Edge Rewrite
location Source code View original
// 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: a448ae482fb518aa

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GA/D)

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

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

Lhasa (prefecture-level city)

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

Article contain unsourced statement and many citation needed tags Real4jyy (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Great Comet of 1882

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

Article contain 5 citation needed tags Real4jyy (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

CIH (computer virus)

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

Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Hi @Bgsu98: I'm happy to step in and do a GA review of the article if that'd help - if there are updates to be made, is there someone in particular I should ping to go through them? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I am the primary author of that article and the person who nominated it, you can ping me. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jishara: Pinging because I just noticed your signature, even though I assume you have this page watchlisted. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you! I'll do a look through soon and give you a full standard GA review (sorry about you having to go through this twice for the same article, BTW). Should go as normal and should hopefully be pretty smooth. I'll ping you with my review. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Well, this article was actually in quite good shape. Just a couple small things, I'd say, @RecycledPixels: Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):
    MoS is followed in all relevant cases, and prose is clean and clear throughout.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Copyvio % at its highest is 15, and it's all unrephrasable stuff. Reference list is present and presentable. One uncited sentence, however - "By leaving the size of infected files unchanged, the virus is able to conceal the fact that the file has been modified." Spotcheck of 10 sources (36, 37, 25, 35, 16, 8, 42, 43, 49, and 4) revealed no issues.
    That should have been attributed to Wang 1998, which was the source of much of that paragraph. I've fixed the citations. From the source, "It is in these areas that CIH stores its code, thus infecting a file without increasing its length." RecycledPixels (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Sounds good, but that doesn't quite say that it's concealing - does the source confirm that it's concealing or just that it's not lengthening? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    "Cavity infectors, which seek a 'hole' within a file large enough to hold the entire virus, are not new...", and "CIH fragments its code to take advantage of slack space at the end of sections in PE files" (from the diagram caption), and "CIH breaks its code into chunks that it uses to fill 'slack space' at the end of the sections in his hosts. It checks for files with insufficient slack space, refusing to infect them."
    Ducklin 2018 also has a paragraph about it, it calls "Code Caving". "The final notable feature of CIH that we'll look at here, a technique that is very much back in fashion amongst penetration testers and cybercriminals alike, is the trick of adding malicious code to an existing file without changing its size. Early parasitic viruses were usually prependers or appenders, meaning that they inserted their modifications into the victim file at the very start, or added them at the very end, something that made the malware coding easier but unavoidably increased the size of the file, too. CIH, in contrast, is a cavity infector, meaning that it finds unused or unimportant parts of the host file and insinuates itself there instead, so that the size of the infected file doesn't change." I've added a citation to that source to the article to address your concern. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Perfect! Looks good. now just waiting on 4. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Based on the sources, it seems like all the important aspects were covered, and it doesn't really stray.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    not sure it's quite accurate that the virus was named after the guy - i mean his initials were in the code but at least three sources say the virus was named after the initials and they had no idea about the guy's existence for at least a little bit - i'd reword that. the word "limitations" (about the laws) feels a little non-neutral as well. i also wouldn't say that it "had some advantages" - that's a strange way to put it IMO.
    The statement about the initials is 100% inaccurate; an anon user has tried to put a footnote into the lead a couple of times that says that, and I've just taken that back out again. In the History section, it says his classmates also noted that the virus name was based on his initials that had appeared within the program, CIH, I've reworded that sentence to make it clearer that the CIH name came from a text string that researchers found within the program, and that Chen's classmates identified the connection between the text string and Chen's initials.
    As for the "limitations" of the law, do you have any suggestions? After the initial news rush of his arrest, coverage of the ultimate fate of Chen's criminal case were pretty nonexistent. Ducklin2018, which is what is cited in the article, says "as far as we know, however, he was detained and investigated in 2000, but due to the nature of cybersecurity laws in Taiwan at the time, he was never tried or convicted of any crime". That's the most reliable source I could locate about it, but there was never any definitive statement by prosecutors that "we've dropped charges because 'x'" that I've found after a ton of searching, at least in English sources. Unreliable sources that I found but haven't included in the article suggested that in order to convict Chen, prosecutors would have to had to prove intent to spread a damaging virus, and that would have been difficult to do because Chen said he submitted the virus as a class assignment in his school and the distribution of the virus happened because of other students in the class. That, to me, sounds likely to have been the reason for not being prosecuted, I just don't have a good source for that, or even for what the law says, but trying to perform legal analysis seemed like dancing a bit too close to the OR line anyway. It also explains why the school didn't punish him for anything more than just not providing a removal tool.
    I'm sorry, I can't find the "had some advantages" text that you're referring to. Is that that the CIH virus takes advantage of the wasted space between objects in a PE file? I could have written it something like "The CIH virus exploits the wasted space", but that changes the meaning slightly from what I intended. The use of the wasted space was a novel approach and it was very advantageous to use it because at the time one of the ways people noticed and detected virus infections was by the change in file size. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @RecycledPixels: For clarity, I meant "the CIH infection did have some benefits" - didn't quote it correctly. i feel like that's a really awkward way to word it. As for why he didn't get charged I wouldn't go with "limitations", i'd say something like just "due to the laws" and not "due to the limitations of the laws". There's actually a retrospective analysis here from CNA Taiwan, though, and probably more, so try to add from that if possible (if you want to search for more use his Chinese name 陳盈豪) When I was digging, I also found this, which seems useful for that too - check and try to add the stuff from there too because it looks like it gives useful context. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I changed the wording to clarify that it was the awareness of the consequences of the virus that had the benefits, not the actual virus. Good catch. I removed the "limitations" portion of that sentence about prosecution. I'll look into integrating a sentence or two from the two sources you identified, but not right away, I'm going to be away from my computer for a while after this. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    No rush at all! Ping me when you get a chance to make the updates - those two sources turned out to be really informative IMO and give a decent amount of info about what the virus creator was up to, etc, so i'm looking forward to seeing how a bit of that gets integrated. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Jishara: I've added information about the 2003 criminal code amendment about computer offenses and the CNA source for the unofficial "Chen Ing-hau clause" nickname. The IThome source didn't have anything I was interested in using. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @RecycledPixels: I do think a mention of him creating an antidote program as well (subject of the IThome) should also be included for fullness. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Jishara: I'm relying on machine translation for that article, but I don't see that Chen wrote the virus remover. CIH detector and removal programs were available from all of the antivirus companies by Summer 1998, long before his involvement in the creation of the virus was known, so I don't see much importance in Chen holding a press conference in April 2000 to tell people to run virus scanners, much less a removal program that he had written himself if that was the case (kind of like the call you get from the second scammer who offers to help you recover all the money the first scammer stole from you). RecycledPixels (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    i would say we should put in a mention, though - it's currently a bit imbalanced compared to actual coverage in its section about Chen, who is a BLP Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    The article is about the computer virus, not Chen. I don't think his press conference should be included. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Fair enough about the press conference, but I do think we need just one or so more sentences there (1) to close off the scope there and (2) to make sure of a neutral POV. ping me when you get a chance to add. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There are some reverts in the history, but I don't think they're edit wars - they look like routine cleanup.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):
    One image in the article, and it's used appropriately, captioned, and has alt text!
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

