Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓

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 instructions

Before opening a reassessment

Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
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

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.
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).
Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Manual opening steps

Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
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.
The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
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.
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

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.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
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.
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.
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).

GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days).
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
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.
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

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.
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)
Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

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.
Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
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
The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12 Dragon Quest 2025-03-13 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.

2026-02-12 19:08:20: Shamrock Rovers F.C.

2026-02-12 19:08:20: Triple Crown (snooker)

2026-02-23 07:28:08: Gila monster

2026-03-25 03:59:14: Marinette Dupain-Cheng

2026-03-30 23:16:50: UPMC Presbyterian

2026-05-07 06:42:12: Mihail Kogălniceanu

2026-05-07 08:55:44: Robert Evans (journalist)

2026-06-01 19:11:07: The Front (The Simpsons)
2026-07-01 23:26:25: Current date for reference

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

SpongeBob SquarePants

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

Result pending

Promoted to GA status back in 2013, this article has severely decayed overtime. Towards the second half there are paragraphs that are really short that I don't think can stand on their own, plus with a reliable sources banner at the top of the page, along with six citation needed tags. I don't think this is a GA anymore unless the points I just mentioned can be addressed. Thank you. Gavetheman555 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

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

Emanuel Lasker

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

Result pending

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

Sometimes GA (or FA) status can be a burden. The problem with reassessments is they force a large number of changes over a short space of time without interested parties really having enough time to properly review them. Unsourced statements get removed despite being well known to people familiar with the subject because someone doesn't have some book or other, while poorly researched stuff on a random web page gets accepted as a source.... I don't really care if this loses GA status. I'd much rather the article just got demoteed to B status already than go through a "reassessment". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. BrotherGunk (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Last month I removed a completely false claim (which was unsourced) in the article about his opening preferences, which makes me worried that there are other false claims hiding. Dayshade (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Statements must be supported by a source otherwise it is just spreading or starting a rumour. EulerianTrail (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Even cited claims could be wrong, either because the source was wrong, or misinterpreted, etc. In this case it both was wrong and had no inline citation. Also can you be more specific about what you mean? Are you saying every statement in the article should have an inline citation or something else? Or are you referring to my own claim about a false claim? Dayshade (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the GAR process. With the GA process, there is a single "nominator", a single "reviewer", and a template for the set of questions the reviewer should be asking and the nominator should be addressing. Are there anything like those things for GAR? I am interested in this because I know that these ancient articles about chess world champions have problems (because I've noticed problems before), but I don't know how to get from this to having a specific and comprehensive list of work items. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe so yes, although I am admittedly in the same boat. We might have luck with the copyeditors guild as well. Cheers. BrotherGunk (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Doro Pesch

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

Result pending

Article no longer matches criteria 4: Neutral. This can be seen in sentences like "Doro attracted immediately the attention of fans and press, becoming the spokesperson and the main means of promotion for the band." and "Doro Pesch was one of the few exceptions; her qualities as vocalist and songwriter in Warlock, her commitment in promoting their music and her avoidance of posturing as a sex symbol won the respect of a solid fan base in the expanding European metal scene of that period, ensuring a long string of favorable articles" as well as the use of phrases such as "all over the world", create too much editorial bias. Hayasynth (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Tomb of Safdar Jang

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

Result pending

This article was nominated and cleared for GA status 11 years ago (see here for original review). However, in its current state I believe the article has several problems that preclude it from maintaining GA status:

Quickfail criterion #3: It has cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. There are several spelling ('Safadrjung' [sic], 'Safdaejung' [sic], etc.), punctuation and grammar issues throughout the article. In addition, multiple statements in the Background section lack necessary citations, and Recent times contains too many direct quotations from sources.

Until recently, the article claimed that the inscription above the gateway was written in Persian, rather than Arabic. This directly contradicted multiple cited sources, which is bad, and the offending edit was in place for over a year, which is worse.

The language used in the article lead suffers from WP:PUFFERY.

Raezer's Mughal Architecture in India, a significant source for the Architecture section, has a permanently dead link.

