Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21a85e9ae1726ee

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiativesJune backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesPledges
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria and if necessary, delist them. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus.

GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment may be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles may be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the one-click GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at the GAN discussion page. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the one-click GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days).
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets good article criteria, the reassessment may be closed as keep.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
    • If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
  4. After at least two weeks (14 days), if the article's issues are unresolved, and editors have clearly ceased making good-faith improvements to the article, and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors may post at the GAN discussion page and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the GAR coordinators.

GAR Coordinators

The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings—work to organize GAR efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the GAN discussion page.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  2. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  3. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2025

The good articles listed below have been flagged for the attention of reviewers for reassessment. If reassessment is appropriate, please open a reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. For cases where no reassessment is needed, remove the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Articles listed for reassessment

Poundland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Various unsourced statements tagged with "Citation needed". Would most likely be a quickfail under criteria 3 if reviewed today. Inpops (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Inpops, it's generally good etiquette to post GA concerns on the talk page first before initiating a GA reassessment, especially as the concerns amount to just a few CN tags. It's somewhat disingenuous to suggest it would be QF'ed on Q3, as a GA nom would clearly not be started in the first place on an article with visible CN tags.
With that said, i'll take a look when I get a moment at the problem statements and address, unless someone else does so first. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aima Baig

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Significant portions of this are cited to unbylined "Web Desk"/"Entertainment Desk" pieces, which are a) not suitable for a BLP and b) mean that this deserves {{unreliable sources}}, which is a disqualifier. Courtesy ping to @Dclemens1971:, who first raised concerns at the DYK nom. Launchballer 10:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth mentioning that a number of un-bylined articles are published by Pakistani journalists who prefer to remain anonymous for political reasons (see [Journalists are never truly free in Pakistan). However, the subject isn't directly political. I have no opinion. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Some of the more egregious WP:BLPGOSSIP violations have been removed, but I still count approximately 44 sources used in this article at the moment that are unbylined stories in South Asian news outlets. These are not political, as suggested by LastJabberwocky; these are tabloid/gossip/aggregation stories. Examples: gossip speculation about her dating life based on one of her instagram posts, a summary of her remarks on a podcast, an aggregation of random internet commentary on whether a Baig video is copying a Taylor Swift video, another aggregation of random internet comments about a Baig performance, and a summary of some kind of social media feud. None of this is original journalism; it's churnalism that launders social media posts and internet commentary into "news" articles. We don't use social media posts (except for WP:ABOUTSELF in very specific and limited uses) or user-generated internet comments to source our articles; why would we use "news" sources that are entirely based on those posts and comments with virtually no original reporting? Furthermore, these unbylined pieces are also highly promotional and opinionated (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Example: This seems to have been Aima Baig’s year with all that she’s achieved — is it Aima Baig’s world and we’re just living in it? It's refreshing to see female artists step up and truly rock it. I believe these sorts of sources must be used sparingly, if at all, in a GA, and this article has extensive passages relying on them. This should never have been passed as a GA in its reviewed state and it should not be eligible now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jewellery

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

After doing some digging, it turns out this article was listed as a GA and was removed by an editor who could not find the review. It was demoted from A-class to GA class, and now this article is in an extremely sorry state. Paragraphs of uncited sections, and this article definitely needs copyediting. Nothing more than a Start-class article. splains (💬/📝) 09:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

M-70 (Michigan highway)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

WP:PRIMARY says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources". This article is based entirely off maps. While the AfD resulted in no consensus, an article that clearly breaches a central policy on referencing shouldn't be a Good Article. Fences&Windows 20:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, maps are not primary sources. They might be first-party sources, but they're not primary, which is a fallacy that keeps being perpetuated on Wikipedia. The primary source material for a map is the original survey data, be that aerial surveys, ground surveyors' notes, GPS data, etc. The cartographer then has to apply editorial judgement to distill that published source material into a format for consumption by the general public. Does the map have topographic lines? Waterways? What sorts of legends are needed to distinguish between the roadway classifications? As such, it has been our long-standing contention that because of these factors, maps are not primary sources. Imzadi 1979 → 20:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGEO also says "A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply." But you're fine with that in a GA. What a discredited process. Fences&Windows 19:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fences and windows, notability is not one of the GA criteria. AFD is the place to decide on that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because somehow special pleading led to no consensus at AfD. GAs being based entirely on maps is a farce, clearly distorting the purpose of the rating. Where is it in our PAGs that such a use of maps is acceptable Fences&Windows 18:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is original research not based on the maps:
"M-70 was first shown on a state map on July 1, 1919"
"The segment east of Prescott to Whittemore was turned over to the county"
The external link, https://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-070.html, shows what an actual discussion of the road looks like, from it being a trunkline in 1913. It can't be used as a source, but by comparison we can see how impoverished the Wikipedia article is, written by cribbing a few suppositions from state maps and not covering its actual history. The article fails GAC 2 and 3. Fences&Windows 20:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, we've been around this block many times. There is a strong consensus that maps are not primary sources. Anyone arguing that they are has failed to provide sufficient evidence to back themselves up. I also added a secondary source from the Bay City Times. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 04:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

253 Mathilde

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

This article is not very comprehensive and inconsistent with modern GA-class astronomy articles. This GA was promoted a very long time ago (2007), when quality standards were not as high.

