Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport

Reviewing initiativesJune backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesPledges

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.

ChristieBot error reporting -- where to look

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)

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)

Nomination problem

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Talk:Bell Labs Holmdel Complex/GA1

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)

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

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

in olive article

The content match with other pages

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

For now I will keep that on hold

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

@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)

@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)

---

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)

@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)

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)

@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-Rmky87-2007-06-22T14:08:00.000Z-GA Review. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

Film link in GA nominee template

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)

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)

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

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)

Are you allowed to vacate a review, and then immediately nominate the article again?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

(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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Agreed. The nominator seems to have a good deal of bad faith if the above comments are anything to go by ("Wasting both our time" for a relatively adequate review is harsh no matter how you slice it). In cases like this, the nominator should likely try just asking for the reviewer to address any particular points they want addressed. For now, since this is relatively isolated it may be fine so long as the nominator understands the issue with it and doesn't repeat it going forward, but if this cancellation and renomination keeps up as consistent behavior, it may be worth addressing their behavior on a more widespread scale in the future. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Reassessment needed

I've read instructions, but do not understand them. I looked over 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) article, it has drastically changed from several years ago. I looked at GA-review and see that it goes against what was wrote back then. Reassessment appears needed. Le grogneur sur la ligne Maginot (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

For comparison. Which are your concerns? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:15, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Le grogneur sur la ligne Maginot, based on Tbhotch's link, the two versions of the article look pretty similar to me, except for the addition of a few paragraphs. If the article still meets the good article criteria, a reassessment is not necessarily needed. Reassessment is only required if it no longer meets the criteria. Nonetheless, have you brought up whatever concerns you have on the talk page? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Feedback requested

I quick-failed Talk:Group of Four Trees (Jean Dubuffet)/GA1, which @Per exemplum has taken issue with. I'm not going to reverse my quick fail, as Per exemplum is free to fix the identified issues and renominate the article. I would, however, like to know if other editors think I misapplied the quickfail criteria so that I can adjust going forward. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would not quickfail based on those issues at all, unless there was an indicator that major work was needed to fix it. You shouldn't worry about this. I've already told the nom that I am willing to review it if they nominate it again. You have a style of reviewing that you feel comfortable with and that's fine. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not worried. I'm seeking feedback. In my view, that many failed verifications in an initial check indicates serious verifiability issues throughout the article, such that major work was probably required to fix it. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your reasoning, as I encounter it quite a bit and have failed before for the same reason. But my style is very different. I reserve the quickfail as the nuclear option. If you were to examine my qf stats, they would be very small, by design. Your style and approach is very different. You desire a logical, algorithmic solution to qf, but there isn't one. If the nom is willing to do the work, I will let them. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not asking if there is a "logical, algorithmic solution to qf", nor am I asking anyone to evaluate my review style. I am asking if my quickfail was valid, nothing more, nothing less. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

It is both valid and invalid. Or rather, there can be multiple interpretations of the same criteria leading one person to quickfail and another to continue the review. In other words, each is valid under one interpretation and invalid under the other. In my example, I rarely qf because the willingness of the nom to correct the problem in a timely manner allows me continue the review. You do not wish to allow for that option, preferring an interpretation that favors an objective qf despite the willingness and timeliness of the efforts of the nom, which you have to determine before the qf. This reminds me of a DYK I just worked on for Walter Preston Battle. Writers noted that he relied on a style of legal interpretation bordering on absolutism rather than relativism. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you would have handled this review differently. That wasn't my question. I'll wait on others to comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was shooting from the hip, but as Viriditas says "You have a style of reviewing that you feel comfortable with". But if all reviewers took that attitude, progress here would be even slower than it already is. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Define progress. Most of the problems I have with reviews is when the nom up and disappears for weeks at a time and then comes back to revert to a version requiring multiple reviews. Otherwise, when things go smoothly, I can knock out a review in a few days to a week. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Progress in reducing the massive backlog here. It's true noms who are slow to respond are also a big problem. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I worry that putting reviews with critical problems on hold might be what's slowing down the process, much more than failing nominations that aren't close to the good article criteria. Quickly removing nominations that aren't at the GAC, or on the verge of the GAC, would be the most efficient response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I am forced to agree. Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

You are requesting an answer to a subjective standard. There is no definitive answer to be provided. QF criterion 1 is [i]t is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. That's a vague, open-to-interpretation standard: How far is 'a long way'? The standard hold period is seven days. I'd apply that: If any issues can be resolved within a week, it isn't a long way from meeting the criteria. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

My 2c: This is all within your discretion, but since you asked for what we would do, if you were listing those issues with source integrity and close paraphrasing as examples of wider problems, or if you had good reason to think the close paraphrasing came from the nominator (I didn't check), then it's the sort of thing I'd also be likely to quickfail. If you thought those were the only serious problems, and the close paraphrasing was something from longer ago that the nominator overlooked in revising the article (as often happens), then they look fixable enough that it might be a better option to provide an initial negative review but give the nominator a chance to fix things. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Within reviewer discretion. There are many types of reviewer, and many types of nominator. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Once again, my point was that you nuked a nomination based on an incomplete spot check without even giving me a chance to respond, even though every problem you raised (most of which pertained to misplaced citations of existing content) could have been fixed within a day. Just because your application of individual criteria can be defended on paper does not automatically make your resulting decision to QF valid or productive, and at least two other people have now told you it was rushed and uncalled for. You are free to exercise your discretion, but try to at least consider how this kind of reviewing can be alienating even to experienced editors. Nothing more to add on my end. Per Exemplum 19:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

You could have fixed it, that's correct. But when not a single spot check was passed, that indicates systemic issues in the article. You should carefully check every citation before you submit an article for review, and you should do so now before resubmitting it. As a reviewer, I am not required to continue a review if I fundamentally cannot trust that the article is properly referenced. I understand that two reviewers here would've handled the case differently, but you said my review was invalid—a concern I take seriously. I'm not seeing any consensus that I misapplied the GA criteria or the QF rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Voorts: I think your response was fine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would not have quickfailed at that point - I would have kept going with the reference check. But assuming I didn't see anything reassuring, I too would have failed on the spot and not given the week's hold. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Moving all Singapore MRT GAs in the list to a new section

Hello all, as the number of our MRT stations being GAs has increased, so has the list of articles in the general "engineering and technology #Transport" section. I propose moving all of these MRT station articles to a new subsection in the page, possibly titled "Rail stations — Singapore". I understand that the GAN Review Tool uses this page, so I am proposing this first as a heads up. If there are no objections, I will place the In use template on the page before performing the within-page move. Thank you. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 10:17, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That would be a good move, they've exceeded the 25ish I usually look for, and are in the main Rail group as well as Rail bridges, tunnels and facilities. Please don't use an in use template, best to just do it in one diff. CMD (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done diff Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 13:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Category sorting by GAN Review tool

Hi, I just promoted Dino Maamria to GA in the category of Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation:: Football :: Association football:: People: H–P. Except the GAN Review tool took didn't put it there in two ways:

• First, it put it under Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation:: Football:: American football:: People: H–P
• Second, it put it first in that list, not alphabetically, despite the article having a {{DEFAULTSORT:Maamria, Dino}}

I corrected both issues manually, but can we fix the tool too? --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2026 (UTC)