Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

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

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiatives:June 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

Ponnar Shankar

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

Last assessed in 2011. A lot has changed since, including sources being declared unreliable. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Myst (series)

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

Old GA article has a lot of unsourced statement, poor reception section that needs to be expanded, citation errors, and needs to be copyedited to meet its criteria. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Boneless Pizza!, could you go and tag the statements you think need to be sourced? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moons of Haumea

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

A very old GA (2009) with significantly outdated information. Tagged as outdated since July 2025. Lacks discussion of the formation of Haumea's moons and their relation to the Haumea family. Article has received no major changes since the date it was tagged as outdated. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Havelock MRT station

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

This is a bit of a weird situation. The article was passed for GAN a day ago, but other editors (both on and off-wiki) have felt that the review was of insufficient quality since it did not assess all of the criteria. I initially raised this to the nominator and removed the GA icon from the article, and allowed the reviewer to add the additional criteria in the review (which... I definitely shouldn't have, looking at it now). Anyways, I was advised by 11WB to raise it to GAR, so that's why I opened this GAR. Additionally pinging YuniToumei and ZKang123 (the reviewer should be automatically informed). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 18:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not involved, other than through advising @Icepinner here. The original review focused on prose and sources. This covers points 1, 2 and 4 of WP:GACR6. For point 5, we can WP:AGF and assume that @Whyiseverythingalreadyused checked this and didn't raise it due to the article being stable (which it currently is according to the edit history). The same can be said for point 3. For point 6, an assessment of the images (of which there are three) was not done. This, in my view, doesn't invalidate the review.
To sum up, the review was brief and short in length, with three of the six criteria explicitly assessed, two of the criteria not raised likely due to there being no issues with them (if we AGF), leaving only the image assessment missing. If the images are deemed appropriate, I think this article can remain a good article. 11WB (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just felt a more thorough review might be necessary rather than a simple rubber stamp. I appreciate WIEAU reviewing but also I felt they might not have sufficient experience and actually appreciate another more experienced user to also give a good look.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman

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

The "Professional career" section was underdeveloped, with one sentence per season. Since the player was active in various professional leagues, this section will need to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shackleton (crater)

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

Uncited statements, especially in the "In popular culture" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've nuked the in popular culture section; with the possible exception of the For All Mankind information most of it plumbs the depths of triviality. There is still some uncited content remaining though, which is largely speculative in nature and seems like material that is a high risk of being original research. Hog Farm Talk 21:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
should the 3D model be kept? it seems more like a novelty to me, and a topographic map of shackleton could achieve the same thing ArkHyenawoop! (she/they/it) 21:14, 18 May 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]

Nerva

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Min968 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources available. I previously saved GA on the Flavian Dynasty. I am already lined up to work on Washington Crossing the Delaware and have a few other military history project responsibilities to catch up on first. Donner60 (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Houston Rockets

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

Uncited statements, especially in the more recent events. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sourcing. Ladtrack (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 96

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

Much of the route description was uncited. I am not sure if that has a similar exception to WP:CALC or MOS:PLOT, but there are citation needed templates throughout the section so it might need to be looked at by a subject-matter expert. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: the RD section was previously cited to Yahoo! Maps, but that service has been discontinued, resulting a loss of footnotes. I added replacement citations to other available maps. The RD is fully cited once again. Imzadi 1979 → 23:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan in music

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

There are uncited statements, including an entire paragraph. The "Pop music" section suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, and I think it can be split into larger time periods or expanded, if applicable. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources and consolidated sections. Ladtrack (talk) 00:20, 17 May 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]

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes, additions and deletions, have been made by multiple editors. Is there any specific area to indicate at this point? Kyteto (talk) 22:49, 14 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]

Armenian Americans

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an "Update needed" at the top of the "Armenian genocide" section from October 2023, which needs to be resolved. Unreliable sources are used in the article such as PanARMENIAN.Net and City-Data.com, which should be replaced by more reliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of the issues. ----Երևանցի talk 07:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720: Please let me know what you think of this article's quality now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History of Shaktism

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article relies upon lots of block quotes, which create copyright concerns and sometimes make it difficult to explain concepts. The "Modern developments" doesn't have information or sources post-2007 and needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review and try to address noted issues. EM (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tungsten

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few books with missing page numbers as well, such as the one in the Archaea section. I'll add an Infobox for the hazards at least and see if I can find some of the more basic facts in Ullmann's/Chemistry of the Elements. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic drift