That being said, here's stuff missing from this article:

  • Dedicated sections for its orbit, geology, origin. I don't like how everything is shoved into a very broad "Description" section. It's not very organized. For reference, look at the FAs Ceres (dwarf planet) and Makemake, the GAs (84522) 2002 TC302 and 208996 Achlys, and the GA-worthy articles 52246 Donaldjohanson and 1998 KY26.
  • Missing info on how Mathilde formed.
  • Does not adequately explain how Mathilde got its slow rotation. The article briefly mentions it might be caused by a moon, but contradicts it right after. I'm pretty sure papers have discussed other alternatives that aren't disproven.
    • I see that this 1999 paper mentions how the impact are responsible for Mathilde's slow rotation. This article does not talk about this.
  • Looks like only one peer-reviewed paper about Mathilde has been published after 2007. This article is missing this 2025 paper on its internal structure.
  • Lack of discussion on the names of Mathilde's surface features. There should be a least some mention of them before recommending the "List of named craters" article.
  • Escape velocity unreferenced
  • Bad sandwiching issues between image and infobox
  • "tumbling" mentioned nonchalantly only in lead, and unaddressed afterward. This issue was pointed in the talk page, but nobody has responded.

I might consider rewriting the entire article. If I do that, I believe it would be more beneficial if this article goes through the GAN review process instead of GA reassessment. People are more interested in reviewing GANs than doing GARs; as a result GARs have very long waiting periods and not very in-depth reviews. For this reason, I believe this article should be demoted. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

White House Farm murders

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

As raised at Talk:Murder_of_Henry_Nowak#Use_of_court_documents_as_a_source, this GA extensively uses court records from three legal cases as sources. Over 100 of 242 citations are to the trial documents. Large parts heavily rely on these citations, like "Jeremy's visit to the farm" and the appeals.

This breaches WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Jeremy Bamber, witnesses, and police are alive.

It fails GAC 2, 3, and 4, by having primary source derived WP:OR ("While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic"; "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them"), going into excessive detail only available from trial documents, and breaching NPOV by highlighting trial arguments not reflected in secondary sources (WP:UNDUE). WP:REDFLAG is also a problem, as primary sources are used to promote ideas from Bamber's legal team that failed to convince the court and aren't reported on in secondary sources.

I realise SlimVirgin is not here any longer to defend her writing, but I feel it shouldn't be overlooked. Maybe norms have changed. Fences&Windows 18:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, WP:BLPPRIMARY. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

A heavily outdated 2013 GA focused mostly on the early 2000s, while containing relatively little info about the subculture itself in comparison to its focus on etymology and definition. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was the reviewer in 2013 (version). The article has changed a bit, not always for the better. For example, the sentence about Reki-jo, currently unreferenced, used to be part of a referenced pagraph whose second half has since disappeared, removing for example the mention of Dakimakuras (sadly, tracing why this happened via edit history is a pain I don't have the will to engage in). There is a smattering of new unreferenced content. And yes, I agree the article seems to not be comprehensive - for example, the tiny section on "Otaku outside Japan" is a joke, considering there seem to be entire books on this topic. Something I should've caught back then is - why is there both a Subtypes section and Classification? It should be merged. Overall, I concur this is not GA level article today. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whole hog barbecue

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article's creator, who also brought the article to GAN, was blocked as a sockpuppet. Whether the article should be retained at all is questionable, but we certainly shouldn't reward bad conduct with GA awards. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe "written by a sockpuppet" is part of WP:GA?, and I'm sure plenty of GAs and FAs remain from people who have been banned by the community. Delisting without content concerns does not help our mission. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If you can find multiple hard to fix errors, go ahead. In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 09:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article uses inconsistent British and American spellings. Please think of a consistent variety we can use to fix the issue so I can close the reassessment. 2600 etc (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In general South Korea's closer to the US than it is the UK so I think it's better to tend towards American English. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is this issue really drastic enough to warrant a formal GAR? Was the talk page even approached to being with? Aza24 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the only issue was inconsistent UK-US spellings, then that would be a very unnecessary GAR. I see a few [unreliable source?] markers, but they seem easy to deal with (replacing/deleting). Skyshiftertalk 22:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inconsistent UK-US spellings is not a GA issue. "Prose at the good article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for featured articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.": Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-1. I notice that a number of websites now read which country you're in, and so adjust the content (language, prices, etc) accordingly. Be helpful if the Foundation did that for Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Subramaniam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This was made a GA a long time ago, when some of the recently deleted refs were between reliable and unreliable, and were not strictly enforced to be removed. Due to lack of alternate refs, this article cannot continue as a GA. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Elisa Lam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has a number of issues which I believe require a GAR. Ordinarily I would attempt to fix these myself, however I'm aware that editors, such as @Daniel Case, have been working on this article for many years. So I think a community discussion would be more helpful, especially as I would prefer the outcome to be for this to remain a GA. (It has the potential to go all the way to FA, should the main contributors also want that.) But these issues need to be addressed first:

The following is based on this revision.