When looking at WP:GACR, the current version of the article is a long way from meeting 1a. It also needs work to meet 3a (further information on history, tourism, renovations, sub-monuments within the complex, portrayal in popular culture, etc.) when compared to similar non-GA articles such as Humayun's tomb and Taj Mahal.

I believe that after fixing the immediate copy-editing issues, the article can be improved to C/B-class level with further expansion of the article's breadth of coverage and additional sources. However, getting it back to GA level will require a significant overhaul, which is why I believe the article should be delisted and go through the GA process anew. 11achitturi (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The presence of maintenance templates would be sufficient enough for delisting; however, you just now added those, and then brought the article here without giving anyone the opportunity to make improvements to it. Did you notify any interested editors or WikiProjects? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
@Bgsu98 I notified the original reviewer, nominator and WP:IND. My original intention was to make the necessary improvements myself, but it became apparent that the article would require a more significant overhaul to stay at GA status. Criteria #3 at WP:GAFAIL says "It has, or needs, cleanup banners", so I figured it wouldn't make a difference if I added the banners earlier or later. If my GAR for this article was premature/unwarranted, let me know and I will remove it. Apologies. 11achitturi (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
No, we can leave it, it's okay. You made the notifications, and this has to stay open at minimum two weeks, so if there is anyone interested in making the necessary improvements, they can do so. If not, it probably doesn't deserve to remain GA. I'm used to seeing GARs where maintenance templates have been there for years with no action; that's why I was surprised they were so recent in this case. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

FBI files on Michael Jackson

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

Result pending

In a decision today, ArbCom made the finding that TruthGuardians (talk · contribs) (the GA nominator / primary author of this article) has deliberately misled the community about their connection to and conflict of interest regarding the Michael Jackson family. I think that this article should be reassessed for compliance with the GA criteria, particularly number 4. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the context of the nom, this article just doesn't seem GA to me. Most of the article is just a description of the content, often in single-paragraph level 3 headers. The media reaction section also falls short: the first paragraph essentially just says the media did report on it with a sea of links and citations, and the second paragraph is about an associated event that involves an unreliable tabloid being... an unreliable tabloid. There is no analysis of the content of the files or context of their role in his reputation and with other surrounding allegations and evidence.
Possibly due to the background of the arbcom case, the article feels quite sterile and lawyerish, when actually there is either sufficient analysis and reaction out there to build content around it or the article shouldn't exist in the first place and should be merged elsewhere. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 08:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree, especially about the "Media reaction" section. I've never looked into the subject, but the article itself is really basically just a summary of the files and nothing else. Popcornfud (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is what the article looked like at the time of promotion, which certainly goes into more detail than what we have now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Abramski v. United States

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

Result pending

Fails 1b/2c/3a. Lead is way too long. Article is almost entirely cited to primary sources. Article cites nothing from law reviews or journals. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

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

Result pending

I would have quickfailed. This does not meet the criterion for broad coverage/original research as it cites only a single law review article. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The original GA review dates back to 2012! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Delist. The sole secondary source cited ( https://stetsonlawreview.org/article/a-comment-on-the-supreme-courts-machiavellian-approach-to-government-action-and-the-implications-of-its-recent-decision-in-brentwood-academy-v-tennessee-secondary-school-athletic-association/ ) doesn't even appear to be cited correctly, as the date says 2000 in the Wikipedia article but the URL says 2002 (and the general fact of it being a reaction to a 2001 case suggests it probably wasn't a 2000 article, barring some wacky copyright date practices, which admittedly does happen sometimes). This was not a minor case; more secondary sources surely exist. Even if someone wanted to salvage the article with more sources, it'd arguably benefit from a fresh GAN. SnowFire (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Also, I should have clarified, it's not a law review article, it's a comment, which is usually written by a law student staff editor. I think they're reliable, but as you said, articles written by actual legal academics exist. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