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Genome42 also mentioned that "it contains misinformation and leaves out some important facts about random genetic drift." Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 4 May 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]

Diaphoneme

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble identifying any uncited claims. Can you please mark them with {{citation needed}} tags? — Ƶ§œš¹ 14:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but a lot of what you've tagged actually is cited. It's just they are formatted as attributive phrases, rather than reference notes or parenthetical citations. I could quibble about the distinction between parenthetical and attributive references, but even if that distinction weren't meaningful, it still doesn't follow that a deprecated citation format is the same thing as an uncited claim. As such, I've removed the citation needed tags. If there's a more appropriate tag or hatnote to put that has to do with citation formatting rather than citations themselves, that would be more appropriate.
Anyway, what's left is a set of four statements:
Two of them are rather benign analyses following examples of diaphonemic representation. In the first, the diaphonemic transcription of "New York" is described as an example of a polylectal representation. The second is clearly an elaboration of an already cited work, Orten (1991). We could explicitly cite Orten again, but it is redundant IMHO.
The other two I would say are the most valid. @Kwamikagami: is the one who [added the paragraph about Chao] in 2010 and may be better suited to provide accurate references. I am the one who added the bit about speakers who can hear a contrast that they don't make. I'm almost certain that it is backed up in the source cited earlier in that paragraph, but it doesn't hurt to check my notes on that. — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Copied the 1ary sources from General Chinese. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved the other claim down a few paragraphs where a well-cited example is given.
The only other uncited claim remaining is the bit about a diaphonemic transcription of New York. As I recall this was originally placed in the lede section, but the desire to have citations even in the lede prompted finding an example that could be attributed.
It seems to me like this New York example works to illustrate already-cited claims, on par with defining a word and then using that word in a sentence or identifying a grammatical rule and then generating a fictional sentence illustrating that rule. I may be too familiar with the topic to make an objective assessment on this, so I'll leave it to other users to weigh in. If we do decide to keep it, I think it might be best to switch it and the example given in the lede, since it would be more familiar to readers. — Ƶ§œš¹ 15:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Security Act (Singapore)

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

The article is over 11,000 words long, which is larger than what is recommended at WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. I do not think the article's topic can justify its larger length, and sections can be spun out or summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Writing more concisely may be possible, but I'm not convinced this is a topic that has easily spun-out sections. It's a very specific topic about quite a prominent individual law. CMD (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the cases of people detained under ISA could definitely be spun out and trimmed somehow. Honestly, I thought this GAR is due to uncited statements and I'm prepared to sieve out these unsourced statements but it seems the problem rests more with the length of the article?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Instances of the application of the PPSO and ISA section? Might be able to be worked into a standalone list, although not sure what sources might ground that as a separate list. A summary and important instances would still be needed here. I note that the court case subsections have a lot of primary sourcing, trimming that down and leaving that detail to their main articles could help as well. CMD (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Chipmunkdavis. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look through the article, I think the article is large because it gives multiple examples of various provisions in the law. For example, "Instances of the application of the PPSO and ISA" gives 14 examples of the law's application, acting more like a list with little context about their importance to understanding the topic. The "Basic features doctrine" section describes the case where it was created, when it could instead focus on describing the doctrine. "Role of the judiciary in national security matters" gives a paragraph to each academic scholar, when these paragraphs could be merged and summarised more effectively. They also uses lots of quotes from their sources, both as block quotes and in the prose, when these could be summarised instead. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I have been working on this article for the past few days, and so far I've dropped it down to 8153 words, which I hope you'll agree is an improvement. I still plan to continue reducing the article but I was wondering if, besides the length, you had any other issues? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington's crossing of the Delaware River

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I have some references so I will look at this. It will be at least a few days before I can get to it. I think other editors may want to work on this as well. Donner60 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I unexpectedly have been asked to give a presentation next week because the scheduled speaker is now unable to give his talk that date. Since I was not expecting to make a presentation until at least next month, I need to prepare the talk and slides on short notice. I may not have much time online for the week. Currently, I have nothing extraordinary scheduled for the rest of May and should be online most or all of the later days this month and to have more time to work on this. Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Central Valley Project

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

Much of the "Background" section is uncited. The "CVP resources" is an indescriminate list, and I am not sure what it is listing. It shouldn't have external links in it, and I think it needs to be explained or removed. The "Timeline" section has several uncited statements and far too much detail. The information should be written as prose and not hidden in collapsable tables, as it is inassessable to mobile readers. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "CVP resources" and "CVP Government Library" sections, and removed collapsible tables from the "Timeline" section. The timeline section still needs to be shortened. Mxzkqklt (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Junko Sakurada