  • PRIMARY sources: 1, 6, 11-15, 18, 26, 33-36. At least 13 in use.
  • Unreliable sources:

11-13: Primary blogs. WP:BLOGSPOT is not reliable.
17, 30: International Business Times is not reliable per WP:IBTIMES due to poor editorial practices noted by reliable sources. (Have been replaced. checkY)
47: TV.com is not reliable per WP:RS/PS due to being a WP:USERGEN site. Was shut down in 2021. This should be replaced. (Has been replaced. checkY)

  • Questionable sources:

4: Daily Maverick is a South African not-for-profit newspaper currently tagged with [better source needed] in the article.
16: Refinery29 is a marginal source according to RS/PS. It's had a few issues in the past as explained in its article.
29: LA Weekly is flagged in WP:NPPSG as being the subject of an LTA Wikipedia editor and for having poor editorial standards.
50: Marginal on Chinese Wikipedia.
56: Unknown site. Presumably a Substack according to the homepage.

  • There are other sources, such as 41, which is a YouTube video from an unknown individual. This seems to have information that violates WP:SYNTH based on the this comment from the 2019 GAR.
  • There are citations in the lead, which should be removed per WP:LEADCITE. (Fixed. checkY)
  • The final paragraph of Elevator video is an WP:MNA and reads as speculative. This is an WP:UNDUE inclusion from a questionable source in my opinion, and should either be resourced or removed entirely.
  • The Theories and speculation section is almost entirely sourced to Daily Maverick and is UNDUE. This requires major trimming to comply with policy.
  • The popular culture section is bloated with unsourced paragraphs and needs a complete rewrite. (Reliable sources have been added.  Done)

If this article were being reviewed by me today, it would fail points 1, 2 and 4 of WP:GACR6. This article has already had a previous GAR, which had sound reasoning and many editors raised issues with its heavy reliance on PRIMARY sources. This is clearly a very notable case, so I think these issues can be sorted relatively easily. I would be happy to help with this (when time permits). 11WB (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A note on this article from Daily Maverick. It is almost entirely speculation, and makes claims of "speaking to doctors", without any links to back this up. It does however link to this Blogger article, which they claim are "body language experts". WP:BLOGGER is USERGEN and is therefore unreliable. I will give DM credit for their current detailed about page. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine only has the about page saved from this year, and that article is from 2014. One has to question why the about page wasn't archived before this year...
I'm not convinced that they are reliable based on this. I think a discussion at WP:RS/N may be warranted, especially as it's cited 13 times. 11WB (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Maverick is pretty good afaik. The article individually might not be, but Daily Maverick is one of the most reputable papers in South Africa. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Smedley Butler

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Nominating for reassessment because I'm not sure this article is fully meeting GA criteria #4 (represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias) and #2 (verifiable).

For example, should the lead sentence be simply "a Marine Corps officer" or "a Marine Corps officer and later an anti-war advocate"? More context from his later critique (Smedley Butler#Anti-war lectures) could be acknowledged within the Smedley Butler#Military career section.

This article cites several WP:PRIMARY sources in places where secondary sources would be more appropriate. For example, much of the section related to the Business Plot is cited to three New York Times articles from 1934, but most of this type of content should be "based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians", according to MOS:MILSOURCE.

The Business Plot is not a simple topic to try to summarize, and I don't think I fully understand it, but "Historians have not reported any independent evidence apart from Butler's report on what MacGuire told him." seems oversimplified. For example: "When contacted by French, MacGuire spoke openly about the plot and of his desire for a fascist America. He steered the reporter to some of his associates and French wrote an expose that appeared in both the Record and the New York Post." The quote about MacGuire being an "inconsequential trickster" seems oversimplified as well - the longer version at Business Plot is helpful.

Article might benefit from noting Butler's critique of the investigation - "The big shots weren’t even called to testify.". Dreamyshade (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The material about Stonewall Jackson's arm repeats a story which is considered to be dubious as settled fact. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Lasker

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Nominated 15+ years ago and now has many of the same prose issues as other chess biographies to my eyes. Requesting for a more experienced readers opinion. Thanks. BrotherGunk (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes GA (or FA) status can be a burden. The problem with reassessments is they force a large number of changes over a short space of time without interested parties really having enough time to properly review them. Unsourced statements get removed despite being well known to people familiar with the subject because someone doesn't have some book or other, while poorly researched stuff on a random web page gets accepted as a source.... I don't really care if this loses GA status. I'd much rather the article just got demoteed to B status already than go through a "reassessment". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. BrotherGunk (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Last month I removed a completely false claim (which was unsourced) in the article about his opening preferences, which makes me worried that there are other false claims hiding. Dayshade (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be supported by a source otherwise it is just spreading or starting a rumour. EulerianTrail (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even cited claims could be wrong, either because the source was wrong, or misinterpreted, etc. In this case it both was wrong and had no inline citation. Also can you be more specific about what you mean? Are you saying every statement in the article should have an inline citation or something else? Or are you referring to my own claim about a false claim? Dayshade (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the GAR process. With the GA process, there is a single "nominator", a single "reviewer", and a template for the set of questions the reviewer should be asking and the nominator should be addressing. Are there anything like those things for GAR? I am interested in this because I know that these ancient articles about chess world champions have problems (because I've noticed problems before), but I don't know how to get from this to having a specific and comprehensive list of work items. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so yes, although I am admittedly in the same boat. We might have luck with the copyeditors guild as well. Cheers. BrotherGunk (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coquitlam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs in the "Climate" section. The lead is also quite short and doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article. The 2016 demographics information should be replaced with the 2021 information. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on vacation for the next month, but I’ll gladly tackle most/all of the challenges up on my return in late April. John Shorten (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Shorten: Are you still planning on doing anything with this article? Just checking in! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Shorten: I re-opened this GAR for you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Will start updating almost immediately! John Shorten (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the areas listed, and will look for others to continuously improve. John Shorten (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Bucanero

