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

Hi. There's an ongoing discussion over at Talk:Pat O'Keeffe#AI generated text over how yesterday's TFA was a violation of Wikipedia's LLM policies. Specifically, while looking into the edit history of fairly new editor Metalicat, I stumbled across a pattern of behavior reflecting that they used an LLM to essentially rubber-stamp a bunch of GA reviews. I'm requesting that, because GA reviews are performed by a single editor, these be systematically undone and renominated. While I recognize these have been up for several months, I think we all understand that doesn't mean these articles have been given proper scrutiny since.

To that end, I'm going to list a timeline of GA reviews, but peer reviews and FAC reviews will be included where temporally relevant. This relies heavily on the frequency and quantity of reviews to show 1) the pattern of misbehavior beyond a shadow of a doubt and 2) which articles were affected as it pertains to GA. These reviews individually have hallmarks of LLM usage, but I think the timeline already trivially proves this. (All of this is in 2026.) I want the reader to keep in mind both how disparate these subjects are and that the editor joined 28 December 2025 (with their very first edits being used to create what would become a FA).

• At 08:11 on 11 February, they add a +1912 peer review to Leave It All to Me.
• 31 minutes later, they perform a +2591 FAC review of Hurricane Joaquin.
• At 04:24 on 12 February, they publish a +4744 GA review on Carl Lawson (sprinter).
• 86 minutes later, they add a +5148 peer review to El Alma al Aire.
• At 10:52 same day, they publish a +4413 GA review to LRAShM (missile).
• Less than two hours later, they publish a +19,972 GA review to Israel Keyes.
• The next day, 13 February, at 06:37, they publish a +9266 GA review for 1976 San Diego Chargers season.
• 33 minutes later, they publish a +26,153 GA review of Jimmy White.
• On 16 February at 05:33, they publish a +5480 GA review of Hedycarya arborea . There were multiple edits in the hour before this, including a +2325 to the Jimmy White "review".
• At 04:52 on 25 February, they publish a +6339 GA review for 1990 United States Senate election in Rhode Island. Just 31 minutes before this, they had been editing Arthur Frederick Bettinson, and they would go on to drop a +10,767 to the Arthur Frederick Bettinson article 35 minutes after they published this GA review.
• On 3 March, they published a +5426 review for Milan Heimerl. This one would be completely inexcusable by some bizarre "Well clearly they were working on it" excuse, because their 28 February, 1 March, and 2 March were utterly packed with inhuman levels of content added to (especially) Pat O'Keeffe.
• On 11 March at 16:19, they publish a GA review for 2023 Capita data breach.
• On 17 March at 16:03, they publish a +4887 GA review for CIH (computer virus).
• On 24 March at 09:13, they publish a +7437 GA review for Urtica ferox . At this point, they've been heavily editing printing press from 21 March to 23 March.
• 22 April at 02:03, they publish a +1013 GA review for Chapter Three: The Case of the Missing Lifeguard. (This was followed by a +4755.)
• On 7 August at 16:08, they publish a +8613 GA review for 2026 Punjab Kings season. 46 minutes later, they publish a "source spot check" that's +4996. Then 12 minutes later, they publish "first pass complete" which is +4005.

In sum, the following GA reviews were hollow nonsense by someone who had zero idea what they were doing:

Carl Lawson (sprinter) • LRAShM (missile) • Israel Keyes • 1976 San Diego Chargers season • Jimmy White • Hedycarya arborea • 1990 United States Senate election in Rhode Island • Milan Heimerl • 2023 Capita data breach • CIH (computer virus) • Urtica ferox • Chapter Three: The Case of the Missing Lifeguard • 2026 Punjab Kings season

Lastly, articles they've submitted for GA review should be revoked for blatantly violating the policy against LLM usage. I might be missing some, so please double-check me. I don't think it should be on any editor to affirmatively nominate these "reviewed" articles for reassessment, because there was no assessment in the first place. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:43, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

It doesn't seem like the user has admitted to LLM usage on any(?) of these. If you take Talk:LRAShM (missile)/GA1, the fact they did this four hours after other things doesn't really implicate anything, whether or not the work earlier that day used LLMs. Parts of that review feel LLM-written to me, but sometimes it's quite hard to tell the difference between a GA reviewer with no understanding of the GA process and a review written by AI. Personally, unless they admit to AI use or someone more clever than me can "prove" it for a given review, I'd probably prefer GAR. That's also because some of these are quite old and most reviews that are pulled are done so soon after it is completed.

