User talk:JWBTH/CD test GAN

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN), good article reassessment (GAR), and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the FAQ above or search the archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

I've recently made some changes to the way ChristieBot handles errors. Since I know there are some editors who help out by fixing various kinds of GAN error, here's a summary of how it is now supposed to work, and what can usefully be monitored. My hope is that this is a lot simpler and easier for editors to monitor than it used to be.

There are five different ways that errors can show up:

• Individual GAN entries on the main GAN page. Some issues will appear directly next to a nomination entry (in red text). These come from the {{GANentry }} template and may be further tweaked in the future. These usually indicate something editors can fix on that specific nomination.
• Article talk page. Thanks to Prhartcom, who has enhanced the {{GA nominee }} template, if there are errors in the GA nomination template they will now show up on the article talk page in bold red text. These are typically formatting or parameter issues that the nominator (or any editor) can correct. Note that you can also watchlist Category:GAN error to see these, since anything that creates an error in the GA nomination template will put the talk page that category.
• GAN errors page. User:ChristieBot/GAN errors will list all current nomination/template issues. These will be similar to the problems identified on the GAN page and the article talk page, per the above. If you're interested in helping fix GAN errors this is a good page to watch. For example, it will list nominations with missing or invalid parameters, and nominations in an inconsistent state. Note that the "Errors" section on the GAN page has been eliminated. All editor-facing errors should be listed on here; and if the edit summmaries on the main GAN page start with "Errors listed!", that will be a link to this page.
• ChristieBot bug messages page. User:ChristieBot/Bug messages will list internal bot errors (unexpected failures, database issues, etc.). These are not generally fixable by editors, but may be useful for awareness or reporting. Most editors will not find it useful to watch this.
• Operational status page. User:ChristieBot/Operational status will show a summary of the operational state. Sometimes there are temporary system issues that are not bugs or GAN errors; this page will (when possible) show the status. This page is transcluded onto ChristieBot's user page. This may be worth watching if you want to know, for example, why ChristieBot has not run in a few hours; this might tell you why.

This separation is intended to make it clearer which issues might benefit from editor attention and which are informational only. If you see any errors that don't fit this pattern, or if there are any questions, let me know; it's entirely possible I have not yet converted all the messages to fit this plan. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Mike Christie, thank you for improving the error handling and reporting in ChristieBot and honored to work with you on the GAN templates. OK, good plan: Watchlist Category:GAN error, User:ChristieBot/GAN errors, User:ChristieBot/Bug messages, User:ChristieBot/Operational status, as well as vigilance for any red text appearing on the main GAN page or on the article talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 37#41 likely LLM-generated GAs, twelve GAs suspected of having been written in part using LLM software were sent to GAR. They have received very limited feedback. I am often the GAR closer, but obviously can't touch any of these. Pinging User:NicheSports, User:Generalissima, User:Trainsandotherthings, User:asilvering, User:Chipmunkdavis, and User:UndercoverClassicist, who all participated in the original discussion, and User:Z1720, the GAR King. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

• To save other editors some time, the GAR pages are here:

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Buellia frigida/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Femoral gland/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Anaptychia ciliaris/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chrysothrix chlorina/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ramalina peruviana/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hydropunctaria amphibia/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gustaf Einar Du Rietz/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lecideaceae/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Confluentic acid/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Multiclavula mucida/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Xylopsora canopeorum/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ove Almborn/1

I note that Silver_seren has added Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate to each of them; few have much engagement, if any, beyond that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thus far, any claims of issues with source to content compatibility hasn't stood up to scrutiny. The sources appear to be accurate and applied appropriately, with reframing to avoid close paraphrasing. I've already reworded one paragraph that a complaint was brought up about anyways to improve timeline flow. Feel free to let me know if you find any perceived issues, but please actually read the sources properly. If you're not familiar with biology-related sources and databases and how those references are routinely used in this topic area, that might be more difficult. Silver seren ^C 20:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Multiple TSI issues have been found, despite the template response made to each GAR. CMD (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

You have literally not presented a single one. You commented on puffery, which I fixed. The rest was you not being able to read the sources properly, such as how the Species Fungorum database is organized. Silver seren ^C 01:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

The puffery is still there. Multiple have been presented. Which source supported "mentoring students with a supportive and systematic approach"? CMD (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not sure accusing people who disagree with you of "not being able to read the sources properly" is AGF. ♠PMC ♠ (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

In running the 32 through GAR I was hoping to give editors a chance to make one of two arguments

1. There is evidence that the article was not LLM-generated/expanded
2. That they would "adopt" it and go line-by-line to address TSI issues

Instead, the arguments against de-listing seem to fall into two categories

1. There are no actual problems with the article, i.e.
2. The original review was sufficient to address issues associated with LLM text