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Active still in CMLL (see https://www.cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=1468&page=4). Career section not updated for over a decade. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i tried updating the page with added sections and info i can find from his later cmll career. hope that helps. Tevv11 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Britain Day

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The lead is quite short: it doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article and I think needs to be expanded. At the same time, this article is over 10,800 words, which will only get bigger once the lead is expanded. This is larger than the recommended length at WP:SS and I do not think the article's topic justifies the extended length. I suggest that information be spun out or summarised more effectively. The first paragraph of "Background" is also uncited. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720: Some work has been done on this article, but it appears to be superficial, and does not address any of your concerns identified above. Do you agree? Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little trimming although this is mostly around the edges and won't be enough to offset an expansion of the lead yet. I'll try and get some done on this over the next little while. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent some more time on this, and also having a couple of the sources used (Price 1990 and Bungay 2000), this article is looking to have more issues than just its overall length and the size of the lead. Some of the text hews uncomfortably close to the sources and furthermore, some of the material is not supported by the sources (or the sources only support part of what is cited to it). This is going to take a significant amount of time to resolve. Zawed (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zawed: Do you want me to leave this GAR open for you (or anyone else) to work on, or would you recommend I close it? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this open for another a couple weeks please. I have been chipping away at this one and off. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpox

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Nine months after I noticed the article, concerns remain so I think this is ready to be reviewed. The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and sections. It is 11,800 words, and I think some sections can be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too much detail (such as the "notable cases" section). The "Since eradication" section might need to be formatted more effectively to remove the short paragraphs for more recent events, and post-2019 should be added. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I will get right on this once i’ve wrapped up the asthma page. If no edits have been made by May 10th please harass me (just ping me here) to remind me but this page has a lot of promise. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay here's my initial breakdown:
  • Classification: I tried to reorganize this myself but it still needs some work. some info from classification may be better for the symptoms section. quite a bit of unsourced info.
  • Cause: the subsection "Evolution" could be summarized better. Four orthopoxviruses cause infection in humans: variola, vaccinia, cowpox, and monkeypox. Variola virus infects only humans in nature, although primates and other animals have been infected in an experimental setting. Vaccinia, cowpox, and monkeypox viruses can infect both humans and other animals in nature. can probaly be trimmed
will continue later IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Continueing on, Variola virus should probaly be made its own article to help keep the smallpox article at a decent size
  • Causes: not sure Concern about possible use of smallpox for biological warfare led in 2002 to Donald K. Milton's detailed review of existing research on its transmission and of then-current recommendations for controlling its spread. He agreed, citing Rao, Fenner and others, that "careful epidemiologic investigation rarely implicated fomites as a source of infection"; noted that "Current recommendations for control of secondary smallpox infections emphasize transmission 'by expelled droplets to close contacts (those within 6–7 feet)'"; but warned that the "emphasis on spread via large droplets may reduce the vigilance with which more difficult airborne precautions [i.e. against finer droplets capable of traveling longer distances and penetrating deeply into the lower respiratory tract] are maintained". needs to be there
  • Mechanism: all unsourced
  • diagnosis: needs further simplification and some adittional sources
  • Prevention: could probably be trimmed or reordered to history section
  • for both the history and society sections, I'll look into anything that could be made less wordy and for sources.
IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At still around 12k words, this article is way, way too big. The weight of the sections vary wildly; we have a massive history section in spite of a dedicated article, that contains just as much information about eradication, which itself does not have a separate page. Meanwhile, there is a level 2 section about "Mechanism" that is three sentences long, and may or may not be able to be folded into the preceding virology section. This article should likely be a big high-level summary-style overview with better delineated subpages, but that represents a considerable amount of work. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ove Almborn

