks good to me. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Also it looks weird to me that these are all bullet points. Why not:

Are you a newbie and want to become more experienced in the GA process?

• On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
• Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.

Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.

If that third criteria is also being used (nominated an article this year without reviews) why not also add that to "you are receiving this because..."? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've modified the barnstar sentence to match the previous backlog drives. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

How about a third bullet, "Mentors are available, and new reviewers get bonus points!" ? I also wonder if many people who count as 'newbies' for the drive may not self-identify as 'newbies' in the context of receiving the message, what about just having "Want to become more experienced in the GA process?" as the first line? Thanks for kicking this off, it's coming together well. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Great thinking to specify <6 reviews in the bullet! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0: I saw your ping, but I don't have the mass-message sender right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 did it last October according to logs. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

At your service. :) Does this need doing now or on the 25th? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

25th. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Word. If someone could put in a request at WT:MMS as usual with the details, that would be great, and I can take care of it! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

We need to generate a mailing list first. I don't know how though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I found the mailing list that was used for the previous backlog drive: Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2025/Mass message list (it's from October 2025, though). We need a new one. This should include editors

1. who have performed a good article review this year
2. who have participated in the last backlog drive
3. who have nominated an article for the good article status this year but have not performed any reviews

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I will work on this today, thanks for digging up the previous one. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Any progress on this, @LEvalyn:? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it took me a bit to figure out the process, but I've started it at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2026/Mass message list and have added all the participants from the previous drive. I'm currently trying to work out how to find the folks who have reviewed or nominated in the last year, to add them too; if anyone can point me in a useful direction, I'd be grateful. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I asked Mike Christie to work some ChristieBot magic for that one the first time around. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, would you be able to assist again? To save you reading the whole thread, I'd love a list of everyone who reviewed or nominated a GA in the past year. Also happy to be pointed in the direction of some instructions if this might be something I would work out how to do on my own. Thank you! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

See below -- is this what you're looking for? Or do you want it without the usernames linked? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow... that's a lot of editors. I think that's what we neeeded. Thanks, Mike. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike, this is exactly what I needed! @Vacant0, I've added them all to the mailing list now, so I think it's ready to be used. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adding relevant WikiProjects. After that, I'll send off a request. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Just sent it out! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hurray, thank you! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I've requested a watchlist notice to run until 3 June. Is there anything left to do before the drive starts, @Reconrabbit, Kline, and LEvalyn:? What do you think? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we've prepared well enough -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I think we've gotten the word out as best we can. kline / talk / contribs 19:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're good! As a reminder, I will be unavailable the first two weeks of the drive, but when I come back June 14 I will join in with evaluating reviews. Looking forward to it! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

So just to be clear, this is still on? It's my understanding that all of the coordinators have threatened to quit indefinitely on a moment's notice if asked to do so, and this fact has been touted as leverage in two different places on that page. It would screw over a lot of people, especially newbies, to start this and then abandon it half way in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The union busting layoffs that have already happened have screwed people over in a far more material way than any hypothetically-abandoned GA review drive could. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

A lot of things would screw people over less than that, but that's a strange rationale to say they're good ideas. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to hear from the coordinators whether their approach to the drive or the procedures around it have changed in the last week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you could step up as a coord, since you won't be participating in any future collective action. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The solidarity pledge expresses willingness to participate in collective action if it is called for. Of course, one always hopes that management will be willing to act in good faith before a strike is actually required, since strikes are (intentionally, by their nature) highly disruptive. I remain willing to withdraw from the drive partway along if an editorial strike actually occurs. I am confident this is true for all of us, since we were already coordinators when we signed. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I probably know some people that could replace us in case if the collective action starts during the drive, so I don't think it would be an issue. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think many editors would see that as scabbing. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

After a second thought, true. I think we should avoid that situation. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is the general purpose of a strike. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Can someone put Talk:At the Time of the Louisville Flood/GA1 back into the queue? I have addressed all of the concerns raised by User:Caeciliusinhorto, but they are unable to finish the review. It needs a new reviewer. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I've reset the GAN for you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you submit a GAN under more than one subtopic? Because some topics could clearly go into more than one, and doing so would draw more attention to those GANs from people interested in those topics. Gatoclass (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe so, no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why they shouldn't be? Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

One reason I could think of is that they're all listed on the main GAN page which already has over 1000 nominations. Listing the same nom more than once would just make the page unnecessarily long and is already hard to scroll through if you're on mobile and even desktops. Vestrian24Bio 10:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

There's an alternative listing which categorises them already. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

And they are listed as Wikipedia:Article alerts for all of the WikiProjects that apply. —Kusma (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi folks, apologies for this, it seems, though, that the page I'm working on was automatically failed on account of a page move; I'm pretty confident this wasn't done by the reviewer, as they haven't responded to my notices today on the topic. I wasn't sure how the page move of Fumba Town to Fumba Free Economic Zone was going to affect the nomination in source, but will admit that I was expecting issues. Any assistance would be appreciated.

My thanks in advance, CSGinger14 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

That has been a known issue for a long time and I certainly don't know if it can be fixed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You didn't move the GA review, so the review is no longer associated with the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Tbhotch has now thankfully fixed that. CMD (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

TIL something new. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I announced sometime ago that I would be working on creating an intuitive, standardised layout for the good article lists, which are somewhat confusing and inconsistent in their formatting. I had been busy, but I hope to resume this project. I wanted to leave a notice here in case anyone has any objections; otherwise, I'll assume no one cares (there seemed to be no objection to my previous work). Here is a rough template for how I will go about sorting things, if anyone is curious.

Topic:

• Broad, overarching subdivision of topic (e.g. countries to geography or world history to history)^a
• Major subdivision(s) of topic:^b
  • Relevant articles that cannot be categorized further (without heading)
  • Subdivision(s) of major subdivision^abc
  • People associated with major subdivision^a
  • Study of major subdivision itself^a
  • People associated with study of the major subdivision itself^a
• People associated with topic^a
• Study of the topic itself (books, academic fields, etc.)^a
• People associated with study of the topic itself^a
• Miscellaneous^a

a — if applicable

b — Alphabetised

c — if done by geography, an em dash will be used to denote its status, but only then (e.g. "North American history – United States" but not "Road transportation — cars and motorcycles", as "United States" is not an intuitive subsection title but "Cars and motorcycles" is)