The first argument contradicts community consensus, as we have determined that LLM-generated text in articles is in and of itself a problem. The second argument could be valid, and while I have respect for the reviewers, in looking at the relevant reviews I am unconvinced. Addressing LLM-generated text in a GA candidate requires comprehensive TSI checks which are not expected in a normal review. Meanwhile, TSI and/or CLOP issues have been found in several of the articles at GAR . I would suggest the 12 articles currently at GAR be delisted. NicheSports (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:NicheSports: If you have a few minutes, please go add your $.02 at the relevant GARs. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I could if others think helpful, but I'm not a big fan of copy and pasting arguments. I was hoping this thread would be resolved more centrally by the GAR coordinators (thank you for re-raising btw) NicheSports (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think, in future, it may be worth considering not opening up several GARs, but rather a methodical approach more similar to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 -- reach consensus for all the articles/a selection of articles in a central area, allow editors to pick out articles they're interested in saving, then do a batch delist. And, perhaps more importantly though outside the scope of this board, stubification/deletion. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌 🧸 18:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

My instinct is that an editor would be more likely to pick up something to save from individual GARs than from a joint process, so I'm not opposed to the small-test of sending a sample to GAR to help gauge interest, especially when the articles are topically related. CMD (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:NicheSports: I know I can't close any of those GARs since I'm the one who started them, so however and by whomever they're settled are fine with me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I acknowledge that I didn't have the skills I do now in recognizing inappropriate use of sources back when I reviewed confluentic acid, but I added some additional comments to the GAR there. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

This link allows you to monitor changes across all FAs. Is there a comparable single link for GAs? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

You’ll have to make do with two: and . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm just surprised to see The Human Centipede is a Featured Article! Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah, IIRC it was the choice for Halloween one year. 31 October is one of those "themed" days, like 1 April and 25 December, where they try to pick something appropriate to the day's celebrations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

My comments from the previous discussion:

• We need highly skilled coordinators, not just for the upcoming drive, but for other drives in general. "Skilled" here means someone who has brought several articles to GA status or have completed several high-quality reviews. I don't think that the quantity matters in this case, I'd rather just want to see people who know what they're throwing themselves in. I appreciate the work that others have done in the past, but the job of coordinators is not just to tick off reviews, but also to completely go through them and check if they were done in a good manner. I'm not saying that this was not followed in the past few drives, but I have more trust in skilled users following this rule than those who are less experienced.
• The goal of the newbie drives is to mostly gather newbie GAN participants / potential reviewers. Not long-standing ones. Newbies are our main target audience. We need to emphasise that here (on the GAN talk page), watchlist notice, and the mass message that will be sent to new GAN participants. My plan is also to promote the drive on large, active, and relevant WikiProjects.

@Reconrabbit, Kline, and LEvalyn: we have agreed that the mass message should be sent on the 25th (week before the drive). Same should be done to WikiProject notices. A short notice can be sent on Wikipedia:Community bulletin board. A watchlist notice should be put up on 1 June. The WP:GAG will also run on 1 June and will notify the subscribers.

We can modify the message I created (comments are welcomed). @Mike Christie: can create the mass-message list for us. This list would preferably contain editors:

1. who have performed a good article review this year
2. who have participated in the last backlog drive
3. who have nominated an article for the good article status this year but have not performed any reviews

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Regarding the message, the first bullet point should probably read Are you a newbie and want to become more experienced in the GA process? (emphasis used only to highlight the addition). Everything else looks good to me. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Agree. Also it looks weird to me that these are all bullet points. Why not:

Are you a newbie and want to become more experienced in the GA process?

• On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
• Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.

Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .

If that third criteria is also being used (nominated an article this year without reviews) why not also add that to "you are receiving this because..."? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done I've modified the barnstar sentence to match the previous backlog drives. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

How about a third bullet, "Mentors are available, and new reviewers get bonus points!" ? I also wonder if many people who count as 'newbies' for the drive may not self-identify as 'newbies' in the context of receiving the message, what about just having "Want to become more experienced in the GA process?" as the first line? Thanks for kicking this off, it's coming together well. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Great thinking to specify <6 reviews in the bullet! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Vacant0: I saw your ping, but I don't have the mass-message sender right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@TechnoSquirrel69 did it last October according to logs. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

At your service. :) Does this need doing now or on the 25th? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

25th. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Word. If someone could put in a request at WT:MMS as usual with the details, that would be great, and I can take care of it! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

We need to generate a mailing list first. I don't know how though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I found the mailing list that was used for the previous backlog drive: Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2025/Mass message list (it's from October 2025, though). We need a new one. This should include editors

1. who have performed a good article review this year
2. who have participated in the last backlog drive
3. who have nominated an article for the good article status this year but have not performed any reviews

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I will work on this today, thanks for digging up the previous one. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Any progress on this, @LEvalyn:? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, it took me a bit to figure out the process, but I've started it at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2026/Mass message list and have added all the participants from the previous drive. I'm currently trying to work out how to find the folks who have reviewed or nominated in the last year, to add them too; if anyone can point me in a useful direction, I'd be grateful. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

