Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiatives:Backlog drivesMentorshipReview circlesPledges
Good article nominations
Good article nominations
Shortcut

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

[edit source]

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]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Killing of Osama bin Laden/1

[edit source]

This GAR was closed as Delist, yet is still showing the GA icon on the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators:User:Lee Vilenski User:Trainsandotherthings User:Chipmunkdavis I’ve tried, but I cannot figure out what the problem here is. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The GAR log at the time has a few errors. Most relate to GA subpages not being updated, but perhaps there is more. @Novem Linguae CMD (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[1] seems to have fixed it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That manually removes the icon, but the script should do that as well as remove the article from Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare. CMD (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tried several different fixes, but none of them took. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there is a bug in the GARCloser user script. As the main user of the user script, you seem to encounter it more often than other people: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool/GARLog#Failed to build! Unrecognized token:. I'll work on debugging it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98. I was unable to reproduce the bug using the following steps to reproduce. If I am getting any of these steps wrong, please let me know:
Worked fine for me. However the entry in the error log indicates that something is definitely broken, and it is definitely from GANReviewTool. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have found that if there are oddball characters in the text of the review or maybe on the article's talk page (like emojis), they interfere with the script. For example, that bin Laden review had a heart emoji in the reviewer's signature. I tried removing it and then re-running it. In this case, I don't think it worked, but on previous closes, I have found that that works. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thank you. Would you be able to find and post a diff or oldid for me containing one of these heart characters? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) the unicode characters in question? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's it? Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to reproduce the bug using 🌕🐶 as the unicode characters. Can you provide a different diff or oldid? Also, what browser and version are you using? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98 –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026 GAN Drive

[edit source]

Hi ! I hope you all are doing well. As per scheduled here, Will it be fine to organize drive in June? I hope for positive response. Thank You ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fade258 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's fine if we organise a backlog drive in June. How did the last drive go? Did it go well? Was it a success or not? How can we improve the efficiency of the incoming drive? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This one is the newbie drive. So we need some experienced, highly patient co-ords, and some pre-drive flyering of places where the GAN-curious hang about. -- asilvering (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering. Yes, It is. Can you tell me some experienced and having high patient coordinate who may want to coordinate the drive? Fade258 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to get people within WikiProjects to help each other, as familiarity with the subject material is very helpful. I also think we should get more experienced nominators (dare I include myself in that?) to take on these reviews and help the reviewer, especially in terms of being patient with any confusion about the criteria. Maybe we create a list of people with more than 5(?) GAs who are happy to work with a new reviewer and help them to learn how to review, and then the people who just want to get through the formalities and have their article pass don't have to be involved with this 'training'. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd have to agree with asilvering. We'll need experienced coordinators with this one. I already have some plans in mind, so I'll jump in as the main coordinator of this drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0. Thank You for coordinating. I just want to get feedback, Is there any things that I need to be improved regarding coordinating the GAN drive? Fade258 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fade258, I think it's mostly a matter of being experienced with the process. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, Thank you for the feedback. Fade258 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0. Since, I was a coordinator in the last drive, still I dont think that the drive was success because we are not able to reduce the outstanding nominations in big numbers. Fade258 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are my 2 cents:

  • 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.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Vacant0, glad to see newbie drive is in good hands. I'm happy to help out but I don't think I can commit to being a co-ord this time around either. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, asilvering. Your help is always appreciated. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for an opportunity to help out in a drive. I would be happy to fill the role of a coordinator if it's needed this June. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks @Reconrabbit. -- asilvering (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a bit early but it doesn't hurt to be prepared. The third coordinator spot is still open. Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2026 -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's early. Setting up a month in advance and getting notice out is a big help. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating the page, Reconrabbit. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0 and @Reconrabbit; if it is of interest, I'd be willing to participate as a coordinator in the upcoming drive. kline / talk / contribs 19:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Let's wait to see what others have to say. Just a question for: @LEvalyn:, are you still interested in helping out? (for the sake of transparency, LEvalyn and I have talked privately) No pressure, of course. It's up to you. It'd be great to have more coordinators for the newbie drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm game to pitch in! In particular, I can commit to helping with review-of-reviews in the latter two weeks of June. (I will unfortunately be unavailable May 31 to June 14.) Personally, I would like to take this as an opportunity to give some personal talkpage feedback to new reviewers, thanking them for their work and potentially also clarifying some criteria. In particular, I sometimes see new reviewers impose higher standards than the criteria actually require, which can lead to unsustainable scope creep. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think that we should continue the discussion here. It'd be good to plan out our strategy on time. I've already listed some things that we should work on. The backlog drive page has been already created. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can write a short notice on Wikipedia:Community bulletin board, but let's plan on sending out mass-messages around the 25th, a week before the drive starts. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be great. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's GA noms

