Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

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 ]

(crossposted to wt:UKT from wt:GAN)

Hi all. I have been working on two articles, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and British Rail, as part of the the Core Contest. These are now at a length of 12300 and 9200 words respectively as of me writing this. I want to bring these articles to GAN before I consider FAC, mainly because I think that it would allow any FAC from a better position of the article having been reviewed against some criteria. I did consider doing PR instead, but I think that I'd prefer to come here.

However, I think that if I just add these to the list of nominations, no one in their right mind would volunteer to review them, because it is a mammoth task. I was wondering if anyone, or few people, would be interested in working through this at some point? Sadly I can't offer to help review (because I am the nominator lol), but I can offer many many many reviews of other GANs in return. Equally, if anyone has any very long and complex articles that need a review, I will happily do that as well. I will be on a Wikibreak for most of June except for urgent queries (idek what that would be), but after that I will be around to respond to comments and do reviews.

Thanks for your time as a community as always. JacobTheRox ^{(talk | contributions)} 20:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

User:JacobTheRox: I will review the British Rail article for you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

BTW, this wouldn’t be some quid pro quo. I’m willing to do that GA because the topic is interesting, and I have the time since school is out for the summer. I don’t expect anything from you in return, but if you were interested in doing any of my GANs, there are plenty to choose from. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The reviews will be picked up by someone at one point. From my experience, if the article is long, it can take months. Depends on the topic, of course. Sometimes you'll wait shorter. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've found that bigger articles on important topics often get picked up quickly. I don't think you'd be waiting long for a review of Brunel. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I boldly made a post over on the German wiki's Good Article discussion about our three longest nominations in the queue. They're outliers in the wait time (over a year!), and I assume many of the sources being in German is a reason. This is for Eberhard Aurich Eberhard Aurich, Franz Rydz, and Hans-Dieter Fritschler. Posting here as an FYI. Edittttor (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I can only speak for myself, but I haven’t reviewed them because of their nominator’s review/nomination ratio. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Is there a place where this ratio is tracked or do you need to do some sleuthing to find this? Edittttor (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I use User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms and sort by age, and then pick up older nominations from editors with R/G ratios higher than 1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Good idea, I hope a reviewer might be found on de-wiki or during the backlog drive. Personally I have opted against reviewing Eberhard Aurich and Franz Rydz because my gut instinct upon a first read was that they seemed fairly short given the subjects' career lengths/significance. I don't mind working with non-English sources (and Germanic languages are easier for me than others), but the language barrier + my general unfamiliarity with how to access relevant East German archives makes 3a much harder to definitively evaluate. Zzz plant (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am a German teacher, so I can maybe take a look at them once I have finished with the two GANs I have in process. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm trying to work out what a mentor means by doing "visible" spot checks. Is this just listing which source i've checked? or is it something else? I can't find anything on the instruction pages about visibility. How am I meant to show that I've checked a source? Is there some kind of system for this? Am i missing something obvious? EmergentAnarchy (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi EmergentAnarchy! Welcome to the GA review process and don't worry about missing anything- making the spot check visible just means leaving a paper trail on the review page so people can see what you verified. There is no single mandatory system for it, so you have plenty of flexibility! Some people use the Veracity user script. Personally I list out the refs I've checked next to the text, with symbols checkY/Question?/☒N and a brief explanation if needed. So for me it would look something like this:

[1]: "Jean was born on June 2, 1970 in Paris, France." - checkY

[2]: "Mary was born on July 2, 1970 in Melbourne, Australia." - Question? verifies she was born in 1970 in Australia, but I'm not seeing the specific day/month or the city.

[3]: "Nadia was born on August 2, 1970 in Moscow, Russia." - ☒N source appears to be about a completely different person and doesn't verify these birth details.

