Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Getting this to a Good Article state

After few years, I have come back to the article and made a variety of significant edits, mainly simplifying the overall layout. My goal would be to get this article to a state where it can be nominated to a Good Article and a Featured Article - seems worthwhile given the importance of the event as well as this article being in the Top 100 visited articles.

I'm not sure how much time I can invest into this of course, but seeing a variety of activity from others recently inspired me and I thought I'd start a collaborative checklist below. Feel free to edit it further, or cross out things that are done!

• Update the Background with key information about RBMK and the ChNPP.
• Update the Impact section with information about impact on Soviet Union (some of it may be moved from the Socio-economic impact section?)
• Reconcile the Long-term effects section with the Effects of the Chernobyl disaster article. There is significant overlap but also differences, and I believe the section would benefit from trimming down details.
  • Pet peeve: The table in Release and spread of radioactive materials; moreover it omits many countries, the primary source of the secondary source cited has more lines, but I think a map would be better. The popular one seems copyrighted and I'm not sure if it'd fall under a non-free use exception, I tried to ask the EC for permission... Pasky (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Revisit each remaining section with further-information or main-article link and make sure that each such section only provides key summary in the main article and details are moved to the specialized article.

Pasky (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Grammar

The first sentence of the sub-section "Fuel-containing materials" has a grammatical error. The first sentence reads "About 95% of the fuel in reactor No. 4 at the time of the accident." This is obviously not a complete sentence. It is unclear to me what the original literary intent of this clause was. This half-sentence could be removed without impeding the reader's understanding of the following text. CALPHone (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

Under the "In popular culture" section, it says THQ produced STALKER, this is not true GSC Gameworld, a Ukrainian video games developer, produced it. Wikipedianikolas (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done The article doesn't say THQ produced the game, it says it released it, which according to the game's article would appear to be true. With that said, I'm of the opinion that a video game's developer is usually far more responsible for it than its publisher, so I added a few words that include GSC's role. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Getting this to a Good Article state

After few years, I have come back to the article and made a variety of significant edits, mainly simplifying the overall layout. My goal would be to get this article to a state where it can be nominated to a Good Article and a Featured Article - seems worthwhile given the importance of the event as well as this article being in the Top 100 visited articles.

I'm not sure how much time I can invest into this of course, but seeing a variety of activity from others recently inspired me and I thought I'd start a collaborative checklist below. Feel free to edit it further, or cross out things that are done!

• Update the Background with key information about RBMK and the ChNPP.
• Update the Impact section with information about impact on Soviet Union (some of it may be moved from the Socio-economic impact section?)
• Reconcile the Long-term effects section with the Effects of the Chernobyl disaster article. There is significant overlap but also differences, and I believe the section would benefit from trimming down details.
  • Pet peeve: The table in Release and spread of radioactive materials; moreover it omits many countries, the primary source of the secondary source cited has more lines, but I think a map would be better. The popular one seems copyrighted and I'm not sure if it'd fall under a non-free use exception, I tried to ask the EC for permission... but actually we'd have to get permission also from Ukrainian and Russian governments, seems possible but a tall order.
• Revisit each remaining section with further-information or main-article link and make sure that each such section only provides key summary in the main article and details are moved to the specialized article.

Pasky (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2025

158.47.227.99 (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Dosimeter Accuracy

Reading "a dosimeter capable of measuring up to 1,000 R/s", I was wondering what this dosimeter could be. The best high-range dosimeter at the time that I could find mention of was the KDG-1 (КДГ-1), which is listed as capable of measuring 1,000 R per hour. 1,000 roentgen per second seems like an absurdly high number. 73.30.58.104 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Fizzled nuclear explosion hypothesis source interpretation

The article states that "The energy released by the second explosion, which produced the majority of the damage, was estimated by Pakhomov and Dubasov to be at 40 billion joules, the equivalent of about 10 tons of TNT.[47]" This seems to imply that the totality of the second explosion was 10 tons of TNT-equivalent, when it was stated mere sentences earlier, under Explosions, that "The [second] explosion is estimated to have had the power equivalent of 225 tons of TNT."

A more likely interpretation of the source [47] might be that 10 of the 225 total TNT-equivalent tons of energy released in the second explosion could have been accounted for by a fizzled nuclear explosion.

This interpretation is supported by the authors' phrasing here in the abstract: "estimation of the nuclear component of the instant (explosion) energy."