[edit source]

As many of you will be aware, Gerda Arendt is currently blocked. This has given Bgsu98 the cue to remove all her nominations with the rationale "Nominator is blocked".

Is this standard procedure? I can see the point if a user was banned or indeffed, especially if the sanction was directly related to GA nominations, but I don't believe that's the case here. Gerda will be back editing in mainspace in a few days, and there's no reason these nominations can't sit in the queue until then. This seems unnecessarily harsh. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's silly, it's a timed block, not an indef. I think you can feel free to revert. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly inappropriate. Revert with a warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the noms so they are active again. I'll leave this thread open so Bgsu98 can comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe restoring them is best, then I won't object. I think Gerda is awesome, and this is a better place because of her, but I don't think it's appropriate to have GA nominations in the queue where the nominator is unable to participate in the process. Afterall, we don't know for certain that she will return, and I certainly hope she does. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For substantial blocks nominations should probably be removed for potential mistiming reasons. However, one week is the recommended hold period, let alone the time needed to do the initial review. It would not prevent participation even if a GAN is begun immediately after the block. CMD (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Even if she gets comments, it won't be the end of the world if she doesn't respond for a few days. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98, I'm not sure how you can say "we don't know for certain that she will return" when her block is a timed one and she's still active on her talk page. Even if she were blocked for as long as a month, with review and queue times being what they are, I don't think it would be appropriate to remove the articles from the list. -- asilvering (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Her talk page access had been revoked when I checked. Like I said, I hope she comes back, but that is not a guarantee until it actually happens. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You understand that it's a short time limited block, right? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to have GA nominations in the queue where the nominator is unable to participate in the process. Great, we get you feel that way, but please don't act unilaterally again. Everyone here disagrees with you. Take that criticism on board. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not fucking arguing with anyone. Someone asked for an explanation, so I gave it. Jesus Christ. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully I think you need to take a deep breath and back down here. I think you may have misunderstood that the block literally expires tomorrow, May 8th. Based on that, can you see why people think it might have been unnecessary for you to remove the GANs under the rationale that Gerda might not return? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And, just for the record, her TPA has not been revoked. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At least you said earlier that you aren't against restoring Gerda's GAs. If the user was blocked for sockpuppetry, then fair enough. But removing it because she was blocked for a week isn't. Even a few users would request a block to prevent them from editing for, say, a week or so, in order to take a wikibreak (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Self-requested blocks). I would only remove it if the user hasn't edited for over a couple months (which includes due to blocks), if a user has a 'retired tag', has vanished or has given permission to do so. JuniperChill (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed

[edit source]

Hello! Can we please make the "Manual Closing Steps" for GAR not collapsed by default? I did not see the "show" button indicating that it's a collapsed header, and spent a whole lot of time being very confused. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OrdinaryOtter, I'm sorry you were confused; we want the instructions to be clear. I agree that it may be hard to spot the "[show]" UI that appears after the header 'Manual closing steps', but did you see the automatic closing steps instructed in the first sentence to "use the one-step GANReviewTool"? I think it's neater remaining collapsed. Prhartcom (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC) But I would be open to removing the code to collapse the manual instructions (I remember I helped write those instructions); I wonder if others have comments. Prhartcom (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Talking Flower/GA1

[edit source]

A first time reviewer did this one and removed all the info that would include the nominator and reviewer details. Is there an easy way to add those in without having to manually get time stamps? When I try to add the info in that is normally there when starting a review it just sees me as the reviewer. -- ZooBlazer 18:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about that review is acceptable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it wasn't much of a review so it may be best to put the article back into the queue unless someone wants to clean up the current review page. -- ZooBlazer 18:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the review page and put the article back into queue. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of my own reviews?

[edit source]

Is there a way to find a list of reviews I've done? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/g_editor_query/?editor_name=Mr%20Serjeant%20Buzfuz. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 17:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you. I was confused because when I signed up to do one the other day, it said I'd done four reviews. I thought it was just three. The software apparently counts the one I just signed up to do as a review, even though I've not completed it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old reviews that need a second opinion

[edit source]

Below is a list of GANs where a second reviewer is requested, either because the original reviewer hasn't responded in a while or because there is a concern. Please consider picking one of these up to help clear out the backlog.

If you pick up one of these reviews, please strike it from the list. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LLM-generated GAs at GAR

[edit source]

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:
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. SilverserenC 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. SilverserenC 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]
  2. The original review was sufficient to address issues associated with LLM text [3][4]
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 [5][6][7]. 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]

GA reviews from User:Thepharoah17

[edit source]

The following GAs were just passed with minimal documentation: Talk:Natalie Harp/GA1, Talk:Nick Luna/GA1, Talk:James Blair (political advisor)/GA1. Thoughts? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking into this. They seem to be a reasonably competent editor, though these are the first three GA reviews they've ever done. We could ask them to document their reviews more thoroughly, and if nothing comes of it, I could step in and finish them. nub :) 00:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, these were the first three reviews that I have ever done. These were short articles too, though. I was just trying to help with the backlog. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're okay! :) I know I, for one, appreciate your effort to help with the backlog. The GA instructions are simply very specific about what needs to be on a review page. If you could review them more thoroughly (even though they're short), I think that this'd be resolved. nub :) 02:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On a (very) quick scan, the articles seem likely to meet the GA standards -- fully cited to reliable sources, reasonable level of prose and polish, images all licensed and no sign of copyvio. In most cases I think this is a matter of actually saying on the GAN page that (for example) you've spotchecked sources 1, 2 and 6 and they all came out OK, that all the images have appropriate licenses, that the sources all meet WP:RS, and so on. UndercoverClassicist T¡C 06:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer requested

[edit source]

Sadly I must request a new reviewer for Kafka (Honkai: Star Rail), as the original reviewer @Olliefant has not made any progress on the review since they accepted it two months ago despite several messages from me. I'm not sure what's happening on their end, but I'd appreciate it if someone could start the review on the article. Thanks! Gommeh (talk! sign!) 17:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant picked up 4 GANs at the exact same minute on 28 April at 21:06 UTC: Talk:Kafka (Honkai: Star Rail)/GA1, Talk:Ryan Davis (video game journalist)/GA1, Talk:Horizon Zero Dawn: The Frozen Wilds/GA1, and Talk:Invisible Woman (Marvel Rivals)/GA1. She has not made any progress on the reviews since and she has stopped editing since 5 May. Skyshiftertalk 18:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I've reset the nomination of Ryan Davis (video game journalist) (which was my nomination). Skyshiftertalk 21:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you nominated it two months ago. They accepted it on April 28. Your point still stands, though. I could pick it up if need be. nub :) 19:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead! Talk:Kafka (Honkai: Star Rail)/GA2 Gommeh (talk! sign!) 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gommeh: I have reset the nomination for you, and returned it to the queue in the same spot it occupied before. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gommeh: I'm not sure what you did to the GA template which I reset on the article's talk page for you, but User:Skyshifter has adjusted it back to reflect the original date that the article was first sent to GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oldid value for completed reviews

[edit source]

Hi folks, I'm just wondering if the revision number intended to be posted in the 'oldid' parameter in Template:FailedGA. It is not immediately clear as written on the instructions page. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, and my thanks in advance.

All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The template page states that oldid is "the ID of the reviewed version." The way I understand it is the oldid is the version of the article at the time you decide to fail it, regardless whether or not there have been changes to the article by the nominator and the reviewer during the review period. But I'm still new to this GA review process so maybe more experienced reviewers can provide a more accurate answer. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1354410947"