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

Result pending

This should have been a quickfail. 10 of the 11 references are to primary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether or not the reliance on primary sources should effect the Good Article status. However, there do appear to be plenty of papers available on Google Scholar about this topic. That might be relevant to assessing if it meets the criteria for it to be "broad in coverage" given that it lacks these sources. AaronNealLucas (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether or not the reliance on primary sources should effect the Good Article status. An article that relies almost entirely on primary sources fails GACR 2c (original research), 3 (major aspects/summary style), and 4 (NPOV, particularly WP:DUE). voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Illinois v. McArthur

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

Result pending

This should have been a quick fail. The article relies entirely on primary sources except for one citation to the Oyez Project case summary. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Pedro del Valle

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

Result pending

Lacks WP:NPOV. This article massively underplays the extent of his antisemitism and fascist views, to the point of basically not addressing it. It used to cover this substantially, but this was removed in 2024 (probably for sourcing reasons?). As is this is woefully undercomprehensive, he was a major fascist player and this is covered in several books.

Generally, I don't think this is GA material (it passed 20 years ago). PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

United States v. Alvarez

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

Result pending

I would have quickfailed this article.

Contains unreliable sources (2b): see refs 36-37.

Contains significant original research (2c):

"Background" (refs 1-9). Seven of the nine citations are to the decisions of the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS. Of the two remaining, one is a Harvard Law Review comment, the other a news article.
"Supreme Court oral arguments" (refs 10-16) contains no secondary citations.
"Supreme Court's decision" (refs 17-34). Only 4 of the citations are to secondary sources. Three of them reference the HLR comment mentioned above, and one is an AP story on the court's decision.
"Aftermath": "Noting that the laws serve different purposes and that impersonating a law enforcement officer presents a threat to the public. Hence, justifying restricting speech in those cases."

Does not address the main aspects of the topic (3a). The article does not summarize the legal scholarship, citing only a single law review article.

NPOV issue (4). The "Reactions" section only contains a few reactions and cite to a single reference for each; it's unclear if this is due. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. This is far enough away from a GA that trying to preserve the status would require writing a lot of it from scratch. lethargilistic (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Original reviewer here. Indeed, this one hasn't aged well. Fortunately, the subject interests me and it looks like we have quite a few new sources we can use. I'll put a little work into this one. —Ed!^(talk) 19:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Aucanquilcha

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

Result pending

I just did a major rewrite and expansion and want to know if this still meets the GA criteria, including the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza! and David Fuchs: Any updates on this? Given it has been three weeks, I'm thinking about potentially delisting this article unless either (a) sources are found where needed or (b) the unsourced information is removed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Almost everything is citable to manuals or the like, but I'm working on reduced editing time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

Awesome! Will start updating almost immediately! John Shorten (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Updated the areas listed, and will look for others to continuously improve. John Shorten (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

User:Z1720: Please let us know what you think of this article's quality now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this beyond my first couple edits. I'm going back to the books to see if I missed anything but if I don't make any more substantial edits in 24 hours I don't know what to say for myself. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 and Reconrabbit: There ar still lots of uncited statements, which I have indicated using citation needed templates. These would need to be resolved before I could recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

I did some work on it today in cleaning up factual inaccuracies and finding sources, plus expanding the lead, but it does need some more work. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

At still around 12k words, this article is way, way too big. The weight of the sections vary wildly; we have a massive history section in spite of a dedicated article, that contains just as much information about eradication, which itself does not have a separate page. Meanwhile, there is a level 2 section about "Mechanism" that is three sentences long, and may or may not be able to be folded into the preceding virology section. This article should likely be a big high-level summary-style overview with better delineated subpages, but that represents a considerable amount of work. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

I'm having trouble identifying any uncited claims. Can you please mark them with {{citation needed}} tags? — Æµ§œš¹ 14:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: I added citation needed tags to the article for uncited statements and for statements that use parenthetical citations, which per WP:PAREN should be replaced with inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

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. — Æµ§œš¹ 04:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Copied the 1ary sources from General Chinese. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