Amended phrasing suggestion: "The energy released by the nuclear fizzle component of the second explosion, which produced the majority of the damage, was estimated by Pakhomov and Dubasov to be at 40 billion joules, the equivalent of about 10 tons of TNT.[47]" Anyoldguy (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Radius versus area of exclusion zone

The article states that the exclusion zone originally had a radius of 30 km, but was later expanded vastly to cover an area of 2600 square kilometres. Given that a circle of radius 30 km has an area of over 2800 square km, it is clearly wrong to suggest this being increased to 2600 square km.

Is there an error in either figure, or did an author conflate radius with area?

I have not edited the article, as I haven't the facts, but something is evidently amiss. Ché (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The Zone has an irregular shape. So it is now considerably more than 30 km in its longest dimension. But for most directions the actual distance across the Zone is less than 30 km.Sredmash (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The Unpeaceful Atom of Chernobyl source

My edit marking this source as questionable was recently reverted by @Sredmash with the justification that the source is written by a famous scientist who personally made the discovery.

However, I cant seem to find an official version of the article "The Unpeaceful Atom of Chernobyl". It appears to be a Russian journal article with the name Немирный атом Чернобыля for the Человек journal. But I can't find any article with this name on the journal's website, and their archives only seem to go as far back as 2015. When using search engines only dodgy-looking third party websites seem to have the article (the Russian wiki page for Konstantin Checherov [ru] cites this website which is definitely not the original place the article was published.) Veryspecific (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point. Most articles published in journals are not freely available via URL.Sredmash (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, most articles are not freely available but they usually still have a url that confirms their existence (example) even when they have not been fully digitized (example)

I would like to know if there exists any confirmation online that the article was published in said journal at all.

If there is not, I would be content with just adding the original Russian title and journal to the reference and moving on (and adding a link to one of the websites hosting the text). But if possible an official url confirming the existence of the article would be nice. Veryspecific (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Russian attack on outer protective "sarcophagus"

Please add something about this 73.65.15.78 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

That would belong in the ChNPP article.Sredmash (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2025

Change "Within three seconds the reactor's output rose above 530 MW" to this: "Within three seconds the reactor's output rose above 530 GW" 2A02:AA1:165A:FECA:F61E:E8A5:C523:BA8D (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Currently cited source states it was 530 MW. Liu1126 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

530 MW is correct. Reactor power skyrocketed from that point onwards.Sredmash (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the Wiki page for Chernobyl accurate?

At 1:23:45am the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor exploded, but the wiki page it says "1:23:04" this, is not historically accurate if you can change my point. I dare you. YourAverageAustralianNerd (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

source: https://whatisnuclear.com/chernobyl-timeline.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourAverageAustralianNerd (talk • contribs) 06:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not see anywhere on the page where the explosion is given as 1:23:04Sredmash (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Page should be re-named

The correct name of the nuclear station/city is "Chornobyl", as it refers to the Ukrainian city of Chornobyl. The spelling with an "e" — "Chernobyl" — was taken from the Russian-adapted name, which is now considered incorrect. The official name of the city is Chornobyl. FigoTester (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. You have not provided any evidence that this name is "incorrect". It is still widely used. Mellk (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Usage is starting to change. Examples: The Guardian Style Guide, a 2025 WHO article, and a 2025 Reuters article. Therefore this is worth monitoring because it likely will become more widely accepted in time, like Kyiv was. Watman (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a change to Chornobyl will likely be warranted in the near future. But it remains to be seen how deeply new copy editing standards in journalism and academia will enter the public consciousness and replace the 'household name' that is Chernobyl. It is unlikely that Chernobyl will be incorrect anytime soon, but Chornobyl might become more correct. Would suggest continuing to monitor this and have a larger conversation somewhere down the line.Sredmash (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it. According to Google Scholar, since 2024, there are 13,900 results for "Chernobyl" and 2,390 results for "Chornobyl". Ngram shows that "Chernobyl" is the well-established term and that this is unlikely to change anytime soon. Not to mention that this counts as a historical event. In any case, we should not willy-nilly move articles based on recent fads. Mellk (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Wrong source for cost of cleanup given in first paragraph?