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

Unsourced BLP violations. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:35, 24 April 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]

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]

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]

Buellia frigida

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) 02:11, 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 02:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am far from an advocate of LLMs as writing aids, and wouldn't use them to help write an article in the way the author did. But I'm sympathetic to Silver seren's perspective: is there any indication that there are problems with the article? I spent a good bit of time with the article before and during the review and thought it was of a high quality. This included rooting out some problems low-level problems fairly typical of LLM-generated content, as well as encouraging the author to be open about the use of ChatGPT (see my review). It's entirely possible I've missed something; e.g., maybe I should have done more source spotchecking. If there are problems, I'm happy to help fix them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese battleship Kirishima

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

Tthe "Wreck" section is uncited, which should be resolved. A YouTube clip from "The History Channel" is also used as a source twice, which should be replaced with a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The wreck section, which was added post GA assessment, can probably be sourced to Lundgrun, Robert; Tully, Anthony (19 March 2022). "Analysis of the wreck of Kirishima" (PDF). www.navweapons.com. Retrieved 11 March 2026. - which appears to be the source used (though not cited) by the editor who made the last major revision of this section [4]. As that source is an update to the "Kirishima Damage Analysis" reference used in the Second naval battle of Guadalcanal section, there may be benefit to reviewing the existing links, though I don't know if that would be required by GA reassessment. The info cited to the history Channel appears to be cited to many sources - although someone needs to check whether everything in the two paragraphs that cite the History Channel video (which I cannot view because I'm in the wrong country) can be sourced to the other refs cited. The contents of the don't seem to be particularly controversialNigel Ish (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Check out this article when you have a chance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bgsu98: History Channel reference remains, and there's still a citation needed tag. In both instances, the History Channel ref is used in conjunction with other refs. @Nigel Ish: or other interested editors: If the other sources used in the same ref bundle can be accessed, an editor can verify that the information is already verified by the other sources and remove the History Channel ref without needing to access the History Channel video. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who originally added the History Channel ref in December last year, as part of a major expansion of the article, has still not bothered to turn up here. A good chunk of what is in the two paragraphs appears to be sourced to the History channel (at least it isn't in the combined fleet cites - DANFS appears to be down at the moment), and most of the two paragraphs isn't about Kirishima, but telling a more general history of the Battle of Midway, which probably isn't needed here. I wonder if the December changes should just be rolled back.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nigel Ish: Rolling back the text is an editor content decision, which is difficult for me to give an opinion about because I don't know this topic well. If the added information is not a major aspect of the article and it cannot be verified elsewhere, I think it can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken an axe to the paragraphs in question to remove the History Channel cites and some of the more tangential stuff. I'll leave it to others to decide whether I have trimmed too much or too little. @Sturmvogel 66: who did the original GA review on the article and may have a useful opinion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lo! and I have been summoned. I think that this needs a lot of work to meet its current A-class status. It's still very wordy and uses non-encylopedic language in places. I'm dissatisfied with the description section and also think that it should have had two infoboxes to clarify its original build and how it was rebuilt. A fair number of the sources are not what I'd call highly reliable and I'll replace them with better ones. There are too many uninteresting images and I think that we deserve better than a solid stack of them on the right side of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty well done with this. Lemme know if anybody else sees anything still needing remediation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Muammar Gaddafi

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

When this article passed its GAN in 2013, it was over 11,000 words. Now, it is almost 16,000, almost double the recommended size at WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG that an article would be considered for WP:SPINOUT. I think this article needs an overhaul and unnecessary detail moved out of the article to fulfil WP:GA? 3b. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thepharoah17: 15,489 as of May 25. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Girard

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

The article has barely been updated since being promoted to GA status in 2020; please see this comment from @MFTP Dan: Joeykai (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a bit busy recently but I should be able to bring the article back to GA status this week. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone has volunteered since I last checked this out, but I was just dropping by to say I probably won't have time to fix it for a while, which is why I brought it forward to the talk page. Thank you Hickory, I appreciate it. mftp dan oops 18:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one to get it to GA status before, I feel bad that it has fallen to the wayside HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeykai and MFTP Dan:, I am so sorry for the delay but I am improving it now. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Man, he's been turbo buns this series. You think it's worth mentioning when we're inevitably swept tomorrow? mftp dan oops 00:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joeykai: What is your take on this article now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Kubrick