@Jishara: Thanks for your review. I've responded in the comments and made some changes to the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

@Jishara: I have responded to the latest round of feedback. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Songs for You

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

Per Special:Diff/1376749699 basically undoing all of the edits made to make this a GA over AI-generation concerns. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Printing press

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

Per this thread, this GA is suspected of having been generated by a LLM. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

When I reviewed this one, I was ambivalent whether to pass or fail. I was not too happy with the overall narrative, but it was decent enough. Well at least to what I know about the subject, which was not deep enough to write myself but enough to feel that it was not quite there. I leaned over pass because it will some more exposure by other editors who might be able to contribute beyond my skills. Here we are. A.Cython(talk) 00:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
No comment on possible LLM issues, but reading through this I noticed some portions that seemed confused. I corrected a few errors but I also think are some issues that would take more time to address.
The article kind of conflates Chinese and Korean printing. It would make more sense to discuss the vast scope of the Chinese written alphabet when mentioning the "wooden type, arranged on revolving tables" because this gives the context on why Wang Zhen might have used wooden type and also why he needed revolving tables instead of just drawers or bins or something.
The line "The Gutenberg press benefited from its use of the Latin alphabet with a relatively small set of characters." comes after Korean printing, but it's not really relevant when Korean Hangul also has a relatively small set of characters. Korean metal type printing was (I believe) largely controlled by the state's production of ink, paper, printing, and printed documents. This is a huge difference compared to Europe where there were many competing printers and a vast range of printed materials. The article talks about books, but doesn't cover non-religious books like Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. It also doesn't really touch on printing images in general. Cards are mentioned only well after the printing presses have shifted playing cards from woodblock luxury items to common things available in every home, pub, inn, and pharmacy. It also results in the Game of the Goose and the whole modern industry of printed games. The details of things like that, of post cards or of paper money might veer out of scope for this article, but printing presses very much changed the cost and cultural significance of ephemera and I think that is probably in scope for this article but not covered.
Finally regarding scope: if the type of press this article covers is specifically the type using pressure then it should probably give a little more coverage to modern letterpress usage and explain how laser and offset printing are different. If the scope is more broadly mass printing, then it should give a lot more coverage to offset printing and laser printing as the dominant methods of modern printing presses. I think either direction would be defensible. Hope this helps, Rjjiii (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Avatar (2009 film)