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does [15] support its statement? No. Does [26] support its statement? No, but it might be a good assumption if you pull a few threads. Is "Beyond his scientific contributions, Almborn's dedication to the botanical community at Lund University was evident in his generous donations" either written in an appropriate tone? No, and that sentence is a conclusion not made in the source. Further, that tone isn't in the source; that and the following sentences have been made more effusive in the article. I would not go with the nom wording, but procedural keeps that ignore the issues noted within it do not help either. CMD (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[15] does support the statement, but the issue is with how Species Fungorum organizes their pages. The link is to the genus page, which is appropriate, but the actual subsummation of the genus is more clearly shown with the two species pages, such as this. And [26] also supports its statement, noting the prior noted subsummation change by altering Almbornia cafferensis to instead be Xanthoparmelia ovealmborni to retain the scientist being referenced.
So, yes, both references support their statements. As for tone issues, that seems extremely minor and easy to fix. Particularly since the source stating "laid the ground for future lichenological research in Lund, both through his donation of his large lichen library and all his possessions and also the collections he incorporated at the Botanical Museum in Lund" makes the phrasing arguable. Seems like decent use of the source, but also something that can arguably be altered either way.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like you're actually trying to review the article properly considering every single thing you've mentioned has been wrong or misleading. SilverserenC 03:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely possible a different page supports a statement, but that's not the one cited. Source [26] doesn't seem to provide the rationale asserted, although as I said it's a solid assumption. It is true that I did not do a full review, I spot-checked 3 sources, described the results. CMD (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, we're coming up on a couple of weeks and there hasn't been much movement in fixing up the article. I made some fixes from the second sentence to the last, but more is needed and this would take a bit of time plus full access to the sources. CMD (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What fixes, Chipmunkdavis? Literally no fixes have been suggested in this discussion or even what parts of the article have an issue. There's been no actual problems with the text noted anywhere. SilverserenC 15:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Some were suggested above, and I've actioned them, plus some others I didn't mention here. Issues with the text are readily apparent on a simple read, full of obvious WP:PUFFERY for a start. Combine that with the TSI issues, plus the many similar issues found in other articles when sources could be accessed, someone with access to the sources needs to go through this properly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any actual TSI issues to present? Because those above were not convincing and seemed more like your lack of understanding of how to read or navigate the sources in question. As for puffery, give actual actionable examples. SilverserenC 20:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand you are not convinced, but they were there nonetheless, as they have been in other GARs you have also commented on. If you want to look, MOS:PUFFERY provides examples of adjectives that get strewn through articles, consider "extensive", "historic", "enriching", "renowned", etc. Everything about the student mentoring is strange, like if an llm was trying to generate content without much underlying substance. "Ove Almborn was also known for mentoring students in lichenology", apparently, sourced to a birthday letter which doesn't mention this outside of the general fact he was a professor with students. What does it mean to "mentoring students with a supportive and systematic approach"? Not in the source, but the impression is there that the llm saw "Department of System­atic Botany" and ran with it. Why is there more than one paragraph repeating that a professor mentored the same student over multiple sentences each time anyway? At least some vacuous sentences aren't repeated, such as the sentence covering how students at Lund undertook field excursions, collaborated with colleagues, and met with other academics. Working through llm text is a chore, especially if it's to list out the really surface level stuff (and that seems to be after the GAN led to even more surface level stuff being removed), but you and anyone else are welcome to edit the article if you wish to improve it. CMD (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed them both. Anything else to take a look at? SilverserenC 03:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what both refers to, but yes, per above. CMD (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-organized and altered the text for those two separate paragraphs you mentioned in your comment above, making things flow better both in timeline and in discussion of the graduate students. SilverserenC 16:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - The prose reads quite clearly as AI-generated to me; it is thoroughly repetitive, circular, and oddly generalized. A few (non-exhaustive) examples:
    • "From 1954 to 1966, Almborn balanced his role as a high school teacher in Malmö with his passion for lichenology, contributing to the field through various publications and research. During this period he combined teaching with research and publication in lichenology" - the second sentence confers zero new information, it's just a vaguer restating of the previous one
    • The article mentions that his work led to his doctoral dissertation on the "distribution and ecology of lichens in southern Scandinavia" three separate times across the lead and early life sections, including back-to-back sentences in the latter
    • "where he relished the social ambiance of congress dinners and similar gatherings. His anecdotes about renowned botanists engaged and entertained his colleagues, and were well known among colleagues." repetitive and lacks an encyclopedic tone
    • "His insights helped shape the field, ensuring rigorous academic standards and fostering a scholarly dialogue among his peers." vague puffery that could be said about pretty much any notable academic in any field. basically reads as LLM speak for "He did a good job at his job"

Zzz plant (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems eminently fixable.
1) I moved the first sentence up to the beginning of that section, since that flows way better, and removed the second sentence.
2) I removed the second duplication in Early Life, the lede and the first instance work fine with lede summarization in mind.
3) Per the source, I moved the conferences with the prior sentence and changed the existing one to botanical meetings he was invited as a guest to, adding a quote for his activities that allows a side-stepping of encyclopedic tone problems.
4) I removed that sentence, combined the paragraphs, and added a quote at the end that explains how it was the library and collections that were the major contribution and legacy of his work.
You said those were "non-exhaustive" examples, so what else do you have, Zzz plant? SilverserenC 23:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, Chipmunkdavis, Zzz plant, do you have anything else to bring up? Per the Reassessment Process for GAR, the purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. I've made all the changes for things you've brought up. If nothing else gets noted for improvement and change, then your Delist votes are discarded as not relevant, since this is not a vote based process, but one where actual problems are noted as a reason for delisting. SilverserenC 20:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixing the most egregious sentences one-by-one does not resolve the overall lack of encyclopedic tone, nor the article's pervasive circularity and vagueness. GAR is not a game of whack-a-mole where reviewers have to list every single flawed sentence; we can identify systemic problems by using critical thinking and outlining core examples. But since you've asked twice, here's another example: "Almborn's work on the lichen flora of southern Scandinavia and southern Africa contributed to the documentation and study of these regions. His meticulous studies, particularly on the lichen flora of southern Scandinavia and southern Africa, significantly advanced the understanding of these ecosystems." These two sentences convey essentially the same information, just with different levels of puffery. And another example: "Field excursions, collaborative work with colleagues, and informal academic gatherings formed part of the environment in which students associated with Lund University's botanical department carried out their work with Almborn." This is a vacuous sentence; it pumps up the word count by describing with granularity how any science department operates rather than providing sourced historical details.