Again, Talk:Israel Keyes/GA1 looks LLM-written to me but it could just be the style of the reviewer, especially if they're not an experienced editor. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox ^{(talk |contributions)} 15:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@JacobTheRox, in the discussion where I suggested that TheTechnician27 post to WT:GAN, I suggested that WP:GAR would be a better venue for reevaluating the status of GAs that have held that status for quite a while. There isn't really precedent for immediately invalidating GAs that have been approved so long ago, unless it's an instance where the nominator was at fault (e.g. WP:DCGAR). – Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Looking further at Israel Keyes, I had to move the note to a proper section and two external links remain in the body, which could be seen as needing to be removed for GA. I have concerns about the possible and ruled-out victims section; firstly, this seems like a cobbled-together list where no single source gives a general overview that he could have committed those crimes (and thus that there are not more crimes he could have committed that have not been listed). Secondly, some of his links to these crimes seem tenunous and SYNTH-dependent. For example:

I'm not quite ready to put money on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the inaccessible book in question doesn't provide any evidence that the authorities thought he committed many, or any, of these crimes. The reason I'm posting this here, rather than e.g. on the article talk page, is that it shows how poor these GA reviews must have been, and it's not a great look to have this article with the GA icon at the top. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox ^{(talk |contributions)} 16:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I might be missing something, but were the GA reviews generated without refinement by AI? That is what would be required to invalidate the reviews per WP:LLMTALK (I’m counting GA reviews as talk pages per WP:NOTBURO). If it can’t be proved that the reviews were LLM-generated without refinement, then I think it would be incorrect to reverse them unilaterally. It seems clear that the editor was using LLMs as a crutch, likely excessively, but while we do have regulations against LLM use they do have constraints embedded in them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

What kind of "refinement" would we be talking about here? This was a brand-new editor pumping these out sometimes in literally half an hour. Moreover, if you look at their history, there's strong evidence that they were doing absolutely no "refining" – e.g. randomly replacing en-dashes with the character 'â' at the very top of the edit summary, duplicating an article's prose twice in a row by copy-pasting their new version in (e.g. putting an entire new version of the article within the infobox), directly copy-pasting chunks of prose in, and otherwise giving the LLM free reign to do things they plainly couldn't understand like the change from "{{Reflist}} to {{Reflist|}}". These reviews were clearly just fed into an LLM and then copy-pasted by a brand-new editor with a snowball's chance in Hell of actually meaningfully changing what was generated – let alone knowing what they were doing in order to make "refinement" a meaningful metric. There is literally no way these were meaningfully reviewed by a human who could've possibly known they were doing, so I wouldn't even call this "undoing" the review; there was no review in the first place. Frankly, I think this alone calls into question the idea that just anybody should be allowed to perform GA reviews, given it's obvious nobody is auditing them. Edit: Moreover, I think your definition of trying to make these "talk page comments" is abjectly incorrect or at least completely violates the spirit of the guidelines, and I hope the guidelines are rewritten to properly clarify this. Nominations? Sure. The review itself? Absolutely not. That's supposed to be a substantive critique by a human. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

(edit conflict) The refinement required by WP:LLMTALK to discard their reviews, of course. The timing seems to be the most significant factor in your evidence; normally that sort of cross-referencing is considered circumstantial in real life. I’m looking for clear evidence that the editor’s comments were divorced from reality to such an extent that it can only be produced by an LLM with no human looking at the text: either something obviously wrong that the editor claimed was correct, or vice versa. I don’t think your repetition of brand-new is particularly helpful; new editors may have edited previously as IPs, or just get up to speed quickly.

I had a quick look at Talk:Carl Lawson (sprinter)/GA1 and am struggling to match your claim there was no review in the first place: the comments seem precise and relevant. Are you saying that reverting all the changes Metalicat suggested in their review would improve Wikipedia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm honestly a bit insulted that you can look at what they did from 11 February to 13 February and try to even contest that a human plausibly did that. Yes, I'm going to harp on about "brand-new editor", because IP addresses aren't running around performing GA reviews, and even an experienced editor isn't doing the kind of nonsense they did. The fact they were brand-new just makes it more plainly obvious.

"normally that sort of cross-referencing is considered circumstantial in real life" Yes, and? Multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence come together to remove doubt. Any lawyer, detective, etc. will tell you that most evidence is circumstantial, that most cases are decided on circumstantial evidence, and that your treating of "circumstantial" like a dirty word is nonsensical.