There are a couple specific areas regarding these lists and their general organisation where I would greatly appreciate some community feedback, but I'll probably make separate posts for those. — An anonymous username, not my real name 17:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'd like to recommend separating the articles with a • (or ●) instead of an dash (en- or otherwise), because we have articles that have dashes in their name, so it is very confusing to identify where articles are separated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would definitely support this, although I'm not sure about what would need to be modified to accomplish it. In a similar vein, I would really like to do away with listing names as Last, First, as this style does not work with all naming conventions, leaving us with a weird mix where you might see "Doe, John" and "Wang Yong" on the same list (my preference would be to alphabetise all names as they would normally be written in their native language, ideally with the assistance of a bot). In both cases, I would appreciate more feedback from editors to see how much support there would be and the help of anyone with the technical knowledge to get these changes implemented. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would support this. I wouldn't support firstname–lastname for Western names, as imo making it wrong is worse than keeping it inconsistent. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Also, can you fix the fact that often the title names have em dashes where, imho, I think they should have en dashes? I am not bold enough to do it myself. For example:

  Miscellaneous buildings — United Kingdom

  Miscellaneous buildings – United Kingdom

  The first (current) one just seems strange to me. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JacobTheRox, I was actually the one who did this. Grammatically speaking, I'm not sure either is correct — a colon is probably the proper way to introduce defining elements. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• I do not think it is particularly helpful or desirable to make a completely systematic GA list. Apart from the fact that a hierarchical sorting of everything is a fool's errand (which is the reason why encyclopaedias have been alphabetical for a couple of hundred years instead of giving a systematic overview), the level of detail in our coverage of different things is so widely varying that a systematic approach is going to look odd (and probably inconsistent, actually). A better question than "what is systematic" or "what is consistent" is "how do people use the GA lists and how can we make them more useful". Personally, I only use the GA lists when passing a GA review and have not had problems with them for that purpose (I usually find the section I need to use quickly). More subsections and more hierarchy would make the GA list harder to use for me. —Kusma (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think our opinions are at odds with one another whatsoever. I am going to reorganise the existing list in a way that is logical to me, and I presume at to least a few others. Since you don't care how it's structured, you have nothing to lose here. I for one agree that the whole concept of these lists and categories is quite silly; I just want to make them somewhat better, seeing as they already exist. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  The current structure has emerged unsystematically because it is a result of local changes in particular topics driven by the writers/organisers of those topics looking at the articles we have that are GAs rather than some abstract theoretical categorising of what could be a GA. Others do care how these are structured. CMD (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm currently reviewing a nom, and I've found lots of source-to-text issues as can be seen here Do you think it's a solid ground for a quick fail? I remember seeing a GAN review somewhere (I forgot what article it is) that that is the case, but I'm trying to align with the general practice of veteran reviewers here. If you found that many source-to-text issues, would you QF it under the long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria? Or would you still assess the other criteria and put the review on hold if they have no major issues? AdaCiccone (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick fail usually means that you don't complete the review and just get closed. This is usually for housekeeping (like the article is obviously not suitable for GA from a glance), one of the defined reasons, or for things like copyright violations or similar. If we are simply saying that the text is not backed up by the sourcing, especially after you've completed a review (or part of a review), I don't think that's a quick fail per se. It's very possible that the sourcing could be fixed (sometimes with news articles the actual text is superseded or updated, which could have happened here and a suitable archive needs to be found).

However, if you can't get the sourcing issues resolved in a timely manner, it's easy enough to close the review. It won't hurt being open for a couple more days. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It depends on your judgement. A quickfail is you saying that you don't think the article can be improved to GA status within the review, without you becoming too WP:INVOLVED with the article. If you do think the article can be improved to GA status and you can remain impartial, put it on hold. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both for clarifying. I think I'm gonna complete the review rather than QF-ing it. The article has a narrow scope with a good (albeit small) source base, and the main issue is that the article's wording often goes beyond what the sources say. A hold is preferrable here in order for the nominator to address that and the issues I raise later (if any) regarding the other criteria. AdaCiccone (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

fwiw, the GA process is there to improve articles. I tend to think that if a review benefits the article, it's worth doing. Quick fails should be for places where it has either negliable help to the article, or you're basically fixing an article for someone else. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

With this many issues, I probably would have failed it outright (as others have noted, that's not the same as a QF). In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This discussion seems relevant. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

(crossposted to wt:UKT from wt:GAN)

Hi all. I have been working on two articles, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and British Rail, as part of the the Core Contest. These are now at a length of 12300 and 9200 words respectively as of me writing this. I want to bring these articles to GAN before I consider FAC, mainly because I think that it would allow any FAC from a better position of the article having been reviewed against some criteria. I did consider doing PR instead, but I think that I'd prefer to come here.

However, I think that if I just add these to the list of nominations, no one in their right mind would volunteer to review them, because it is a mammoth task. I was wondering if anyone, or few people, would be interested in working through this at some point? Sadly I can't offer to help review (because I am the nominator lol), but I can offer many many many reviews of other GANs in return. Equally, if anyone has any very long and complex articles that need a review, I will happily do that as well. I will be on a Wikibreak for most of June except for urgent queries (idek what that would be), but after that I will be around to respond to comments and do reviews.

Thanks for your time as a community as always. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

User:JacobTheRox: I will review the British Rail article for you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

BTW, this wouldn’t be some quid pro quo. I’m willing to do that GA because the topic is interesting, and I have the time since school is out for the summer. I don’t expect anything from you in return, but if you were interested in doing any of my GANs, there are plenty to choose from. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The reviews will be picked up by someone at one point. From my experience, if the article is long, it can take months. Depends on the topic, of course. Sometimes you'll wait shorter. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've found that bigger articles on important topics often get picked up quickly. I don't think you'd be waiting long for a review of Brunel. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I boldly made a post over on the German wiki's Good Article discussion about our three longest nominations in the queue. They're outliers in the wait time (over a year!), and I assume many of the sources being in German is a reason. This is for Eberhard Aurich Eberhard Aurich, Franz Rydz, and Hans-Dieter Fritschler. Posting here as an FYI. Edittttor (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I haven’t reviewed them because of their nominator’s review/nomination ratio. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a place where this ratio is tracked or do you need to do some sleuthing to find this? Edittttor (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I use User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms and sort by age, and then pick up older nominations from editors with R/G ratios higher than 1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, I hope a reviewer might be found on de-wiki or during the backlog drive. Personally I have opted against reviewing Eberhard Aurich and Franz Rydz because my gut instinct upon a first read was that they seemed fairly short given the subjects' career lengths/significance. I don't mind working with non-English sources (and Germanic languages are easier for me than others), but the language barrier + my general unfamiliarity with how to access relevant East German archives makes 3a much harder to definitively evaluate. Zzz plant (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am a German teacher, so I can maybe take a look at them once I have finished with the two GANs I have in process. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out what a mentor means by doing "visible" spot checks. Is this just listing which source i've checked? or is it something else? I can't find anything on the instruction pages about visibility. How am I meant to show that I've checked a source? Is there some kind of system for this? Am i missing something obvious? EmergentAnarchy (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi EmergentAnarchy! Welcome to the GA review process and don't worry about missing anything- making the spot check visible just means leaving a paper trail on the review page so people can see what you verified. There is no single mandatory system for it, so you have plenty of flexibility! Some people use the Veracity user script. Personally I list out the refs I've checked next to the text, with symbols Y/?/N and a brief explanation if needed. So for me it would look something like this:

[1]: "Jean was born on June 2, 1970 in Paris, France." - Y

[2]: "Mary was born on July 2, 1970 in Melbourne, Australia." - ? verifies she was born in 1970 in Australia, but I'm not seeing the specific day/month or the city.