    Since the article requires substantial work by someone with full access to the sources, my stance remains that it should be delisted. There's no need to ping me again. Zzz plant (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I explicitly mentioned some of the puffery above almost two months ago. If even the easy surface level issues are not being resolved after such time, the GAR is clearly not attracting interested editors. CMD (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already made fixes to the two things you brought up two months ago and I said as such back then. SilverserenC 21:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned more than two things two months ago, and noted that in my reply to your linked message. CMD (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote those entire two paragraphs about the students and mentorship back then based on info from the references. So, all of what you mentioned was changed. SilverserenC 23:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not all that I mentioned. This is a weirdly repetitive discussion, so I refer back to my initial delist statement that GAR has not attracted much movement, although now at over two months rather than two weeks. CMD (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you seem to not want to specify what you're talking about that still needs to be changed. I've rewritten the section you were talking about two months ago. You've given no followup on that whatsoever and seemingly refuse to. You don't seem to be attempting whatsoever to follow the actual GAR improvement process. SilverserenC 22:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We've gone through most of the article at this point, which is why I was asking. I've combined the first two sentence into a single more direct one and rewritten your second example to more directly eschew to the source's wording. SilverserenC 21:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Xylopsora canopeorum

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally delist per nom. This sends entirely the wrong message. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally delist per what rules, Cremastra? SilverserenC 22:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Multiclavula mucida

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a random line (citations removed): "This species is commonly found on decomposing wood, often in the presence of algae. It thrives on a wide variety of substrates, including bamboo, beech, cedar, poplar, and oak." Poplar and oak are cited to [1]. But that paper doesn't say poplar and oak. It says Quercus and Populus trunks. While oak and poplar are in the Quercus and Populus families, they're not the only ones. For example, Quercus praeco isn't oak. I don't know anything about taxonomy though, so maybe I'm missing something. InfernoHues (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC) InfernoHues (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quercus redirects to Oak, my friend. Seems like we consider it equivalent even if there may be technically some species exceptions. Seems to me that if the reference is using a general genus term like Quercus and Populus, it is just as accurate to use the more common terms of oak and poplar for our readers' sake. SilverserenC 23:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah fair enough. I just wanted to spot check a random line to see if everything verified. Besides the note I made above everything checked out. I just looked at a couple more random lines right now and they check out too. I don't really see the point in delisting this. InfernoHues (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence does not seem to be backed up by the source: "Previously considered native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe, M. mucida has been increasingly observed across most European countries and globally." InfernoHues (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's...literally what that paper is about. How it was originally described in Europe, then later in Australia by other researchers under other names that were then folded into M. mucida and the paper itself is about describing them newly in Tasmania, along with the two other Multiclavula species. Perhaps the years when things were described could be added to make things more clear of when these distinctions were made (since even the reference is from 1986, so not exactly new at this point), but otherwise, the text in the article is a proper summary of its material. SilverserenC 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say "native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe," it says "known throughout the north temperate zone," a much bigger area. InfernoHues (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The north temperate zone is stated in the source because that was the range after the folding in of the other species names that were subsequently found to be the same as M. mucida (so Clavaria and Lentaria). That's why the section on M. mucida further down in the paper states "Thus, identification of the European taxon has been rather secure and all other distributions have been compared to it", because the original description for M. mucida was the European taxon and not the other two. SilverserenC 03:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't mention "Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe." InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True, that would be the range described in the sources used in the paper, the one by Petersen (1967) that is discussed in the first paragraph of the current reference's abstract. Do you want that to also be added as a source? SilverserenC 03:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shiryaev, Anton (2008). "New and interesting clavarioid fungi from the hemiboreal zone of Finland" (PDF). Karstenia. 48: 29–32. doi:10.29203/ka.2008.426.


Confluentic acid

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it was two years ago, I stand by my assessment of the article then. If necessary I can use various means to get ahold of the few sources I could not directly assess to check for text-source integrity. -- Reconrabbit 11:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at one of the most-referenced sources that I wasn't able to check before, "Über Flechteninhaltsstoffe, I. Konstitution der Confluentinsäure". I found that the information contained there matched the text here. I do wonder about Elix and Ferguson though; it seems a bit like WP:SYNTH to cite their paper and then draw the conclusion that it marked a significant advancement in understanding of this lichen substance, enabling scientists to better study and understand the compound's structure and biological activity without relying solely on natural extraction. I was able to verify the contents of [11] w.r.t. lichen differentiation. That one sentence (and the wording of Orange et al. 2001 are my only potential issues with this article. I believe this should remain as a Good Article. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've axed most of that sentence: it's classic LLM-waffle, and as you note its key claim wasn't supported by the source to begin with. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lecideaceae