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

An orange {{Unreliable sources}} tag is placed on top of the article, indicating that the article may have unreliable sources. ScarletViolet ★ 14:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  • My Source analysis found these:
    • Scribd - unreliable source
    • jamescameron.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog
    • Daily Express - unreliable source
    • New York Post - unreliable source
    • marketsaw.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog (x2)
    • upcomingfilmscores.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog
    • PR Newswire - unreliable source
    • Herald Sun - unreliable source
    • blu-ray.com - unreliable source (x2)

Vestrian24Bio 11:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delist. A criterion of WP:GACR6 is that there must be reliable sources. I still see sources from PR Newswire, Facebook, Blu-ray.com, and various Blogspot sites in the references. Furthermore, I see an {{Additional citations needed}} template for the Video game subsection. Unless these issues are resolved soon, I believe we should delist this article. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Let me take and rework this one. It's typical franchise bloat and the article is too long. The good news is the multiple attributions should allow me to slim down sourcing to the best of the bunch. I was looking for a new GA nom anyway and it would be a shame to delist this one. Deborah.artemis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I plan to work on this one after the weekend. We're all fine if I'm given a couple of weeks? Thanks. Deborah.artemis (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
As no one has replied, I am considering it agreed that this will remain listed and I will work on it. Deborah.artemis (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I've dispensed with the blogs without compromising any of the info. The release date on the blue-ray was wrong, in fact, so I've fixed that. The Express and The Post are tabloids but they can be referenced on a movie article. I want to go over it general bloated writing, so if there are any comments in that regard then please let me know. Deborah.artemis (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Flag of Tunisia

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

Most of the Previous flags section cites the self-published Flags of the World (WP:FOTW). This 2008 GA is not up to snuff Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Aquarius (Tinashe album)

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

I reviewed this article (poorly) back when I was still new at making GA reviews (thank the lord I made better ones down the line). As discussed before, the original nominator has been blocked from mainspace as a result of using AI in articles (which is generally prohibited). As a result, there may still be some AI writing left over, which we gotta get rid of. RedShellMomentum 23:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • There are two directions we can go. We can restore the version of the page in June 2025 before it was expanded with AI tools, and remove the GA tag, or we can all team up and rework the page to restore GA status but with human English composition replacing suspected text. I think the easier choice is the first one, and that old version of the page is actually pretty good. I would suggest delisting the page. We can all poke at it a bit as the spirit strikes, with no pressing schedule to meet. Nobody would have to compare and evaluate sentences to see whether they were AI-generated. Delisting is easy for the community of editors, and the reader will still be satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delist - While we can try to fix the AI use, there's sentences that don't seem to make sense due to the original nominator's language barrier: "In February 2012, it saw the release of her debut mixtape, In Case We Die (2012)" (what is "it", Tinashe's career? A career is inanimate and cannot see things) and "As August Brown of the Los Angeles Times calls the album's music 'weird, wonderful world of experimental beat' which he compared to other PBR&B singers, including FKA Twigs and Kelela, continuing to say the album has rhythm and swing 'yet cut through with melancholy'" ("as" doesn't make sense?). Clocking in at just 95 in-line references and 1.7k words, there would also be concerns about comprehensiveness. I think those issues go beyond what we as non-subject matter experts can or are expected to fix.--NØ 04:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Skibidi Toilet

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

The page is missing substantial information in the Adaptations & Licensing section. There is no mention of Skibidi Toilet: Emergence, an officially licensed spin-off series. The information pertaining to the Next Level lawsuit is also outdated, as Next Level and Invisible Narratives have already reached a settlement (which isn't mentioned). No mention of collaborations with PUBG, Discord, Stumble Guys either, which are rather significant. Overall I believe the page is no longer broad enough to keep its GA status. A few minor issues with redundant citations in a few places, outdated info in the Production section (it still assumes Gerasimov is the only one producing the series). — BitByte10 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Chapter Three: The Case of the Missing Lifeguard

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

Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I wrote and nominated this article, so I don’t think I am allowed to give an opinion here on if it should stay a GA (obviously I think it should since I nominated it), but I am curious as to what will happen now? Will people here assess the article to see if it meets the criteria or not and decide that way, or will it simply be delisted entirely because of the AI generated review? Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 20:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You are of course allowed and encouraged to offer your opinions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Apologizes for not responding after a month wait, I intended to give my reasons for why this should stay a GA but forgot to. I believe this article satisfies all criteria, for example the images are relevant and properly tagged, the prose is consistently solid, and all the references are cited properly, with a comprehensive look into every aspect of the episode, going as far as I could find to get every detail I could. I don’t believe anything is missing (pun not intended) from this article, but if it would be preferred for someone else who didn’t work on the article to comment, then I’d also be fine to wait and respond to any issues they may have Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 22:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bgsu98: Hi, just wondering what the status on the article’s reassessment is, since this has been active for more than a month? Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 12:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bgsu98: and @Crystal Drawers: I'm happy to step in and do a new GA review of this article - Crystal Drawers, are you free/available enough to make fixes if I spot problems, etc? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jishara: Hello! Yes, I’d be happy to answer any issues you have with the article. I should be able to respond to any issues in a timely manner, just please ping me when you post them so I know :) Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 18:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Fantastic! I'll ping you when I do the review, should be within the next day or so. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