Your being the only one known to be with a victim at their house the night of the murder is circumstantial. Your fingerprints being on the knife is circumstantial. The victim's blood being on your clothing is, believe it or not, circumstantial – you could spin a tale that the victim had a nosebleed. Your Internet search the night prior for "how to dispose of a body" is circumstantial. The fact that you have a lengthy history of abusive text exchanges with the victim is circumstantial to the murder. Meanwhile, direct evidence is often less reliable than circumstantial evidence. A witness saying "I saw you stab the victim" is direct evidence, but on its own considerably less reliable than the circumstantial evidence I laid out above.

"Are you saying that reverting all the changes Metalicat suggested in their review would improve Wikipedia?" I'm saying that unless you think LLMs should be given carte blanche to perform GA reviews now, this was not ever properly reviewed against GA standards and needs to be done by a human. It sucks that nobody actually did the work when people thought they did, but it's better than the alternative, where we let people flood the zone with LLM output and then decide "Well, too bad, I guess". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

But if testimony is your thing, I copy-pasted in about 10,000 characters from this edit to Pat O'Keeffe, GPTZero 4.9b gives it approximately an 87% chance of being generated ("We are highly confident this text was AI generated"). The chance for "mixed" is 13%, and the chance for "human" is 0%. I think that's less reliable than the circumstantial evidence, but I'm always willing to accommodate disagreement. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don’t see why you would be insulted. We’re here talking about the potential LLM-generation of their GA reviews, not their contributions to Pat O'Keeffe, which as I have said seem likely to be based on LLM-generation.

If you want to gain consensus for a complete reversal of all the editor’s contributions, the place for that is WP:ANI. But currently, I don’t see proof that the GA reviews under discussion are LLM-generation without refinement, and, to be blunt, your theatrics aren’t really helping convince me. But I’m probably mistaken (and supposed to be on holiday!) so I’ll WP:DISENGAGE and let others take this forward. Best of luck, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:AirshipJungleman29: Enjoy your holiday! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think the answer, broadly, that you've got is that (1) the appropriate venue is GAR and (2) there is no consensus on whether the reviews themselves are satisfactory. What's important now is that the articles, in their current state, meet the GA critera, which as I have demonstrated is certainly not the case for one article. Please ping me if you start one for Israel Keyes so I can copy my comments over. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox ^{(talk |contributions)} 19:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Any GA articles you believe do not meet the criteria for GA should be sent to GAR. If you identify them, I'm happy (well, "happy" may not be the right word, but...) to initiate the GARs for you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

With some knowledge of taxonomy (albeit mostly arthropods), I'd be willing to throw myself at a reassessment of one of the plant articles (or maybe both). Noted above, my problem with the idea that we must raise specific objections to GA status when they weren't assessed to begin with (and the same reason why LLM prose isn't allowed on Wikipedia) is the bullshit asymmetry principle, where someone could flood the zone with garbage GA reviews which then take 10x as much effort to debunk. I appreciate you raising these for reassessment, Bgsu98, so I'll try to help out where I'm able. If I can at this point (I don't know the logistics of reassessment), I'd like to start a review of Urtica ferox . I really hope there are guidelines that further clarify this soon. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think if you do the GA review right there on the reassessment page, that should be sufficient, and it would be logged in the article’s talk page history. I will go ahead and do the review of the Rhode Island election article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I nominated Carl Lawson (sprinter) earlier this year. See my GAR-review (GARR?) here - although I didn't think it at the time, with a fresh pair of eyes I'm convinced that AI was used for at least part of the review. I don't think I've done a GAR so I'm not super familiar with the standards expected, but given there were shortcomings and to erase all doubt I would appreciate a reassessment. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi all, just wanted to ask a quick question: I have a couple sources for something I'm working on that have a green checkmark on Cite Unseen (for "generally reliable"), but they have "RU" on top of that checkmark. Clicking it links me to the Russian Wikipedia's reliable sources list, where it does confirm it's reliable; I just don't know if standards for source quality vary by language. The article is in English, and the other sources are all in English, but those sources do provide unique Russian-specific context I can't find anywhere else. Will including these sources affect a GAN? WALKKKKK (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