And then I'd just repeat for however many sources I spot check. It depends on the length/complexity of the article, but I often end up checking ~10 sources for text-source integrity and close paraphrasing. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You can do whatever you want, as long as you make it clear you’ve done spot checks. I find the Veracity script helpful for formatting, but in the past have simply checked a few sources and said "I’ve checked eight citations, no issues" in the GA review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Problematic references in multiple DYK nominations by same nominator where multiple instances of severe source-text integrity problems and close paraphrasing were found in articles created by User:RabidTuberculosis. I note that User:Dclemens1971 has failed Talk:Maria Olenina-d'Alheim/GA1 and User:WhaleFarm has failed Talk:John W. Townsend Jr./GA1, in both cases for similar close paraphrasing problems. WhaleFarm has placed two other nominations on hold, Talk:William Sirignano/GA1 (on which I happen to have a COI) and Talk:John A. Manke/GA1. Beyond those four, current nominations include Livia Accarigi, Chieko Hara, Amadu Bansang Jobarteh, Eduard Langer, Cold spot (astronomy), Joshua Bandfield, Carl Grillmair, amd K-RadCube. Given the significant issues maybe we should have a wider discussion to head off a potential repeat Doug Coldwell situation? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I failed the one article, and put the other two on hold. I belive they are all fixable, and should be, as the subjects are important to cover. The writing shows, I believe, a rush to turn out articles, and insuficient care. There are a lot of good references in all three articles, but not always lined up appropriatly with the matching text. I'm hoping User:RabidTuberculosis addresses these issues, I'd love to pass the GA. WhaleFarm (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It should be noted that Rapid tuberculosis has been active on wiki in the days since being pinged here and on DYK talk without really addressing anything while actively removing requests from their talk page. Therefore, this is feeling like an increasingly intentional WP:NOT HERE situation. TheBritinator (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@TheBritinator- In the past 4 days, I have worked with Rabid on 3 articles, he has made major improvements to all three. From our interactions to improve those articles, I beilve Rabid has acted in good faith, and is tyring to be a good author. Let's give them a chance and the benifit of the doubt. They have been very welcoming to changes, criticism, and advice.

Please look at the edits made to John W. Townsend Jr. John A. Manke for example.

now - the Wikipedia:NOT HERE is a strong claim.

Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business

? hard to figue out self interest served in historic NASA figures

General pattern of disruptive behavior

None observed

Trying to score brownie points outside Wikipedia

again, inconsistent with the data

Treating editing as a battleground

Very accepting of indeas and input

Little or no interest in working collaboratively

I have observed the oposite

Interest in gaining as many user rights or "awards" as possible (or overly focusing on rights in general)

no sign of any advantage, does seem very interested in getting articles to GA, but is that bad?

I'm going for Wikipedia:Assume good faith WhaleFarm (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

While I am happy to observe that they are making improvements to articles, I have to disagree with your overall point. Consistently having big issues with your articles could be considered a breach of care and actively ignoring requests to comment, like on this and DYK, is very much leaning towards a lack of interest in working collaboratively. If we're going to compare this to Doug Coldwell like David Eppstein has, then Coldwell also nominated articles that had glaring issues, got failed, fixed some (debatable), and barely ever responded to talk page messages or wiki discussions, I'm seeing parallels here. I've been assuming good faith on the DYK nom of theirs a couple of weeks ago now but the lack of communication is not helping. TheBritinator (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What you have seen is not universal. Please scan Talk:John W. Townsend Jr.

I failed GA

rabid did major rework

the interaction on the second go was collaborative. I was more than satisfied with the responses.

I have not checked other submissions but on three the work and results were appropriate.

Rabid has also committed to further expansion and improvement of these articles. It’s surprising that Townsend was never covered until now. Given the turmoil that science funding is going through, and the dismantling of NOAA NCAR etc. - having the first director of NOAA with an WP article seems important. I would like to see it expanded and similar holes filled in.

Let’s find a way to positively steer this interest WhaleFarm (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I respect your opinion on this matter, but I would like to see additional opinions. TheBritinator (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

My interactions with RT have been limited, but my impression is that they are acting in good faith, but they may not understand what is going on or realize what they are doing. On at least one occasion, they have responded at one of their nominations and tried to make changes, it just wasn't enough. This seems to be more of a WP:CIR issue than outright bad faith. I hope an editor could actually leave them a proper talk page message and ask them to change their ways, because regrettably I can see them going to ANI if this continues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have to agree. ANI may unfortunately be a consideration if this pattern of behaviour continues. TheBritinator (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello all, apologies for latency. I'm a bit overwhelmed by the discussion across multiple pages but will do my best to address the concerns. My principal aim is to improve as an editor and contribute thorough, high-quality encyclopedic articles, particularly on subjects or historical people that have been overlooked. Until recently, I'd received minimal feedback on new articles and was thus operating mostly on my own understanding of WP policies and best practices.