[3]: "Nadia was born on August 2, 1970 in Moscow, Russia." - N source appears to be about a completely different person and doesn't verify these birth details.

And then I'd just repeat for however many sources I spot check. It depends on the length/complexity of the article, but I often end up checking ~10 sources for text-source integrity and close paraphrasing. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want, as long as you make it clear you’ve done spot checks. I find the Veracity script helpful for formatting, but in the past have simply checked a few sources and said “I’ve checked eight citations, no issues” in the GA review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Quick question: Are anonymous/IP editors allowed to submit GA nominations? Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Any significant contributor can nominate an article for GA status. There isn't a rule excluding TAs/IPs. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The review for Talk:Balatro/GA2 was obviously improperly done. There was only one suggestion by the reviewer and their overall review took around 30 minutes. User:Boneless Pizza! has commented on this as well and was the one who alerted me to it here. This should be vacated. Jon698 (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

1. No listing of the sources reviewed
2. Almost each section of the review is one sentence long
3. Only one suggestion offered
4. There are two citation needed tags

Jon698 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked at some of the sources reference 31 claims that the soundtrack was released in March 2023. However, it does not state that in the March 2023 section nor can I find that in any other section. Jon698 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There are also errors in the references themselves. Reference 34 says that it is the Wall Street Journal, but clicking on it takes you to Bloomberg. Jon698 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Reference 91 does support "Within eight hours of release, the game had made over US$1 million in gross revenue" and instead states that the game sold over one million copies across a month instead. Jon698 (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I blindly clicked on ten links in the References section and found two major errors and one formatting error. Jon698 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

their overall review took around 30 minutes - this statement is false? they started their review at 19:32, and made their last comment on reference integrity at 04:27? ~ A412 ^talk! 08:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

2:32-3:00 (28 minutes) + 11:11-11:28 (17 minutes) = 45 minutes. I would be willing to assume good faith had any specific sources been reviewed or if the review wasn't so incredibly short. Jon698 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 have you tried to communicate to the reviewer about your concerns? How do you know they only spent time on the review when making edits? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, though since they were pretty clear that it was their first review I hope that they take this as a spout of constructive criticism. TheBritinator (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, when I promoted an article to GA, I accidentally selected the wrong category. I have fixed it here: Special:Diff/1358504645. Will the bot relist the article in the History category? Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

No, you'll have to do it manually, but it's not hard, just copy paste. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Premeditated Chaos -- copy and paste what to where? (EDIT: Oh of course, I would need to copy and remove from the old category page and paste to the new one right?) Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The article listing on WP:GA. Edit the source and just take the entry from the wrong category, and put it in the correct one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The GA review of Faneuil Hall was taken up by a relatively inexperienced reviewer, who, to their credit, has acknowledged as much. The reviewer failed it based on the criterion WP:GACR#3b, but I disagree somewhat with their reasoning, and have explained as much on the talk page. The main sticking point was that the article seemed a bit too detailed to them. While I have trimmed some of the more minor details, I think an article of ~8,000 words is not egregious per WP:SIZERULE, especially given the building's long history and its historical associations, and would like a more experienced reviewer's input. (Courtesy ping to @Ilov3gam3z, the original reviewer.) – Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to offer to review it for you, but it looks like the situation has resolved itself. Let me know when you take it to FAC and I'll be happy to review it there. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to flag a request for a second opinion at James Buchanan. Second opinion can either be on the narrow questions at play or on the article holistically. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Right now, GA is pretty perennially backlogged, and while FA obviously doesn't have a dearth of work, they're doing okay – I've found personally that I have a much easier time getting reviews at FAC than at GAN. I wonder if we should be encouraging people who (1) plan on going to FAC anyway and (2) don't really need a GA review to help them get there to just skip GAN and go directly to FAC when they feel ready. This is something that nominators can do already – I did it with Menora v. Illinois High School Association, for instance. I was thinking of doing a mass message, thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

(OPPOSE). What does it say about the status of a GA if someone can, or thinks they can, bypass it and go straight to FA? I would recommend that no article can be submitted for FA unless it is already passed as a GA – not merely 'of sufficient merit to pass the GA assessment process' in someone's opinion Billsmith60 (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is, we can only submit one FAC at a time. I have sent articles to FAC without going through GAN first. Sometimes the article sat in the queue at GAN without being picked up. I have lots of articles sitting in the GAN queue that should eventually go through FAC/FLC, but I'm just biding my time because of the "one per customer" policy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Nominators can do this already. Whether every nominator should consider doing this is a different matter, and a mass message to that effect should be discussed with the FAC coordinators rather than here, as it is essentially a prompt to shift reviewer burden from GAN to FAC. CMD (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Those who know, know; those who don't know, don't know enough to need to know. It is better that inexperienced editors think that GAN is a necessary stepping stone to FAC; actually experienced editors will have worked out it isn't required by their second or third nomination. At that point, they'll be deciding whether they benefit from such optional processes by themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the thing is that lots of people get into the habit of running things by GA, driving up GA's backlog unnecessarily. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, its significantly easier to bring an article to GAN than to FAC for most people, because FAs have to be comprehensive while GAs only need to be broad, hence why GAs don't have to be over 1000 words long. Not to mention the need for high-quality sources, the need to follow the MOS, consistent citations, very professional and formal writing, etc. The main reason why only one FAC can be nominated at a time is due to the fact all FACs get transcluded onto one page, in order not to break the WP:PEIS, hence why there are other rules, like not using most templates. JuniperChill (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of GA nominations have no plans to go on to FA, so I’m not sure what this would achieve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

And the vast majority of GA nominations are nowhere near FAC-ready. Not to be encouraged - many GA nominators who have never done an FAC won't be the best judges of whether they "don't really need a GA review to help them", & if done this would just transfer the backlog to both pages. Those in the know can do it anyway. Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

FAC is badly backlogged. Not only does it take three months or more for to get an article through FAC, but, as Bgsu98 notes, the true backlog is much higher due to the one-at-a-time rule. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel lucky if I can get an article through FAC in a month, but a month and a half has been more my experience. If it were to take upwards of three months, I probably wouldn't bother. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a matter for Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates or Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria, I'm not sure which, but it certainly isn't a matter for this page. Why not? Because the group of people who decide what can become an FA are a different group of people from those who decide what can become a GA. There may be people who are in both groups (and there probably are) but being part of one group is not a prerequisite to being a member of the other. Neither group is subservient to the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