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Einar Du Rietz

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delist
Let's take this sentence:
The dissertation was translated into German and printed in Vienna for economic reasons, reflecting the scientific language preference in the Nordic countries at the time.
and let's compare it, not to the cited source, but a paper cited elsewhere in the article:[1]
The dissertation was translated into German, the then common scientific language in the Nordic countries, and printed in Vienna (for economic reasons).
Going on, we get:
The defence, held in Uppsala in spring 1921, was reportedly dramatic The thesis focused on the methodological foundations of modern plant sociology, covering topics such as life forms, stratification, and the associations based on dominant species' life forms, as well as the concept of constancy and field boundary lines. Although logical and impressive for its era, the dissertation was quite schematic and faced criticism, particularly regarding the so-called Konstanzgesetze ('laws of constancy', i.e., principles regarding the regular occurrence of certain plant species within specific types of vegetation communities or habitats).
which, when compared with the same source
A reportedly dramatic public defence took place in Uppsala in the spring of 1921. .... It does not hurt to give an account of the content: as mentioned, an impressive history, chapters on life forms, stratification, associations based on the dominants of the strata according to their life form, so-called constancy, boundary lines in the field and so on. This plant sociology was logical and impressive for its time, but rather schematic. It was criticized especially regarding the so-called Konstanzgesetze.
Again in that section, compare:
The seventeen-year-old who registered at Uppsala University developed a varied interest in outdoor botany, especially in lichens and coastal areas, passions that he maintained throughout his life. He especially liked to explore the lifeforms present in the outer archipelago of the Baltic Sea and on Jungfrun, a nature reserve on the island of Gotland
with the google-translated source[2] (again, not the one cited)
The seventeen-year-old who enrolled at Uppsala University had diverse outdoor botanical interests, primarily lichens and beaches, inclinations that followed him throughout his life. He particularly botanized in the outer archipelago of the Baltic Sea and on the island of Jungfrun in Kalmar Sound
This is what I found by glancing in their first section; this isn't the worst close paraphrasing I've seen, but it's incredibly obvious and it's obvious that this wasn't checked well enough by the author. Combined with the way that the text has been cited to a different source... I'm not particularly fussed about rewarding AI generated content, but any article with close paraphrasing issues this obvious is not a good article. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be an actual writing issue, specifically WP:TRANSVIO, since the source in question is in Swedish. Makes me wonder, since that source is the most extensively used throughout the article at 14 times, and there is only source for that main paragraph you're quoting from, if that's meant to be there instead of the Biographical Dictionary. Though the latter source does discuss the thesis directly (I went ahead and OCRed the text to check that, since there's no easy way to translate it otherwise).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver seren (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't surprise me if that was the case; it also wouldn't surprise me if sources were just tacked on semi-randomly by either the machine or the author. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist partially per issues identified by GLL. The legacy section is chock-full of AI signs; it largely consists of generalized repetitive praise. The article could be justifiably tagged as AI-generated just on that basis. I'm also concerned about breadth; the later part of his career is pretty sparsely addressed. He made the front page of Dagens Nyheter (often considered Sweden's newspaper of record) no less than six times between 1925 and 1947. Zzz plant (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hydropunctaria amphibia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ramalina peruviana

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysothrix chlorina

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anaptychia ciliaris

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]


As the original GAN reviewer, I vote for delist. I obviously cannot do a proper review when I do not know that the content is LLM-generated. LLMs make unexpected mistakes a human writer would never make, and a much more rigorous source review would be required (that might require even more time than was invested in generating the article in the first place). I had a look at the first paragraph, and checked this part:

It was formally described as a new species in 1753 by Carl Linnaeus, as Lichen ciliaris. Linnaeus described it as a somewhat erect, leafy, grey lichen with linear, fringe-like segments that are ciliate (having hair-like structures, or cilia). He said it resembled a tree moss with hairy edges and small shield-like structures (apothecia). Linnaeus cited multiple references that described the lichen similarly, emphasizing its larger size, hairy characteristics, and shielded appearance. Linnaeus noted that this lichen is found on trees in Europe.[4]