The first paragaph says "The response involved more than 500,000 personnel and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles (about $84.5 billion USD in 2025).", and cites source 2 ("Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact, 2002 update; Chapter II – The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides"). I can't find that sum mentioned in that paper. It is, however, mentioned in source 5 ("The Financial Costs of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Disaster: A Review of the Literature"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.110.126.76 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Two different values for the size of the second explosion

The size is given as both 225 tons of TNT and as 10 tons of TNT. Which is it? ZFT (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Estimates in the scientific literature diverge widely.Sredmash (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2025

Change: "It is the only instance in commercial nuclear power history where radiation-related fatalities occurred."

To: "It is the only instance of radiation related fatalities caused by an accident at a nuclear power plant."

The Sentence as it stands is false because of (at least) the 1999 Tokaimura Accident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents#1999_accident) which caused two deaths by radiation and was part of commercial Nuclear power production (and thus arguably commercial nuclear power history), even though it took place in an enrichment facility and not directly at a nuclear power plant.

Mere Removal of the sentence is also an option but a rewrite might be preferable because the sentence contains relevant information to distinguish the chernobyl disaster from other accidents at nuclear power plants. Heinekingh (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Tokaimura accident occurred during enrichment of fuel that was to be used in an experimental research reactor, not for commercial nuclear power. Day Creature (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

yes but arguably that accident still is part of "commercial nuclear power history", as some other accidents related to the storage of nuclear waste would be.

The broadness of that phrasing is kind of the issue here. specifying that it stands out among "accidents at nuclear power plants" or some other alternative phrasing would be more correct. Heinekingh (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2025

Changed spelling from chernobyl to Chornobyl. 88.155.63.99 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion at [] and in the archives. meamemg (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2025

Hi, i'd like to change name of page an other incorrect names of the city , because it's must be ChOrnobyl, not Chernobyl, by the original name of the city. Січовий Стрілець (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See the response to the previous edit request concerning this, above. Day Creature (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2025

Please state that it is still heavily radiative and that it'll take 3,000 to 20,000 years for the radiation to go away, and it is heating up right now I believe? It was tragic but it was 30ish years ago and I'm fine my great-grandpa died due to radiation. ~2025-38858-06 (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2025

In the early hours at 1:23 am on the day of 26th April 1986 Helleons (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2025

Change the title of this entry from "Chernobyl disaster" to "Chornobyl Disaster" and include a new section at the top of the entry explaining the history of the name and the name change.

The UN General Assembly recently adopted a key Ukrainian-led resolution on the Chornobyl disaster (December 2025) that promotes cooperation, corrects the spelling to "Chornobyl," and addresses ongoing impacts, including threats to nuclear safety from Russia's actions, overriding Russian-backed efforts for an alternative text. The resolution emphasizes Ukraine's sovereignty over the plant, calls for sustainable development in affected areas, and passed with broad support (97-8-39) Neiloakley (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: to request a page move, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. IsCat (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2026

Under the section "Accident Sequence", in the second paragraph of the subsection "Reactor conditions priming the accident", within the final sentence of the paragraph, is a misspelling of the word "little" as "liitle". This is a minor spelling correction, but noticeable.

Change this: Unknown to the operators, this positive feedback loop had liitle to restrain it, and the reactor became highly sensitive to void formation,[22]: 3, 14

To this: Unknown to the operators, this positive feedback loop had little to restrain it, and the reactor became highly sensitive to void formation,[22]: 3, 14 ~2026-68845-9 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks to VSredmash. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Pounds??

Hello, I do not understand why some indications of weight are expressed in tonnes, and then translated into pounds. My idea is: this is an event which took place in Europe. USSR and in general the entire world, except 3 countries, use the metrical system. Should we transform weight measurements into another system just for the benefit of some American colleagues? What does U.S. have to do with this specific entry? Thanks Edox1999 (talk) Edox1999 14:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

You might find some answers in this guide > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement (sorry I can't format properly on mobile).

From my understanding the unit of measurement used first is the one most relevant to the article, with the US conversion usually included somewhere.

For example: "The cow weighs 400kg (900lbs)"

Personally, I think your argument is valid and we could convert the measurements into metric, with imperial as a bracketed addition! We just need to ensure it's consistent all the way through. Happy to help if needed but my mathematics is subpar. :•) Gromithead (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Reactor design flaws and sentence flaws

Please amend

A design issue when attempting to shut down the reactor in those conditions resulted in a dramatic power surge.

as

When attempting to shut down the reactor in those conditions, its flawed design resulted in a dramatic power surge.