What? They're is minimal correlation between FA and GA, as they as a much higher quality gap. Besides, FAC is equally as backlogged for reviews. TheBritinator (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to flag this one for potential re-insertion into the queue: Talk:Washington State Ferries/GA1. SounderBruce 03:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@SounderBruce that editor may be waiting for an experienced reviewer to take a look at the review before they take final review action. The article is listed in the June backlog as needing an experienced reviewer here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/June_2026#Reviews_that_need_an_experienced_reviewer Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 15:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I noticed a few of our new reviewers are completing their reviews without the GANReviewTool script. When following the instructions for PASS or FAIL, there isn't anything about archiving the review with {{atopg}} or {{atopr}}. I've updated those instructions and will follow up with users that have manually closed their reviews. If you are helping new reviewers, consider mentioning how the userscript streamlines the process of closing reviews, or otherwise help ensure the page gets archived. Matthew Yeager (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There isn't anything about using the archive templates because they aren't required. CMD (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

not to mention that the tool gives me the option to disable the archive templates although the vast majority keep it checked JuniperChill (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Matthew Yeager, in the future, please consider checking at this page before enforcing something unnecessary. I have reverted your addition to the instructions. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, all, I agree that archiving isn't required. Its optional use in the userscript helps show that while not mandatory, it is common practice. For users not using the script, how do they become aware that archiving is an option? If the instructions aren't the right place, where would you direct someone to learn more about the process?

Proposed text: Optionally, you can archive the review by placing {{atopg |status= |result=Passed. ~~~~}} below the header ==GA review==, and {{abot}} at the end of the page.

Matthew Yeager (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It's common because the script put it as a default, rather than a documentation of existing practices. Archiving is an option for any discussion on en.wiki, but it is not usually needed. New reviewers do not need to know this is also specifically possible here, especially as we want to keep the instructions as simple as possible. CMD (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm the one that caught Matthew Yeager's attention, I have since added the script, it's simpler. Details like this are nice to know about. WhaleFarm (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm reviewing Thuggee at this moment and I see none of the images have alt text. Now, my question is, are alternative captions a requirement for GA status? Criteria 6 only says 'have suitable captions.' Amir Ghandi (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Alt text is not required to pass a GA review, no. I always recommend it in the review if it's not already there, but it is not part of the criteria. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• As per Dr. Orin. It's definitely nice to have, and I recommend it, but it's not a criterion and shouldn't be a sticking point in any review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

As the editors above me have correctly stated, it is not a requirement. There was a suggestion to make it mandatory a few months ago, which did not gain consensus. TompaDompa (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

UFC Freedom 250 is happening in two days and has just been brought to GAN. Am I right in thinking that this article should not be here per criterion 5, because in two days' time the article is going to need to be significantly changed? JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Governmentshutdown2026 I've just noticed actually that the only comment on the review is request to withdraw nomination and update article status. If the user has created the review page to ask how to withdraw then this can be easily solved. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the article would definitely fail GAN due to the edit war, leading the page to be (fully) protected. Its also a quickfail under QF#4. The lead of the article is also very short, relative to the length of the article JuniperChill (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox: The bot might be preventing removal? Yea GA Nomination Withdraw or just "fail" it right away. Update the article history or something that show that is withdrawn since there too much issues on the page. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UFC_Freedom_250#GA_review Governmentshutdown2026 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content § RfC: Non-free pre-death photos of deceased individual low-profile victims in articles about primarily their own deaths. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

They have nominated multiple articles for GA then started the review pages themselves, so they all need to be deleted most likely.

1. Talk:MacOS/GA5
2. Talk:MacBook Neo/GA1
3. Talk:Apple Inc./GA1

-- ZooBlazer 08:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, this has been sorted by Bgsu98. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 13:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I failed them, but also submitted them to CSD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I first thought of deleting them, but on another look I don't think it's really needed. The reviews have been closed and I think that's enough. The nominator can re-nominate them if they want to (and if they meet the requirements). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think deleting them and removing them from the article history of the relevant articles are both appropriate; Slackintosh does not appear to be a significant contributor to any of these articles, and has submitted all three to the WikiCup as GA reviews, which will surely be disallowed under Cup rules. They should not be renominated by Slackintosh because they are not a significant contributor. Bgsu98, you may not know this, but it's important to add noinclude tags around the G6 template on review pages so that, since the review page is transcluded on the article's talk page, the deletion message doesn't show up there; sometimes both the review page and the top page get deleted by admins rather than just the review page, and this prevents that sort of accidental deletion. I'm in the process of doing this to the three review pages here. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted the three pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius is always on top of things, and surely will disallow those from the GA WikiCup. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I reviewed these submissions and agree that they are not eligible for WikiCup points at this time. I've also left a message at the user's talk page. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I've just wrapped up a prose review on The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and me and the nominator (Courtesy ping @Piotrus) have come to a disagreement on whether an aspect of prose runs afoul of the Good Article criteria or not. In the second paragraph of the "Second edition" section in reception, I believe the section of prose that starts with "Similar endorsements were offered by..." runs afoul of criteria 3, since I feel it goes into unnecessary detail by including a number of superfluous reviews that do nothing but affirm a prior statement. Conversely, the nominator believes this section to be necessary for comprehensiveness, since all the reviews hail from reliable sources and policies like Wikipedia:NOTPAPER justify that there is no reason not to include the number of sources listed there (Piotrus, feel free to clarify or expand your argument here in case I got something wrong).