I don't see that this is covered by the source. Linnaeus does not seem to describe it this way himself as stated; all of this is based on his quotes of other works. Such (very significant) issues are typical for any LLM-generated article. I also do not think that we have to list "actual issues" to denominate an LLM-generated article. These issues will be found if we look for it, but that would take a lot of time, and I prefer to invest that time to help actual human editors. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack: 1) You have no evidence of any of it even being LLM-generated, nor do you know how Esculenta writes their articles. 2) The source you brought up is literally one that an LLM wouldn't be able to even read or doing anything with. So it even more clearly showcases that there isn't evidence of LLM being used to write it. 3) The source is literally Linnaeus' reference book for describing plant species, Species Plantarum, and, yes, it uses other sources to create a conglomerate description. That's how Linnaeus made the work. I don't see how that makes anything that you quoted inaccurately. It is him choosing that description for the species. SilverserenC 22:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren nor do you know how Esculenta writes their articles: actually, yes we do, and this diff was included in the first post in the WT:GAN thread Bgsu98 linked to in their GAR rationale. Also see [3] for further relevant evidence of LLM generation; Bgsu98 has only GAR'd articles among those 32 GAs with highest likelihood of LLM-generated text. NicheSports (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know full well she had a personally made AI generation system that she used and reviewed for all articles she made. And yet every attempt I see to bring up fault in these GAs thus far has just made the claimant look like they don't understand the references they're reading. Above is yet another example of that. Unless you have actual examples of issues with the article, then you don't have an argument. SilverserenC 01:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As laid out in the WT:GAN thread and supported by multiple editors, articles containing LLM-generated text merit an {{ai-generated}} tag which qualifies them for quick fail under criteria 3 of WP:QF. That, on its own, is enough to delist. If an editor wants to retain the rating, the onus should be on them to establish that the article has GA-level source to text integrity despite it containing - or even largely consisting of - PAG-violating text that qualifies for a quick fail. I am certainly open to such an argument but I do not see one presented here. NicheSports (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Applying a nonsense tag without any actual noted issues with an article is not an excuse, actually. Otherwise anyone could slap a neutrality tag or a globalize tag on a GA and quickfail it because they felt like it. Again, unless you have actual, specific issues with the article, you're just making up nonsense otherwise. SilverserenC 05:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Linnaeus, he only lists a number of sources with quotes how those sources describe the species. The article, however, says that he provided a single, congruent description by himself, and then, in addition, cited sources "that describe the lichen similarly". That's a sonesensical error and something a human editor would just not do (a human can misinterpreted things, but a human would not provide two interpretations of the same list as we see here). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100% how a human would use the Species Plantarum as a source, because that is how Linnaeus' works are used. A human editor with actual experience in plant biology would 100% use it that way, because they understand what such a source means.
Tell me this, Jens. If a AI was used to entirely generate this info from this non-English source, what text did it use? Because, if you click the "Show Text" button on the right, you'll notice that in large part, the resulting OCR text is gibberish. It barely gets a couple Latin words in a row right before some error happens. Do you seriously think an AI will read proper words from, for example, "Scor7onera graca faxati)is& maritima"? No, the Latin was translated by human eye and utilized that way. SilverserenC 05:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know Esculenta as a highly skilled expert editor, and worked with them on multiple articles. I refrain from believing that they would produce such a nonsense-paragraph on their own. Careless AI use is the only explanation that makes sense to me here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Femoral gland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LLMs, assuming they are used responsibly and within the bounds set by policy, aren't by themselves a good reason do delist a GA. This is, of course, assuming that the nominator thoroughly checked everything. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 19:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Bohm

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There is little information for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 seasons, even though in 2024 he accomplished a major milestone by participating in the All-Star game. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. The article has some uncited statements and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed or sourced all of the uncited content. @Z1720: - is there a particular reason why GhostRiver, the GA nominator of the nomination who passed (who is still active), was not notified on their talk page about this GAR? I see the GA reviewer of the pass /GA2 and the nominator of the failed /GA1 review were both notified though. It shouldn't be overly difficult to add further detail for the 3 most recent seasons, but I won't have time to work on this any further for a few days. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears 2023-25 are now well documented. Sloopyploop (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am admittedly still working on some things. I don't think there's a compelling reason to add level-4 subheads to the Phillies section, as Bohm's tenure there doesn't really have clean "stages," and I'm loathe to add subheads for every season. — GhostRiver 20:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think splitting into subsections is necessary. Unless there's something in the MOS that I don't remember, sections lengths are more of a matter of editorial discretion than hard-and-fast rules. This isn't even really an extreme case. I think we need to be careful to not enforce editorial preferences as mandates at GAR. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Phillies section could be split in two, but not for every year. Or, it could stay as it is. His 2026 salary is present but his other arbitration salaries are missing. I'll add it if nobody beats me to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I was on vacation the last two weeks in New York and Chicago. I've ensured that every section is filled out and properly cited. I also took this as an opportunity to fix some things from back when my Google-Fu was not so good. The article can definitely use a once-over for prose, as I am a bit rusty on my Wikispeak. — GhostRiver 19:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostRiver: Sorry that I did not respond to this earlier. Some comments below:
  • Citation concerns resolved.
  • The lead is quite short: I recommend that it is expanded upon.
  • The "Philadelphia Phillies (2020–present)" is quite long: I recommend that another subheading be added to split up the section.
  • Ref 74 and 75 seem to be the same and should be merged.
Please ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've fixed the duplicate ref, but the other two suggestions feel like nitpicks. I've been critiqued by other good article reviewers for writing ledes that are too long. I think that one full paragraph is perfectly fine for a player still on his original contract. The subheadings have already been brought up by others. If Hog Farm or Muboshgu have anything they would like to add or change, I welcome their collaborations. But I have addressed everything that goes against the good article criteria. — GhostRiver 16:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've forgotten about this GAR completely, so thanks for the ping. I'll look it over later today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lead length or the section length are actionable items for a delist - the lead covers the major elements of the topic and the section length is really a discretionary matter in most cases and I don't think this is an extreme example. We need to be careful not to apply FA formatting standards to GAs. Hog Farm Talk 21:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: The GA criteria 1b specifically links MOS:LEAD as a guideline that the article must be complied with. I would not send an article to GAR on concerns with the lead alone, but during a GAR I think its something that should be resolved before the GAR is closed. MOS:LEAD states that, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." If major aspects of the topic are missing, I think it should be added. For this article, I think a line about his international playing career and the lawsuit is missing from the lead. For the "Philadelphia Phillies (2020–present)", I am fine with suggestions on where this can be split up, and I can add the level 3 heading myself. Alternatively, the text in this section could be summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly push back on the notion that the lawsuit deserves a mention in the lede, as it is (1) an actively developing situation and (2) does not feel anywhere near the same level as, say, his first All-Star appearance. Plenty of athletes involved in lawsuits do not have those situations mentioned in their ledes unless it had an impact on their career, such as Trevor Bauer. — GhostRiver 02:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1363895279"