J. Wray & Nephew Ltd.

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

Bringing this here after discussion at DYKT. I believe the review did not properly assess the sourcing under GACR 2(a) and 2(b). It uses self-published sources extensively when reliable sources are required per 2(a), and it uses primary sources extensively, when 2(b) requires no original research.

  • 9 claims are sourced to Petr Hlousek's self-published rum label archive. Even if this were to be considered an appropriate source somehow, the rum labels would still be primary sources.
  • A Medium post by Javaun Francis. The nominator said in the review Javaun Francis is a rum educator with a Youtube channel where he does in-depth videos about rum, and owns a company, Louisiana Cane Spirits, and a website, booksrumandthensome.com. Again, I normally avoid Medium for that exact reason, but Javaun Francis is genuinely an expert in the field and his credibility should carry over. I'm sorry, but there is no evidence provided that Francis meets the requirements of WP:SPSEXPERT, and his other website named is a personal Substack.
  • 39 claims are attributed to two videos featuring interviews with J. Wray personnel published by J. Wray & Nephew's trade association. These are primary and non-independent sources, and while such sources can be used sparingly, here they are used extensively and not just for straightforward, non-contentious claims. Here, for instance, one of these videos is used as a source for a negative claim about a competitor: Unlike some other distilleries, such as Hampden Estate, which re-use dunder during fermentation to increase the concentration of esters, producing higher-ester "funky" rums, J. Wray & Nephew does not re-use it and treats dunder purely as waste. Or for promotional/exceptional claims, such as Their more premium line of rums is Appleton Estate or Park Avenue, a liquor store in Manhattan, at one point was the exclusive distributor of a 20-year-old column still Appleton rum. Two additional claims are sourced to the company's own website
  • 23 claims are sourced to Matt Pietrek's blogs Cocktail Wonk and RumWonk. There was some discussion as to whether Pietrek's blogs would count as WP:SPSEXPERT since he has published a few articles in otherwise reliable sources, but this RSN discussion indicates some skepticism about it.
  • 8 claims are attributed to a Wordpress blog by a "Michael Mosley". The nominator says but the author, Michael Mosley, is a BBC journalist, so I think his credibility on reporting should carry over to his wordpress. But the Michael Mosley who was a BBC journalist died in 2024 and was married to Clare Bailey, while the Michael Mosley of the Wordpress blog does not claim to be a BBC journalist and is married to Bonita. Any claim of WP:SPSEXPERT falls apart.
  • Other problematic sources: sponsored content from the company, a self-published family genealogy site, more primary sources.

All told, dozens of claims (a significant majority of this article) are based on primary, non-independent, and/or self-published sources. This should never have been passed at GAN and should be delisted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Would like to apologize for any shortcomings I have not looked up on, but will try to rectify the issues. Thanks. brachy08 (chat here lol) 23:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Dclemens1971 I will try my best to improve the article on 10art's behalf and have removed as many dubious sources as I can. https://singlecaskrum.com/countries/jamaica/appleton-estate-new-yarmouth/ seems promising, but I'm not sure. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I have canned an entire section about New Yarmouth, and until I can resolve the claims myself, I'll have to support demoting this article. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the effort you put into this.
I'm not going to lie, I have not been active lately, since I submitted this article for GA just to see if I have been doing a good job editing wikipedia, and to hear that I have been doing it all wrong, and the person I rely on for probably over a quarter of my citations across all articles is not reliable at all, just made me want to step away from editing wikipedia. 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 19:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)reply
You have been doing a good job, but we do make mistakes sometimes.
If you want to take a break, be my guest, but you're not doing it all wrong and he's just not reliable enough. You've done a lot of research on the subject, so you're on the right track. Please don't get disheartened over one failure. brachy08 (chat here lol) 01:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Alright, I'll take a break and consider things.
Pietrek also wrote for Bevvy by the way, he has a column there called "Ruminations" https://bevvy.co/articles/author/matt-pietrek 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 16:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Understood. Sorry for the late reply, but given a quick glance at Bevvy, I believe they're kinda reliable, not experienced with reliability but I think it counts as SPSEXPERT brachy08 (chat here lol) 07:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree (uninvolved editor here) - i think Pietrek is fine. I'm more worried of the other ones. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:18, 1 October 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"