Talk:Ove Almborn

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography , a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

WikiProject icon Fungi : Lichens Low‐importance

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. Silver seren ^C 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. Silver seren ^C 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. Silver seren ^C 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. Silver seren ^C 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? Silver seren ^C 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. Silver seren ^C 16:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]