Currently we're deadlocked over this and I would appreciate an additional outsider opinion on this, since this is a small prose issue and something I do not feel should stall the whole review. Any and all thoughts are appreciated on this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I can offer some input on the review page, as I have worked closely with the nom before and somewhat understand their perspective, but I would encourage others to also weigh in. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look. The first thing I noticed is that this is a wordy style preferred by younger Wikipedians, and it's one I've seen used just about everywhere by younger editors. I don't prefer this style because, like the reviewer, I tend to find it unnecessary. However, having seen this thing many times before, I think there's a legitimate difference in approach and style to reception sections and this is a good example. I don't think this runs afoul of the GA criteria, but it is annoying to older readers like myself who did not grow up with this style or find it attractive. The easiest way forward (and a possible compromise to boot) is to move everything after "Similar endorsements were offered by..." to a footnote. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Does it satisfy WP:NPOV to have lengthy discussion of the positives found by reviewers, with an extensive quote farm, while summarizing only more briefly the negatives without any quotes of them and then summarizing the paragraph on negatives with a dismissive reference to a positive review? Does it satisfy WP:SYN to order the material on negative quotes in this way, as if to endorse in Wikipedia's voice the dismissal by Kessel? I'm skeptical. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't exactly place a finger on the name of the fallacy the nom is using by claiming he doesn't have to declare a conflict of interest, because Wikipedians writing the 'Wikipedia' page also have a conflict of interest. Somewhere between tu quoque and whataboutism. Either way, in my opinion there is definitely a conflict of interest, and therefore the nom should be extra receptive to feedback about NPOV and the reception section. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I need a bit of help here. Gavetheman555 (talk · contribs) nominated The Man Who Sold the World (song) but three things are at work. One, Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (song)/GA1 has been open since 2020, as it was nominated as a drive-by and never closed correctly. Two, when Gavetheman555 nominated it earlier today, the bot reopened the old review. Not sure how to appropriately close the old one so that the bot opens a new one at GA2. And three, Gavetheman555 doesn't meet the primary author criterion, so this might be another drive-by. I tried to fix this in several ways but nothing worked so I reverted to the original, yet to be closed review. If someone could close GA1 and then figure out what to do about GA2, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've closed GA1. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Since Gavetheman555 will need to re-nominate, I've asked them to discuss this with the primary author first. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The nominator should have discussed with the primary author first. Good job on finding this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like they may co-nominate. Can someone tell me how that is usually done? Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The co-nominator should be mentioned in the |note= field. (There isn't a technical process that registers co-noms, the GAN will be attributed to the user listed in the nominator field.) CMD (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Is User:Mike Christie the point person on this? I believe DYK solved the co-nom problem a long time ago by splitting the process into multiple author fields. I assume the same could be done here. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It might be possible to adapt the bot to credit conominators, but this is something I would first want to see a consensus on from the GA community before thinking about how it might be implemented. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Problematic references in multiple DYK nominations by same nominator where multiple instances of severe source-text integrity problems and close paraphrasing were found in articles created by User:RabidTuberculosis. I note that User:Dclemens1971 has failed Talk:Maria Olenina-d'Alheim/GA1 and User:WhaleFarm has failed Talk:John W. Townsend Jr./GA1, in both cases for similar close paraphrasing problems. WhaleFarm has placed two other nominations on hold, Talk:William Sirignano/GA1 (on which I happen to have a COI) and Talk:John A. Manke/GA1. Beyond those four, current nominations include Livia Accarigi, Chieko Hara, Amadu Bansang Jobarteh, Eduard Langer, Cold spot (astronomy), Joshua Bandfield, Carl Grillmair, amd K-RadCube. Given the significant issues maybe we should have a wider discussion to head off a potential repeat Doug Coldwell situation? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I failed the one article, and put the other two on hold. I belive they are all fixable, and should be, as the subjects are important to cover. The writing shows, I believe, a rush to turn out articles, and insuficient care. There are a lot of good references in all three articles, but not always lined up appropriatly with the matching text. I'm hoping User:RabidTuberculosis addresses these issues, I'd love to pass the GA. WhaleFarm (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that Rapid tuberculosis has been active on wiki in the days since being pinged here and on DYK talk without really addressing anything while actively removing requests from their talk page. Therefore, this is feeling like an increasingly intentional WP:NOT HERE situation. TheBritinator (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheBritinator- In the past 4 days, I have worked with Rabid on 3 articles, he has made major improvements to all three. From our interactions to improve those articles, I beilve Rabid has acted in good faith, and is tyring to be a good author. Let's give them a chance and the benifit of the doubt. They have been very welcoming to changes, criticism, and advice.

Please look at the edits made to John W. Townsend Jr. John A. Manke for example.

now - the Wikipedia:NOT HERE is a strong claim.

Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business

? hard to figue out self interest served in historic NASA figures

General pattern of disruptive behavior

None observed

Trying to score brownie points outside Wikipedia

again, inconsistent with the data

Treating editing as a battleground

Very accepting of indeas and input

Little or no interest in working collaboratively

I have observed the oposite

Interest in gaining as many user rights or "awards" as possible (or overly focusing on rights in general)

no sign of any advantage, does seem very interested in getting articles to GA, but is that bad?

I'm going for Wikipedia:Assume good faith WhaleFarm (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

While I am happy to observe that they are making improvements to articles, I have to disagree with your overall point. Consistently having big issues with your articles could be considered a breach of care and actively ignoring requests to comment, like on this and DYK, is very much leaning towards a lack of interest in working collaboratively. If we're going to compare this to Doug Coldwell like David Eppstein has, then Coldwell also nominated articles that had glaring issues, got failed, fixed some (debatable), and barely ever responded to talk page messages or wiki discussions, I'm seeing parallels here. I've been assuming good faith on the DYK nom of theirs a couple of weeks ago now but the lack of communication is not helping. TheBritinator (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

What you have seen is not universal. Please scan Talk:John W. Townsend Jr.

I failed GA

rabid did major rework

the interaction on the second go was collaborative. I was more than satisfied with the responses.

I have not checked other submissions but on three the work and results were appropriate.

Rabid has also committed to further expansion and improvement of these articles. It’s surprising that Townsend was never covered until now. Given the turmoil that science funding is going through, and the dismantling of NOAA NCAR etc. - having the first director of NOAA with an WP article seems important. I would like to see it expanded and similar holes filled in.

Let’s find a way to positively steer this interest WhaleFarm (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I respect your opinion on this matter, but I would like to see additional opinions. TheBritinator (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

My interactions with RT have been limited, but my impression is that they are acting in good faith, but they may not understand what is going on or realize what they are doing. On at least one occasion, they have responded at one of their nominations and tried to make changes, it just wasn't enough. This seems to be more of a WP:CIR issue than outright bad faith. I hope an editor could actually leave them a proper talk page message and ask them to change their ways, because regrettably I can see them going to ANI if this continues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree. ANI may unfortunately be a consideration if this pattern of behaviour continues. TheBritinator (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello all, apologies for latency. I'm a bit overwhelmed by the discussion across multiple pages but will do my best to address the concerns. My principal aim is to improve as an editor and contribute thorough, high-quality encyclopedic articles, particularly on subjects or historical people that have been overlooked. Until recently, I'd received minimal feedback on new articles and was thus operating mostly on my own understanding of WP policies and best practices.

After being recommended to submit Carl Grillmair to DYK, I started submitting new articles to DYK. Two have been published, but others received thorough scrutiny, including much that surprised me, being the first time I received thorough review since beginning to contribute regularly ~8 months ago. While most mistakes were minor, some involved close paraphrase or copyvio, and some reviewers in particular were spooked that there could be a systematic issue across articles, seemingly informed by past experience with other users. I regret if I've given that impression at all, and I understand the cause for vigilance.