If there is no consensus for the reliaibility of a source on the English Wikipedia, the GAN reviewer will have to decide. I don't know how similar the Russian Wikipedia's source standards are but I doubt many other editors do either. Could you specify what the websites in questions are? (in solidarity), JacobTheRox ^{(talk |contributions)} 23:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The sources in question are ru:DTF and VGTimes, both "authoritative sources" for video games. The translated text is mostly criteria for what's valid. WALKKKKK (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Looked more closely, and accidentally answered my own question: the DTF article isn't in their "editorial" section, and the VGtimes article isn't post-2020, which are the exceptions that would make them "authoritative" in the first place. Never mind then. WALKKKKK (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

As part of the fix mentioned further up this page I recently changed ChristieBot so it would object if someone tried to create a nomination or review out of sequence -- e.g. nominating with page = 3 when there had been no 2, or nominating with page 1 when there had already been a 1. I was unable to test all paths through this code. The bot is now refusing to process the GA for Battle of Thessalonica (995), but this seems to be a bug -- as far as I can tell there was no prior GA. Unfortunately I'm about to get on a plane and won't have access to try to fix this until late Thursday night at the earliest. Since the review has already started, this may not be a problem, but I am leaving this note in case anyone wonders why the nomination is not listed properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Mike Christie I've figured out the problem, not exactly a bug...

Since this was part of GARC, the article was nominated on 14:22 and the review page was created at 14:24... But, the bot didn't run between these 2 edits and the nomination wasn't listed on the GAN page, so now the bot thinks the /GA1 subpage had already existed before the nomination was made... Vestrian24Bio 08:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've made an attempt to fix, let's see how the bot responds...

Meanwhile, pinging @A.Cython and Bgsu98: so they're aware of the issue.. Vestrian24Bio 08:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Update: the review is now listed on the GAN page, but it's still listed on the errors page... Vestrian24Bio 10:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks -- that does sound like the right explanation. I'll see if I can get this fixed tomorrow or Friday. If you don't mind, please hold off on promoting/failing until I get a chance to look at this -- that way the bot will take care of updating the GA statistics automatically. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

This should now be fixed. Vestrian24Bio, thanks for figuring out what happened; that made it very easy to fix. The bot now checks the create timestamp on the most recent GA subpage it finds; if it's later than the nomination timestamp in the GA nominee template it lets it through as the current version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

This review by @Noukayami was not a valid quickfail - it was a list of url statuses. Can I just delete this? Pinging @MiracleMiles as nominator. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Similar issue by the same reviewer happened at Talk:Olive/GA1, paging Chiswick Chap Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks. Yeah, was just going to post that as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

in olive article

The content match with other pages

Which is a subject to copyright Noukayami ^(talk) 16:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

For now I will keep that on hold

You can fix dead links Noukayami ^(talk) 16:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Noukayami, thanks for the response, but there is no need to keep GA1 open for either of these articles in that case. I've put both articles back into the queue. No offense but I think they would benefit from a more experienced reviewer looking at them.

For Olive, I did notice that there were significant matches to the copyvio detector, but you have to keep in mind that some articles sometimes copy from Wikipedia (sometimes without attribution). I don't know if this was checked for. From a quick look, it is unlikely that these other websites were the original sources of the content, given the promotional nature of the websites. (For example, this is a user-generated Weebly site, and all the external weblinks point to New World Encyclopedia, so it is likely to have been copied from somewhere.) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Noukayami, I see you have reopened the nomination for Bell Labs. While I appreciate the gesture, I must repeat that this is not necessary, as a new nomination has already been made. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Epicgenius: at Olive, they certainly copied from us: Wikipedia did not commit a copyright violation here. I am not happy that this has been recorded as a fail, so the review will become a GA2: if the review is void then we should have GA1 at least for the new reviewer, i.e. the existing GA1 page should be deleted if Noukayami cannot continue the improperly-failed GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Chiswick Chap, the GAN has not been recorded as a fail, as the result of GA1 will not be listed on the talk page. The new review will be created at GA2 merely as a formality; the existence of GA2 doesn't imply any wrongdoing on your part. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sorry, we seem to have a crossed wire, I'm talking about Olive, which has not been reopened; I'd be happy with that, or with the /GA1 page being deleted so the numbering returns to 1, either route would be fine for me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Chiswick Chap, my apologies, I should be more clear as well. I was indeed talking about Talk:Olive (see diff of me putting it back in the queue). However, there is a valid GA review from 2007 that closed as fail: Special:GoToComment/c-Rmky87-2007年06月22日T14:08:00.000Z-GA Review. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ah yes indeed, you're quite right. It was all a bit confusing. Many thanks for setting things straight. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, stopping by because I noticed something odd about the GA nominee template. I recently nominated the article Ordinary World (its talk page, for reference), and it seems like the link on the text "good article nominee" is broken; it takes one to the purportedly non-existent #Film, when the correct link appears to be #Film_2 per clicking on the section in the Contents section at the top. Not sure if this is a known problem or not? Leafy46 (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is probably due to the interaction with the {{Anchor }} template and Parsoid, the new parser. If you use the old parser, the problem disappears: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations?useparsoid=0#Film works. I don't know whether this should be a Parsoid bug report or something for @Mike Christie to ensure we have lowercase and uppercase versions of the anchors for Film (and Law, where the problem also appears). —Kusma (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Leafy46, reported as a bug at phab:T436346. —Kusma (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks Kusma! I'm pretty clueless when it comes to this backend, more technical stuff, so I'm glad that you've helped get the ball rolling on a fix :) Leafy46 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