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

The article was quite long at exactly 15,000 words. I think information can be spun out into existing or new articles, and the prose summarised more effectively here. This includes information about Kubrick's work on specific movies, which probably belong in the movie's articles. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Elvis Presley article should be delisted too for being too long then.. That's an FA. You expect articles on icons like Kubrick, Elvis and Sinatra to be long and detailed. This could be trimmed a fair bit, agreed, but running straight to GAR seems unnecessary. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dr. Blofeld: If other articles do not fulfil their respective criteria, I suggest that editors take appropriate steps. Any article that doesn't fulfil the criteria is eligible for GAR/FAR, although I try not to send articles with minor concerns (like ones with one citation needed). If editors wish to change or clarify the GA criteria, please go to WT:GA. For this article, I think the article is too long and needs to go through a process of spinning out or summarising information for this to retain its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And you forget that the FA for Taylor Swift is larger by half than Elvis. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:17, 9 April 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]

Asthma

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

This top-importance Medicine article was listed in 2013, and has not been kept up-to-date. Opening the GAR in the hope of finding someone who would like to give the article a once-over

  • In contrast to WP:MEDDATE, the article's median source year is 2011
  • The economics section is US-focussed, and ends in 2010
  • The 2007 NICE guidelines are cited, even though the 2024 guidelines are out
  • The genetic evidence stops in 2005(!). Surely, more is known now about which genes contribute to asthma risk. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m willing to take this on if I can have some time to wrap up my studies and the Coeliac disease article (studies wrap up in 2 weeks and i’m hoping the CD article will wrap up around them as well) IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay so this seems to be quite a big project. This is not something I will reasonably be able to do in under a month but I'm going to chip away at it. I'm going to start by removing some information that is not mentioned in recent sources and go from there. Seeing as this is a huge article I don't think it needs tons of info added moreso just some reshuffling of existing info and updating. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of progress has been made but I am very busy lately. Thank you for our patience so far and I would appreciate some more time to finish up the last bits that need to be wrapped up. Just wanted to clarify that I have not given up on this article. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline updates

  • NHLBI guidelines: The scope of the 2020 NHLBI focused update is substantially narrower than that of the 2007 NHLBI/NAEPP guidelines (EPR-3). The 2007 guideline therefore remains generally valid except where its recommendations have been superseded by the 2020 focused update. Consequently, most citations to the 2007 guideline cannot be replaced by the 2020 update.

Boghog (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update

@Femke, IntentionallyDense, and Boghog: What is the status of this GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done genetic evidence section completely rewritten and supported with recent MEDRS compliant sources
  •  Done GINA_2011 → GINA_2025
  •  Done SIGN 101 → SIGN 158
  •  Not done NHLBI_2007 → NHLBI_2020 (not possible since scope of NHLBI_2020 is much narrower than NHLBI_2007)
  • Boghog (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's being worked on, still left to do are the following:
  • Rework lead. Ideally no citations as especially with the rp template, they clutter things
  • Update associated conditions. Includes removing exact percentages as they aren't that helpful to readers IMO and they get outdated easily
  • Classification. Trim the second para and the asthma exacerbation subheading (overly technical at times) Condense the 3 subtypes remaining into above paragraphs. Add a bit more info on symptom control and severity
  • Causes. Currently working on this in a sandbox User:IntentionallyDense/Asthma but basically just condense info and update it
  • Pathophysiology. Update it and possibly simplify it a bit
  • Diagnosis. Update and condense
  • Update prognosis and epidemiology
  • Combine the economy and health disparities into a society and culture section
  • History needs a bit of tidying.
This is not an easy or quick job, I'm currently in school and working so my time is limited but as with the coeliac disease page, I will get it done, I just need some time. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cancerning {{rp}}, these will be replaced later this year with Sub-referencing which is a much cleaner solution. Harvard-style referencing fragments citation information between inline notes and the reference list, requiring readers to jump between sections to understand precisely what part of a source supports a claim. Sub-referencing keeps page and chapter details directly beneath the full citation, allowing readers to verify sources immediately and with less effort. Boghog (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see work in going quite well. I do notice quite a few quite technical bits being introduced however. For instance, the lead uses the terms bronchioles and alveoli, without explaining them. Not sure if it's possible to simplify the treatment section of the lead, but it comes across as more technical than our typical reader might need. In the genetics section, loci is not explained, atopic isn't defined (is it a necessary word?). In general the genetic correlation paragraph is tough to understand. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:59, 12 February 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=1354189891"