I've attempted to explain my edits or sourcing in detail across multiple DYK pages. I've corrected most issues on most articles, although I am aware of 2 that will require more detailed revision. Certain reviews have been cynical, accusing me of AI use for instance, or appear phrased to garner wider attention or elicit alarm than to really help me improve. Candidly, I've felt a bit overwhelmed, as my responses have been often met with a cascade of further criticism rather than actionable feedback or responses, and some did not address detailed responses I made in good faith, making it difficult to understand how/why certain editorial decisions were misses. I've taken everything in stride because I believe that even cynical feedback is an opportunity to improve, and I apologize for the time it's taken reviewers to write feedback.

Recently, I was made aware of GAN and nominated a few articles that I thought were most thorough. I received incredibly thoughtful and detailed feedback from @WhaleFarm and learned a lot about close paraphrase (a policy I'd misunderstood), source synthesis, etc. in the process. Since then, he's helped me improve 3 articles to GA status. I strongly believe any mistakes in past articles can be remedied pretty quickly, and future articles should all be of the highest quality. I have held off on submitting new GA nominations since the initial batch, but I think the nominated pages are all mostly there in terms of quality.

As ever, I am seeking to improve, and I do best with detailed, optimistic feedback. Apologies for being a cause of concern. All the best, RabidTuberculosis (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This reply feels AI-assisted. Since LLMs have a problem with close paraphrasing, it is plausible that AI was used. ~2026-25675-74 (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean to suggest that RB used to AI to write this response, or that they used it to create the articles in question? Not that I'm suggesting that its true, just trying to clarify. TheBritinator (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think their response was entirely LLM-generated, they just added some AI polishing. Most of the reply is alright, it looks like something a human would write except for a few artefacts and the last paragraph that screams stereotypical AI email.

Since LLMs are notorious for close paraphrasing and the main issue with RB's editing is close paraphrasing, I think they did use AI ~2026-25675-74 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm a better writer than any AI. I hope my attempt at a thoughtful, measured response is not "felt" to be the output of an LLM. Excessive closeness in some past work was my fault, since paraphrasing a series of appointments or achievements from a single source makes it easy to run afoul of copyvio; I've corrected this by synthesizing multiple sources when writing. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I really don't see any compelling evidence of that. Let's continue to assume good faith here. TheBritinator (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The last paragraph is quite consistent with the previous areas. If that was LLM, it’s likely all LLM, which I find unlikely. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I ran a test. I took the NASA relase of John Townsend, which was the CLOP for rabid's first dump of the article (the one that I failed). The copyvio score is 54%, but a quick scan showed what I considered a lot of similarity.

I had chatgpt turn that NASA bit into a bio, put it in a sandbox User:WhaleFarm/JT test . I added a citation for that NASA article, and ran copyvio. It only logged it at 36.7%.

I think this was classic paraphrasing. Some of it is always going to look like paraphrasing; any bio is going to look a lot like a obit, especially the lists of positions, employment, education etc. There are only so many ways to state appointed by A to run the x division of the y corporation.

Take a look at the sandbox. There's a bunch of LLM slop and drivel, but the overall sturcture is OK, and not very similar to the NASA bit. WhaleFarm (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@RabidTuberculosis, whose reviews do you believe were “cynical”? As someone who provided good-faith reviews of several of your DYK noms and found extensive source-text integrity issues at each of the ones I marked for closure and close paraphrasing in one of them, I do not care to have my reviews potentially described as cynical. Please be clear about which reviews you are referring to. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

DCL, I would read RT's comments above as thanking you for your reviews. I don't see any point in digging any deeper about which reviews were cynical, but I think some of the comments were beyond what was needed to help RT improve.

Maybe I was too nice and lenient, but I would note that we're volunteers here, and we should be welcoming to all of this free labor. RT is contributing. I've certainly made bigger screw ups. Let's celebrate and welcome. WhaleFarm (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Calling reviews "cynical" is an assumption of the reviewer's bad faith. My first experience with this user was one of asking for missing citations to be added, and then re-approving the nomination after that was done -- and only spot-checking sources once source-text integrity issues had been noted by another editor, and then only because of the oddity of RT citing a single page number for several different claims throughout the article. If I'm not editor being accused of cynicism, then who is? Throwing around accusations like that is a failure of WP:AGF on RT's part and will make it harder for RT to regain the trust of the DYK/GA community. I've certainly made screwups myself and been given sometimes harsh feedback for them, but one can receive feedback from others without accusing them of acting cynically. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think he was accusing you. I look at your responses, they were very responsive and appropriate. He seems to have taken them well.

I don't know if cynical is the right word, but there were some comments that seemed counterproductive. WhaleFarm (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I posted in Wikipedia:Good_article_mentorship a couple days ago looking for an experienced reviewer to provide critique my approach to Talk:Tamara_Bunke/GA3, especially the issues I outlined in the "content gaps" section of my review (scroll to the bottom). I've decided to ask here as well for more visibility.

My questions are, basically: am I overstepping in my feedback, and, if so, how can I improve? I'm also open to drive-by comments if you don't have much time to dedicate to mentorship but still have some thoughts to share to help me improve. Thank you so much — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 23:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Chao Garden, if you're still looking for help the day after tomorrow, I'll be able to help. Just busy tomorrow IAWW (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @It is a wonderful world, thank you so much. If you are still willing to help, I would love your advice on the review. This evening I'm going to complete a spot check (which I originally stopped when I had source questions & content feedback). — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 02:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Another editor has offered to mentor. But also, if you happen to have any additional feedback or criticism for me, I'm open to any drive-by comments (here, on my talk page, where ever). No worries, either way; I appreciate your offer. Thank you again — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 05:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me up-to-date. I'll prioritise other nominations needing experienced attention since someone else has kindly stepped in. However if help is needed again just ping me and I'll help when I can. IAWW (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

For GA criteria 2, should the absence of page numbers in citations (for books) be noted in a review? Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It depends. If the absence of page numbers means you are unable to verify through a spot check, mention that. If you are able to verify even without the page numbers, you might mention it but I wouldn't fail over it. CMD (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

For books (at least, books that do not obviously have the cited claim as the main topic of the entire book), I would definitely at least note it in a review, as CG asks. What the consequence should be for not addressing the note is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the verifiability criterion is not met if it is not feasible for the reader to check through the entire source to find if the text is supported IAWW (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's tricky because the sources are offline, so I need quotes provided for source verification / integrity anyway. Those quotes are pending. If they are able to provide them, then that seems like verification criterion pass to me? But either way, I commented that I highly recommend adding the page numbers. Also, in my spot check of online sources, everything I checked was accurate. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 14:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't pass if the books were big and the nominator refused to add them (very unlikely), however it's worth noting that this question comes up semi-regularly on this talk page, and different reviewers have different opinions on how to treat that situation. IAWW (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I’d ask politely. Sometimes, you give the book to someone else or donate it to the library after using, and then you have to wait a while before getting it back. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

We have review circles already, but I have a potentially better idea for easily(ish) getting GAs:

A group of five or seven editors (they don't have to know each other prior, in fact, this may be preferable) works together on getting an article to GA. With 5 editors, 3 work on that, with 7 editors, 4 work on that. After they think they are done, they send messages to the other editors, who go through the article and the criteria together to determine if it passes, and, if not, to help fix the mistakes. Ideally, each person would have one request for an article to improve, and they would rotate.