That just happened at Talk:Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Pair skating/GA1, and I wanted to ask if the reviewee is allowed to do that. Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't think this is permissible at all. It seems equivalent to forumshopping. If one takes issue with a reviewer's feedback, I think the thing to do is to get a second opinion or to seek broader consensus on whether the review is appropriate (such as on this talk page). Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:55, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't think we have a specific rule against it. But we do have a rule that renominations can be quickfailed when an independent reviewer finds that the problems that caused an earlier failed review were valid and have not been properly addressed. I think this behavior is problematic because, by circumventing a definite negative conclusion from the earlier review, it also prevents that kind of expedited second-review process. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

In this case, it's not likely that the first nomination would have failed. The review was just going nowhere fast, and not providing any meaningful feedback, so I felt the best outcome was to just pull the plug and start over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

They were clearly still actively reviewing the article, and you did not even address their concerns or respond to all of them. You're right that it was unlikely to fail, but it seems you took issue with some specific points raised, and decided to invalidate a review that had already significant effort put into it. To me, that speaks to an uncharitable attitude towards reviewers' time and effort. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

There was not significant effort put into it. It was just wasting both our time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Actually, I don’t know why I’m even engaging with you. You’re trying to play policeman on two different forums, and neither situation concerns you. I can only guess it’s because we’re currently tied for the WikiCup. If winning a contest with zero actual prize is so important to you, then just have it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

, . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

I dont know what the WikiCup is Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

WP:CUP, an annual competition for editors to make lots of big contributions. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

Looks interesting! Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is not assuming good faith. Remain respectful Bgsu, this is a forum anyone can answer if they wish Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

(This is in regards to a similar issue at FAC). The aspersions are a little irritating; I make a habit of watching the GAN and FAC feeds for errors, and I can guarantee that I would be raising issue with this no matter if you were involved in the cup or not. Like, vacating Finnfrog's review did not benefit you in a Wikicup context, I don't think you're trying to cheat or anything. I just think that you are struggling to recognize editors' efforts when it comes to reviewing. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 11:10, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Bgsu98, just a quick note: If there were valid issues being brought up at a GAN, and the GAN were closed and then immediately reopened without resolving the issues, that could be seen as forum-shopping. This applies not just to the WikiCup but to GAN in general. Please be careful not to cast aspersions against other editors, especially if they're your competitors. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have removed the GAN tag from that article for now so as to avoid the appearance of forum shopping. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

By the way, I was about to start the spotcheck.

I found that the source provided doesnt back up the claim that Sergei's piano concerto was played during their performance, so I added a citation needed Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

I went into the archives, cuz this definitely happened before and found these 2 May be relevant Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

There's no issue with renominating immediately after a fail; if the nominator does not agree with the reviewer, that's a reasonable next step. Choosing as the nominator to mark the review as fail is unusual, but if the nominator is not interested in continuing the review with a given nominator I don't see any reason to force them to continue. It's true that if it becomes a pattern it could be considered forum shopping, but a one-off doesn't seem like a problem to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

Generalissima brought up a similar thing happening at FAC too Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree there was a withdrawal and resubmission there, but there's no advantage to be gained from doing that at FAC, since the same reviewers can chip in again, and the coords are likely to look at the previous nomination if it failed. I don't think there needs to be any concern about this sort of behaviour at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Reply

Withdrawing in the face of criticism one doesn't like and immediately renominating is gaming the process and wasting the time of good-faith reviewers. I think there is a concern if it's a pattern of behavior - editor time is the single most important resource we have, and developing a habit of wasting it is something that should be nipped in the bud. ♠PMC ♠ (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC) Reply