Reason: If I have understood the main text correctly, there were potentially several design problems, not just one. Also, the sentence is grammatically ambiguous: a design error is by definition a permanent feature, not conditional or temporary.~2026-24799-47 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2026

Noticed that the latest instalment to the S.T.A.L.K.E.R series isn’t included. Also feel like the game Chernobylite should be included.

Change: The video game S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadows of Chernobyl, developed by GSC Game World and released by THQ in 2007, is a first-person shooter game set in the Exclusion zone.[274] A prequel called S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky was released in 2008 following with a sequel S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat released in 2010.

To: The video game S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadows of Chernobyl, developed by GSC Game World and released by THQ in 2007, is a first-person shooter set in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.[274] A prequel, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, was released in 2008, followed by the sequel S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat in 2010. A later instalment, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chornobyl, was released in 2024. Another video game inspired by the disaster includes Chernobylite, which also takes place in the Exclusion Zone and features environments created using 3D scans of real-world locations.

Metanoiia (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Streetr4 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

References

The museum (that has been just destroyed) should be renamed

Its name was Ukrainian National Chornobyl Museum not "Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum" (because it was indeed Ukrainian). ~2026-31126-48 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Current status of the "Chornobyl" romanization on Wikipedia is to stick with the "Chernobyl" spelling as it is the more commonly known and used name amongst English visitors. I didn't decide that and I'm definitely not saying whether or not it's the best call, but until all other pages relating to Chornobyl are renamed and the call is changed, then doing it in pieces will only lead to confusion and inconsistencies across different articles. OneAntsyBoi (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

To any reviewers:

I’ve looked through the reversion history from the year a thing was published (https://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/) until now. I’ve also looked at the Earwig similarity.

Although Earwig says 88-ish percent, it seems to be wrong. Most of that comes from quotes, long-ish phrases that would naturally occur often in both, etc. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Ditto for the other top two. Copyvio’s good. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I hope you can get the long-term effects merged before this article is reviewed. They still take up the largest chunk of the article. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't really understand what's being proposed and asked @FaviFake to explain (xkcd (It's 'cause you're dumb)) (sorry for the pun). _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Working on that right now! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chernobyl disaster/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk · contribs) 01:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chao Garden (talk · contribs) 17:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Review

To start, I really appreciate MicahelMaggs comments below (see: Special:Diff/1359005324). He has previously done substantial revisions & source reviews for this article, and I think it's pretty telling that he had concerns about the state of this article's sourcing prior to this GA nomination.

To @Wikipedian12512 / @Wikipedian12512(alt) (sorry, I'm tagging both accounts to be thorough, because you edited with both, nominated with the "(alt)" one, and responded from your main account) — Authorship at the time of GA nomination notwithstanding (context: Special:Diff/1358896126), after the many revisions you made in the past ~48 hours: additional sourcing issues have been introduced. I appreciate the WP:GOODFAITH effort you put into trying to address missing citations, but we need to evaluate these revisions.

Of the {{cn}} tags that were replaced with new sources in the past ~48 hours, I found 4 that failed verification:

#	Nominator's revision	Failed verification	Failure reason
1	Special:Diff/1359032002	Special:Diff/1359189018	Figures for Reactor no.4 stating "1,661 individual fuel channels" and "45 million litres of coolant per hour" are not reflected in this source. Source says the "coolant flow" / "re-circulation flow rote" is 42,000 t/h (tonnes per hour). So the mass measurement (tonnes) in source differs from volume measurement (litres) here.
2	Special:Diff/1358776506	Special:Diff/1359168035	Source is not about site cleanup & construction of the sarcophagus in the months immediately after the disaster. Rather, this source is about the health and socio-economic consequences of the disaster, as assessed almost 20 years later, around 2003-2005.
3	Special:Diff/1358788339	Special:Diff/1359130270	Source does not mention the IPHECA, nor does it mention $20 million in funding or Japan.
4	Special:Diff/1358918837	Special:Diff/1359027239	Source is about recovery efforts (as of 2019) in Belarus, specifically. It does not cover CRDP's work in any affected areas in Ukraine. It also does not specifically mention recommendations from Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident report.