This has several improvements:

1. Low fail rate, as the reviewers would be trying their hardest to get it to pass.

2. Faster, as the number of editors working in tandem gets thing done more easily.

3. Neutral on the backlog, as the group would review itself.

4. More thorough, as the reviewers would be looking for different qualities and the editors would each vet everything carefully.

Any thoughts? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea within WikiProjects, because I think it will only really work among people who know each other and the subject material. However, some projects, like the UK Railways project where I hang out mostly, are quite solitary, so I couldn't see a huge uptake from us but you never know. Other projects I know can be very communal like the Doctor Who WikiProject, so you'd probably see more interest from them.

My second thought is that some people are just better noms or reviewers. For example, I have reviewed quite a few articles for MRSC who never does any reviews in return, but I don't have a problem with that because both nominating and reviewing are equally as important for the project, and people should focus on what they want to do and are good at. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 00:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. I was informally talking about a similar idea about ten years ago. I even came up with a roadmap for it, but it's buried in my sandbox userspace history and I'm too lazy to find it. I hope something like this eventually gets rolled out. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

GMTA. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Putting this here for the notifications. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox, @Viriditas: Should we add this discussion somewhere else? Should we ping people in review circles, or is this canvassing? _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 04:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Your biggest enemy here is inertia and culture. I mean, look at the main page. It hasn't changed in forever. This place attracts people who don't like change. The best way for you to see something like this happen is to make it happen yourself. Find people who are interested in collaborating on something like this and then push it from the bottom up. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei: They expressed support for a similar idea related to collaboration in general in 2025, now on the Wikipedia:Editor reflections page. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you want to join this endeavor? Are there any people you'd like helping? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(Again, I'm getting ahead of myself):

Anybody who want to participate, please sign below. Pings to @JacobTheRox, @AirshipJungleman29, @Viriditas, @Nephellium, @Linux Luvver. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I'm really busy with a lot of other projects right now, but I'm willing to be a consultant of sorts who can provide limited feedback when I'm pinged to a review. I kind of like difficult questions, so if anyone gets stumped over something or finds themselves in a jam, I'm happy to be pinged for an opinion during a review. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That’s a shame. Are you expecting them to clear up over the summer? Do you have any recommendations for invites? _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Mariamnei, up above. She didn't respond to the last ping. You may want to contact her on talk. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If you ever want to help or send in a request, you’re more than welcome to! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be happy to participate once off Wikibreak, but as I have said before, I am sceptical about reviewing articles which I am too unfamiliar with. I guess the two options are:

• You have a team of 6 reviewers all from a very similar background and focus area, and they work through articles in that scope
• You have a team of 6 reviewers from very different content areas, and then each review is likely to have at least one person familiar with the topic to help lead on areas more specific.

JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 06:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wikipedian12512! I think I will only help occasionally, as I am on a "race" to make as many Annonaceae-related articles as I can. I'm going to be more available over the summer, I hope. Nephellium (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(Ping to @Myceteae). _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Most of my work involves creating and editing redirects and participating in behind the scenes discussion, especially RM, RFD, and talk pages of articles of interest to me. I don't think this is something I would participate in. Most of my direct edits to articles are minimal. I have zero experience with the GA process. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I already have a few people (from real life) whom I would plan to do this with (courtesy pings to @Nephellium and @Linux Luvver).

I would prefer more. At least two. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 11:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, as long as you don't run into conflicts of interest between nominator/reviewer, or peer pressure to avoid negative criticism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. The whole idea kinda depends upon that. I think we could do it, but there would need to be rules (e.g., an experienced GA reviewer/nominator must be in the group to ensure it is done correctly). _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that it is worth piloting, and I would be glad to participate! Yet two issues come to mind:

1. I'm not sure how much I could help improving articles in subjects that I'm less familiar with. How can we ensure that the editors in the group are a mix of experts (who would be responsible for the content), and non-experts (who help with prose, neutrality, and spotting jargons unclear to broader audience)?

2. I also wonder how we can keep the group dynamic supportive without it ever drifting into rubber-stamping each other's work, simply because we all want each other to succeed! Maybe it would help if at least one reviewer per group came in fresh, without a prior working history with the nominator, so there's always someone approaching the article purely on its merits? Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Both ideas are good!

My answers for them:

If we can get enough people, we can (hopefully) find enough experts in each subject to get groups. Alternatively, on a geography subject, that might cease to be a problem.

For the second one, my solution would be to have the nominators help get it higher than just a basic GA, but yours works too.

Thanks! _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 12:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like it could work. Let's try it as a pilot and see how it goes! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay! :)

Any requests to start with? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

A user (who is now indefinitely blocked) opened a review of my nomination: Talk:Reine Audu/GA1

Is there a way to delete the review page completely (so the GA counter is "reset")? If that can't be done, could it be reassigned to a willing reviewer? (I can try to find one) — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 04:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 04:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I put in a second opinion request a week or two ago and one hasn't been forthcoming. I expect it might be a hard sell, as the article's pretty long and the GA review isn't particularly short itself. How long should I leave it open before going by my impulse of GA fail? I don't see much guidance on the question, so thought this forum might be helpful. Thanks! Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you potentially need to wait for someone with some prior knowledge or understanding of US history in order to comment on whether the article in NPOV, which means you're probably best asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United States and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History or individually reaching out to editors in those fields. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 09:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll definitely do that. I was wondering if you had any thoughts or guideline you could point me toward on the material. While the concern I have is on NPOV, in trying to explain the difference of opinion between myself and them, I saw that the two nominators were both drive-by nominators (at time of nomination, lower than fifth-highest contributors). I also got the impression that at least one of the nominators may not have access to the key sources used on the page. When I made that comment, they didn't respond either way, so could be wrong and the source spot-check did check out (though again, that was mostly pre-existing material not supplied by nominators). This is for the article James Buchanan.

While I'll definitely do as you advise in going to an expert third party, I hoped that someone more entrenched in GA could give their two cents on this area both, 1) what if it was a driveby nom at time of nomination (but reviewer didn't realize) and 2) what if it seems like nominators aren't able to refer to sources in the same way that reviewer can. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I started the review of Big wall climbing, which I listed under reviews needing an experienced reviewer.

There is a lot of good material in the article, and the illustrations are excellent, but I do not think it is ready for GA. My main concern is breadth rather than just cleanup. It assumes a fair amount of climbing knowledge and does not explain the subject very well for a general reader.