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. — Æµ§œš¹ 15:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. Silver seren^C 02:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

[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. Silver seren^C 03:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)
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. Silver seren^C 15:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
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)
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. Silver seren^C 20:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
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)
I've fixed them both. Anything else to take a look at? Silver seren^C 03:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Not sure what both refers to, but yes, per above. CMD (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
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. Silver seren^C 16:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Delist - The prose reads quite clearly as AI-generated to me; it is thoroughly repetitive, circular, and oddly generalized. A few (non-exhaustive) examples:
- "From 1954 to 1966, Almborn balanced his role as a high school teacher in Malmö with his passion for lichenology, contributing to the field through various publications and research. During this period he combined teaching with research and publication in lichenology" - the second sentence confers zero new information, it's just a vaguer restating of the previous one
- The article mentions that his work led to his doctoral dissertation on the "distribution and ecology of lichens in southern Scandinavia" three separate times across the lead and early life sections, including back-to-back sentences in the latter
- "where he relished the social ambiance of congress dinners and similar gatherings. His anecdotes about renowned botanists engaged and entertained his colleagues, and were well known among colleagues." repetitive and lacks an encyclopedic tone
- "His insights helped shape the field, ensuring rigorous academic standards and fostering a scholarly dialogue among his peers." vague puffery that could be said about pretty much any notable academic in any field. basically reads as LLM speak for "He did a good job at his job"

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

Seems eminently fixable.

1) I moved the first sentence up to the beginning of that section, since that flows way better, and removed the second sentence.

2) I removed the second duplication in Early Life, the lede and the first instance work fine with lede summarization in mind.

3) Per the source, I moved the conferences with the prior sentence and changed the existing one to botanical meetings he was invited as a guest to, adding a quote for his activities that allows a side-stepping of encyclopedic tone problems.

4) I removed that sentence, combined the paragraphs, and added a quote at the end that explains how it was the library and collections that were the major contribution and legacy of his work.

You said those were "non-exhaustive" examples, so what else do you have, Zzz plant? Silver seren^C 23:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Xylopsora canopeorum

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

Result pending

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

Procedurally delist per nom. This sends entirely the wrong message. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Procedurally delist per what rules, Cremastra? Silver seren^C 22:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Multiclavula mucida

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

Result pending

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

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)

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. Silver seren^C 23:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Silver seren^C 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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. Silver seren^C 03:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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? Silver seren^C 03:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

References

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

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

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. -- Recon rabbit 11:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lecideaceae

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

Result pending

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

Gustaf Einar Du Rietz

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

Result pending

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

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:

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 (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)

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)

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)

Delist partially per issues identified by GLL. The legacy section is chock-full of AI signs; it largely consists of generalized repetitive praise. The article could be justifiably tagged as AI-generated just on that basis. I'm also concerned about breadth; the later part of his career is pretty sparsely addressed. He made the front page of Dagens Nyheter (often considered Sweden's newspaper of record) no less than six times between 1925 and 1947. Zzz plant (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hydropunctaria amphibia

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

Result pending

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

Ramalina peruviana

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

Result pending

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

Chrysothrix chlorina

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

Result pending

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

Anaptychia ciliaris

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

Result pending

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

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)

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. Silver seren^C 22:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@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 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)

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. Silver seren^C 01:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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. Silver seren^C 05:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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. Silver seren^C 05:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

Femoral gland

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

Result pending

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Honestly, as the original concern is that this article wasn't up to date, it certainly seems to be so now. Any objections to closure on this? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

@Hog Farm: GhostRiver wasn't notified because GR did not post the original GAN template request, and the GAR script can't detect changes like that. I'll send them a notice now. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It appears 2023-25 are now well documented. Sloopyploop (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sloopyploop: I agree. I think the next steps are to expand the lead and add sub-heading(s) to the "Philadelphia Phillies" section (as it is quite long). Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

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. — Ghost River 20:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — Ghost River 19:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@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)

@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. — Ghost River 16:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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. — Ghost River 02:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

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