After being recommended to submit Carl Grillmair to DYK, I started submitting new articles to DYK. Two have been published, but others received thorough scrutiny, including much that surprised me, being the first time I received thorough review since beginning to contribute regularly ~8 months ago. While most mistakes were minor, some involved close paraphrase or copyvio, and some reviewers in particular were spooked that there could be a systematic issue across articles, seemingly informed by past experience with other users. I regret if I've given that impression at all, and I understand the cause for vigilance.

I've attempted to explain my edits or sourcing in detail across multiple DYK pages. I've corrected most issues on most articles, although I am aware of 2 that will require more detailed revision. Certain reviews have been cynical, accusing me of AI use for instance, or appear phrased to garner wider attention or elicit alarm than to really help me improve. Candidly, I've felt a bit overwhelmed, as my responses have been often met with a cascade of further criticism rather than actionable feedback or responses, and some did not address detailed responses I made in good faith, making it difficult to understand how/why certain editorial decisions were misses. I've taken everything in stride because I believe that even cynical feedback is an opportunity to improve, and I apologize for the time it's taken reviewers to write feedback.

Recently, I was made aware of GAN and nominated a few articles that I thought were most thorough. I received incredibly thoughtful and detailed feedback from @WhaleFarm and learned a lot about close paraphrase (a policy I'd misunderstood), source synthesis, etc. in the process. Since then, he's helped me improve 3 articles to GA status. I strongly believe any mistakes in past articles can be remedied pretty quickly, and future articles should all be of the highest quality. I have held off on submitting new GA nominations since the initial batch, but I think the nominated pages are all mostly there in terms of quality.

As ever, I am seeking to improve, and I do best with detailed, optimistic feedback. Apologies for being a cause of concern. All the best, RabidTuberculosis (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Quick question: Are anonymous/IP editors allowed to submit GA nominations? Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Any significant contributor can nominate an article for GA status. There isn't a rule excluding TAs/IPs. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The review for Talk:Balatro/GA2 was obviously improperly done. There was only one suggestion by the reviewer and their overall review took around 30 minutes. User:Boneless Pizza! has commented on this as well and was the one who alerted me to it here. This should be vacated. Jon698 (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

1. No listing of the sources reviewed
2. Almost each section of the review is one sentence long
3. Only one suggestion offered
4. There are two citation needed tags

Jon698 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I looked at some of the sources reference 31 claims that the soundtrack was released in March 2023. However, it does not state that in the March 2023 section nor can I find that in any other section. Jon698 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There are also errors in the references themselves. Reference 34 says that it is the Wall Street Journal, but clicking on it takes you to Bloomberg. Jon698 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Reference 91 does support "Within eight hours of release, the game had made over US1ドル million in gross revenue" and instead states that the game sold over one million copies across a month instead. Jon698 (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I blindly clicked on ten links in the References section and found two major errors and one formatting error. Jon698 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

their overall review took around 30 minutes - this statement is false? they started their review at 19:32, and made their last comment on reference integrity at 04:27? [1] ~ A412 ^talk! 08:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

2:32-3:00 (28 minutes) + 11:11-11:28 (17 minutes) = 45 minutes. I would be willing to assume good faith had any specific sources been reviewed or if the review wasn't so incredibly short. Jon698 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jon698 have you tried to communicate to the reviewer about your concerns? How do you know they only spent time on the review when making edits? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed, though since they were pretty clear that it was their first review I hope that they take this as a spout of constructive criticism. TheBritinator (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, when I promoted an article to GA, I accidentally selected the wrong category. I have fixed it here: Special:Diff/1358504645. Will the bot relist the article in the History category? Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, you'll have to do it manually, but it's not hard, just copy paste. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you @Premeditated Chaos -- copy and paste what to where? (EDIT: Oh of course, I would need to copy and remove from the old category page and paste to the new one right?) Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The article listing on WP:GA. Edit the source and just take the entry from the wrong category, and put it in the correct one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The GA review of Faneuil Hall was taken up by a relatively inexperienced reviewer, who, to their credit, has acknowledged as much. The reviewer failed it based on the criterion WP:GACR#3b, but I disagree somewhat with their reasoning, and have explained as much on the talk page. The main sticking point was that the article seemed a bit too detailed to them. While I have trimmed some of the more minor details, I think an article of ~8,000 words is not egregious per WP:SIZERULE, especially given the building's long history and its historical associations, and would like a more experienced reviewer's input. (Courtesy ping to @Ilov3gam3z, the original reviewer.) – Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I was going to offer to review it for you, but it looks like the situation has resolved itself. Let me know when you take it to FAC and I'll be happy to review it there. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]