Thin areas are the development of protection and equipment, fixed ropes and hauling, clean climbing and the bolting/chopping disputes, safety and rescue, access and permit issues, and the environmental history of big-wall climbing. The grade-milestone section is largely a list without explaining what the progression meant. I also think the choice of notable walls is uneven.

It looks like more than copyedit to me, but I would like a seasoned reviewer to opine on hold vs fail with encouragement. This nonminator has been very active in the climbing area, definatly should be encouraged. Appreciate the help. WhaleFarm (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but you are asking the nominator to go into unnecessary detail already covered in daughter articles. I think you are bringing your personal need for technical understanding to a topic that would lead the nom to violate 3b, so it's a bit of a pickle. When a similar concern about one of my past articles came up in this regard, I was asked as the nominator to gloss the topic points. It sounds like that's what you want the nom to do, but I don't think it deserves to be failed in its current version. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

WhaleFarm, you wrote in your review that the article "does not yet explain big-wall climbing very well to someone who doesn't climb. It needs more on how the climbing is actually done, how much gear is involved, how the equipment and ethics developed, and what happens when things go wrong." I don't think it does. That would definitely violate 3b. If there is something specifically that confuses you and needs a gloss, ask the nom for it. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that including ethics, environmental impact, rescue costs, in an article on climbing would be unnecessary detail? WhaleFarm (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's avoid leading questions. I would recommend opening a line of communication with the nom, sharing your concerns. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the comm is open, all of this is in greater detail in the ga1 talk. If the nom says he can address or discuss my concerns, I' more than happy to hold and then pass WhaleFarm (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The SOP is to state your concerns and put it on hold. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would not want to read 12 links to follow the flow of article. The 3a issue is that many well documented, notable issues, such as permiting, rescue, environment are underweighted. There's also a Wikipedia:ONEDOWN issue. You have to be pretty versed in climbing to make sense of this article.

I climb (or did), but this article wasn't easy to follow. More prose, less jargon would help. @Viriditas I would love hear how it read to you. Another opinion on the article prose would be insightful. WhaleFarm (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It reads like a general overview of the subject. The narrative can be tightened and worked on for flow, but not seeing anything deserving of a quick fail. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@WhaleFarm, can you add some linebreaks or something to your review? It's a massive wall of text right now. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

good point, I should have looked at it in preview, not just in the edit. I keep forgeting that source to view eats line breaks. See if this helps. If still too dense, I can break further. WhaleFarm (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I don't really understand what you mean by the article seems to be written mostly for people who already seriously climb - I do not seriously climb, and I can read it, and I don't think someone who seriously climbs would get much out of this. Queries like It lists haul bags, portaledges, ropes, food and water, but does not give the reader much idea of how much equipment is involved. How heavy might the load be for two climbers spending several days on a wall? How many haul bags might they have? Water alone is a major load. don't make much sense to me either - I don't have any idea what size or weight a "haul bag" is anyway, so this number wouldn't be meaningful to me. And again with At present, the article covers remote walls around the world but says little about access, permits, closures, power-drill rules or fixed-anchor policies. I wouldn't expect this article to say any of these things, and if it did, I would be requesting that they be removed, as trivia. It's not a guidebook. Though I agree that "Evolution of grade milestones" doesn't explain much and probably should.

Which is to say, I think you're expecting a much more in-depth article than a general reader would, and I don't think the article should be failed for the reasons given. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is what I imagined:

=== Impact and ethics ===

Early big-wall climbers relied heavily on soft-iron pitons hammered into cracks. Many were left in place, while others became stuck or were later cut off, leaving metal and visible scars in the rock.[cite] Bolts were also used to climb sections with no natural protection, but climbers disagreed over how many were acceptable. Some routes were heavily bolted, then partly “chopped” by later climbers who thought the bolts unnecessary, only for some of them to be replaced again.[cite]

By the 1970s, nuts and later spring-loaded cams allowed climbers to protect without hammering and the damage. This helped establish the idea of “clean climbing,” in which removable equipment was preferred.[cite] Royal Robbins was one of the strongest voices for limiting bolts, less damage, and leaving routes in a condition that preserved the challenge for later climbers.[cite]

These arguments never produced a single set of rules. Climbers have continued to debate when bolts are justified, whether old bolts should be replaced, whether electric drills should be allowed, and whether removing another climber’s bolts is acceptable. Land managers regulate some of these practices,power tools, wildlife impact, magazines discuss.. Yosemite....[citations] WhaleFarm (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Instead of three, recommend one small paragraph or several sentences added to the history section. However, a GA does not have to be comprehensive. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like maybe you want to collaborate on this article? You can always join in with the nominator and leave the GA review to someone else. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the nominator? If not, why not? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

No response to date WhaleFarm (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"to date" meaning in the twelve hours since you finished your review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

actually 3 days, but can I get back to the origonal question.

I started on reading this about a week ago, it's an area of interest, and the nom had several articles up for GA. I took the GA review 3 days ago, and posted asking for an assist in the June backlog. No experienced reviewer has taken it.

I looked at the breadth of other similar articles. I believed this was 3a. Obviously that is a point of opinion. The breadth, neautrality and balance of, say, Everest climbing is much better.

I then looked at the June drive fails. There are a lot of quick fails for issues that could have been worked through on a hold.

Given this, I came here for advice.

I would love to hear "typically, if a task of size X can get to GA, we hold" or "fail only it apears that no attept to understand critiera" or ??? WhaleFarm (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You can fail a GA review if you believe that the issues that need solving are bigger than a seven-day task, basically. Since the idea is that a nominator is given seven days to make any fixes necessary. (In practice, nominators get much more than this, but I still find "can someone be reasonably expected to fix all of this in a week" to be a good rule of thumb.) But in order for it not to be a quick-fail, you'll need to actually complete the review. That is, you would need to address each of the GA criteria and state whether the article passes or fails them and, if it fails them, point to the reasons and what needs to be done to improve it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article and I certainly don't think it should be a quickfail: everything is cited and those citations look okay to me, though some have formatting issues, the worst offender probably being:

Czech free-climber Adam Ondra scales Yosemite rock wall in record time (The Daily Telegraph)

The other thing I noticed is that references have been used to add things to the grade milestone lists, but there isn't a citation for those being the list of them, i.e. there could be other ones that haven't been included. If this is a complete list, it should have a reference to a source listing all entries; if this is the kind of thing where there is no complete list, that should be explained imo, and {{incomplete list}} or {{dynamic list}} can be added depending on the circumstance.

However, these are all things that can be worked with by the nominator, who doesn't seem to have replied yet on the GA page. Therefore, the article should be placed on hold like most imo, and you can work through any issues. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 09:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)