Other issues I noticed from recent changes:

• Photo blog (?) cited Special:Diff/1358797370 (I tagged as a possible self-published source)
• The {{better source needed}} tags were removed Special:Diff/1358775776 without much explanation. (Note: the tags were added by a user who is now banned, so I couldn't ask them why the tags were added in the first place.)
• I added additional {{cn}} tags for mission citations: Special:Diff/1359096082

I will be failing this nomination (which the nominator also requested here: Special:Diff/1359227111). And I think that the source integrity issues need to be addressed.

FYI @Reconrabbit

Thank you — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 01:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Review on hold

* I will put this review on hold for now. (See discussion below.) However, I question why the article was nominated for GA when there are so many drastic changes happening to it + planned for it, by someone who doesn't have an established history with the article. In my opinion, it would have been better to resolve content questions, with collaboration with some of the top editors of this article, before nominating this article for GA. cc: @Wikipedian12512: — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 22:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to fail it; I’ll need more than a week. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 23:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Initial questions

@Wikipedian12512: it doesn't look like you meet the requirements as a "significant" contributor to this article. Based on the edit statistics, you are ranked #30 on the list of editors by contribution. Your contributions currently total 0.6% of the article, and you've made 6 edits to the page (compared to 12k total edits on the page, or compared to 1.3k total edits from the top 10 editors). See authorship stats here.

Requirements for GA nominations states:

Nominators should be familiar with the article's subject and cited sources, and must have contributed significantly to the article: they are either the author of at least 10% of the article, or are ranked in the top five in authorship. (Source: Wikipedia:Good_article_instructions

The reason this requirement exists is to ensure that the nominator is knowledgeable of both the subject-matter and the sources used in the article.

Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 17:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There are also 12 {{citation needed}} tags throughout the article, as of the current revision: Special:Diff/1358859332

The GA criteria states that a nomination is an "immediate failure" if the article has maintenance tags: It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}}). (See: Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#Immediate failures) — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 17:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Chao Garden, I added those just after the nomination was made to save any potential reviewer the trouble of putting those in themselves. Wikipedian wasn't immediately aware of them and I'd like to give some time to address this problem as they're a first time reviewer. I know I ran into similar problems in my first nominations. I think the more pressing issue is the current merge discussion which has been open since March. I'd be willing to help out with that on a later date. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh thank you @Reconrabbit, I didn't check when the CN tags were added, that's my mistake. I'll wait for the nominator to respond & make revisions.

But also, what's your take on the authorship stats in my first comment? (Although authorship percentage & edit count would go up when addressing the CN tags, it would still need to go up quite a bit to meet that 10% / top five editor threshold?) — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 19:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see more, but it is difficult to judge without hearing anything from Wikipedian12512 how familiar they are with the text and the sources. This is a very large article and having more authorship would be very difficult. It wouldn't be undue to ask contributors like @MichaelMaggs or @Chris Capoccia what they think. I noticed an "unreliable source" tag also in the text relating to Grigori Medvedev's book, which is derided among some people familiar with the history of the disaster but otherwise effusively praised in reviews. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Just found this, sorry for the wait.

I’m cutting down part of the article, which isn’t really doing wonders for the authorship score. I think it goes by the sum of the edits, which means that the fact that I’ve started to do some removal to account for the consensus to merge isn’t doing wonders for my “score”.

I’m also taking a few editorial decisions (well informed) about whether tags are necessary.

I don’t think that, after the merge-cut down is done, I will be able to reasonably get that number up enough (assuming that’s how the number works) to get that amount. I think I’m reasonably well acquainted with the sources (if you have an issue with any particular one, I’m able to find a different one for that, although it’s hard to do that for every one.

If you have any follow up questions, I will be happy to answer them. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the mention. I can't pretend to be highly familiar with the sources for this article; my involvement was largely to dig into them just enough to sort out some of the most confused and incomprehensible parts of the technical descriptions. I came away with the strong impression that the technical aspects have been summarised by an editor who has done their best to extract wording from the sources, but without much understanding of what is happening at the physics and engineering level. These aspects are pretty crucial, and I'd be uncomfortable with this article being submitted for GA status without it being vetted quite closely by a competent technical editor. What looks impressive at first sight has a tendency to be obscured by misunderstandings. Although the work would be interesting, and perhaps something I could conceivably tackle later, I am afraid I have too much on to put in the required effort just at the moment. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I went through all of those before nominating, hence my comment on the thing about EARWIG. I think we can ignore those three “problems” because they share long quotes and common phrases (I can’t remember right now, but something like “the Chernobyl disaster” and “the Chernobyl disaster caused”). _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

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