If I recall correctly, I asked Mike Christie to work some ChristieBot magic for that one the first time around. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Mike Christie, would you be able to assist again? To save you reading the whole thread, I'd love a list of everyone who reviewed or nominated a GA in the past year. Also happy to be pointed in the direction of some instructions if this might be something I would work out how to do on my own. Thank you! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

See below -- is this what you're looking for? Or do you want it without the usernames linked? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wow... that's a lot of editors. I think that's what we neeeded. Thanks, Mike. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you, Mike, this is exactly what I needed! @Vacant0, I've added them all to the mailing list now, so I think it's ready to be used. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm in the process of adding relevant WikiProjects. After that, I'll send off a request. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

See this closed move discussion and my note after it; I've had to revert some of these moves as they broke ChristieBot. The moves can be redone once ChristieBot is updated to allow for them. I reverted the moves of the four GA-related templates but I see there are protection settings changes that need to be made there, and I'm not an admin so can't make those changes. If anyone reading this has admin rights and knows how to fix this, please do so. I'll leave a note at AN pointing here so someone else may end up doing it.

The four moves that had to be reverted (along with scores of subpages), and which now need protected settings updated, are

• {{Good article nominee }} moved back to {{GA nominee }}
• {{Good article reassessment }} moved back to {{GAR }}
• {{Good article banner }} moved back to {{GA }}
• {{Good article nomination }} moved back to {{GAN }}

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Both templates and the new redirects have the same protection settings. Should the protections be removed from the redirects? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

It is normal that when a protected page is moved, the resultant redirect inherits the prot. Consider this: if the redir became unprotected, any unconfirmed user could then edit it to point somewhere totally different, which for a template redirect can have far-reaching undesirable consequences. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Anyway, here are the prot logs for those eight pages:

• Good article nominee
• GA nominee
• Good article reassessment (no entries)
• GAR (no entries)
• Good article banner
• GA
• Good article nomination (no entries)
• GAN (no entries)

Reconrabbit, why do you think that the second and fourth pairs involve protection? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I was in a hurry this morning (had fix the broken bot before going to work) and I could swear I saw in some log or history page something that said protection settings were not copied over. Sounds like I misinterpreted whatever I saw so there's nothing to do. I'm still at work; will try to find whatever that page was later today. Thanks for the explanation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I only looked at the first and third pairs. "Unprotected" is only a protection setting if I'm being pedantic... -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi all. I just took on the review for Fear and Trembling and noticed that its nominator was part of a WikiEdu course which finished earlier this month. His last edit was on the 4th, and I'm uncertain as to whether or not he'll end up responding to my initial message on the review page. I imagine I'll find some discrepancies in the article, some major, some minor, that would need to be addressed. I also imagine it would create a serious COI were I to attempt to determine whether or not the article were up to standard if I were the one making the majority of corrective improvements / additions. I don't want to automatically fail it either, but I'm uncertain if a call for a vigilante editor on WikiProject Philosophy would yield any substantive results. Any thoughts on what to do, in any event, would be greatly appreciated. My thanks in advance, and looking forward to a response.

All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Two of the articles I’m currently reviewing were nominated by editors inactive for multiple months at the point of review. Both have subsequently returned to activity to help finish the review. Perform the review, and if the nominator doesn’t show up in seven days, fail it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm bit curious with this part. When we archive all sources of the article (manually or using IAbot), our authorship could be measured quite high since archiving causes a large number of text bytes. Then is it fine to just nominate GA in that state? IMO the nominators at least should revise or add some contents of the article, but they just can nominate the article only after archiving all sources there, which I lowkey believe to be unfair. Any thoughts? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is exactly what happened when I added archives to citations on Matilda (novel), putting me at #1 unintenionally. (link to authorship and page history I think its still best to (at least) try to reach out to significant editor(s) before nominating it for GA or make a post to the talk page because they can seee that you edited just to archive citations. It can also happen as a result of a page being merged/redirected. I thought authorship only concerns prose size as defined by WP:DYKPROSE JuniperChill (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Agree. I think that editors should also work on the article they're nominating (e.g. prose, expanding the article with more content) to gain at least some genuine authorship of the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Xtools calculate the authorships including archiving texts, so it would be nice if there's a tool that could easily check the authorship for the prose, seperate from archiving. Also it will be better to add new guideline for this in good article criteria page ig Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey! I'm brand new to GA reviews, and I just opened up Talk:Mario & Luigi/GA1. If anyone minds just maybe watching the page or even reviewing along side me for my first review, that'd be much appreciated. I will happily take any feedback I can get. Thanks :) 「Norellia.sh」Formally NuggFrog (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've watchlisted it. Let me know once you finish and I'll take a look at the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply