Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria and if necessary, delist them. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus.
GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment may be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles may be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.
Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.
Opening a reassessment
To open a good article reassessment, use the one-click GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
Reassessment process
Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the criteria.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at the GAN discussion page. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.
Closing a reassessment
To close a discussion, use the one-click GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days).
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets good article criteria, the reassessment may be closed as keep.
If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
After at least two weeks (14 days), if the article's issues are unresolved, and editors have clearly ceased making good-faith improvements to the article, and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist.
Manual closing steps
Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)
Disputing a reassessment
A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors may post at the GAN discussion page and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the GAR coordinators.
GAR Coordinators
The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings—work to organize GAR efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the GAN discussion page.
The good articles listed below have been flagged for the attention of reviewers for reassessment. If reassessment is appropriate, please open a reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. For cases where no reassessment is needed, remove the template from the article talk page.
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
Remove as the person who reviewed it previously - this state is definitely not GA-material unfortunately. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
As much as I don't want to do this, I have to. The problem with this article is that there are numerous unsourced statements throughout, along with numerous {{page needed}} templates for the Rolling Stone source. With these problems, I don't think FS/LS can retain its good article status (which sucks cuz JT is my favorite musicians and this is my favorite album by him). RedShellMomentum mobile (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I am opening this reassessment following concerns raised by @Hipal: in these edits. The concerns are about unreliable sources and promotional language, which would this article would fail 2b and 4 of the WP:GACR. I am the primary editor for the article (per the article's statistics), and I nominated this for a WP:GAN back in 2017 (and here is the WP:GAN). I was still very new to Wikipedia and to being an editor, and I acknowledge and admit that this article is not well-written and that there are issues with the sources. I think that it should be delisted. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree with the delisting. The article appears to need severe trimming at least, with an eye to a rewriting it around what notability she has. If she has any notability outside American Idol, it's unclear. --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This article fails GA criterion 3a (broadness of coverage). It never explains the basic agricultural rationale behind the events it describes, leaving readers unable to follow the causal logic.
Purpose of mercury seed treatment is unexplained.
The Context section states only that "Mercury was found to be an effective fungicide in the early 1900s." It does not explain that this treatment was applied specifically to seed grain to protect it from fungal spoilage during shipping/storage prior to planting — not to the crop that would eventually be harvested. Without this, readers cannot understand why seed grain in particular was treated with a toxin, or why such a practice existed.
Fate of mercury after planting is unaddressed.
The article never states whether wheat/barley grown from properly planted treated seed would itself have been safe to eat. This is the central premise that makes the disaster comprehensible: the poisoning occurred specifically because farmers consumed the raw seed grain rather than planting it and eating the resulting harvest. Without addressing what would have happened under intended use, the article leaves this foundational question open.
These are coverage gaps, not merely prose-clarity issues, and I believe they warrant reassessment.流山隆一 (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
How odd, I looked at GAR on 9 August and bookmarked it then, so it was certainly visible to ordinary editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
The transclusion was so I don't know how you found the page to make an edit 9 August but never mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
KEEP: The Context already states that (methyl)mercury fungicides are toxic; I have added a cited statement that mercury was used in seed dressings as you suggest. Your objection is in a way too strong for its own good: it would apply to all pesticides used on any crop at any stage, as it is always the case that the harvested parts are claimed to be safe to eat after any properly-conducted pesticide treatment. I have all the same added a direct cited statement that seed dressings are supposed not to leave harmful residues in harvested cereal crops. I believe that resolves this matter, which really should not have required a GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
GA criterion 2.c states that good article "contains no original research". Per WP:PSTS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Notably this article has more primary sources than secondary sources. This issue was raised at Talk:Preston railway station, Melbourne#Excessive reliance on primary sources over a year ago and the issue has not been sufficiently addressed in that time.
Additionally this article contains references sourced to the Herald Sun or Seven News. These sources have are listred at either WP:RSP or WP:NPPSG as being less than WP:GREL, notably Herald Sun is listed as being WP:GUNREL. TarnishedPathtalk 13:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: when I was conducting the review, I was still a newbie at GAN reviewing. Now that I have more experience, I think the concerns on the talk page (overreliance on primary sources and PUFFERY arising from them) are valid. However, I will say that rail stations (especially modern ones) can rely on non-independent/primary sources for uncontroversial stuff like what landmarks the station serves and where the station is located... they can, in fact, be the most reliable source for that type of stuff. Subjective statements like "the station creates 'newer and safer connections'" should be cited to parties that are independent of the station's owner, like a newspaper columnist or a public transport designer, not to the owner itself.
I also wasn't aware of the NPP sources list and Seven News's unreliability (I thought of the contrary while reviewin the article, actually). I'm not sure why I didn't properly assess the reliability of the sources back when I was doing this review... Anyways, the two sources should be removed and replaced with more reliable sources. If both issues are resolved, then I move to keep the article. Icepinner(Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 13:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I think it needs a bit more than the two sources replaced, there needs to at minimum be more reliable secondary sources than primary sources. TarnishedPathtalk 14:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Icepinner: Don't worry, the Herald Sun and Seven News are reliable for non-political or controversial topics such as this. Steelkamp (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I would only use the Herald Sun for any WP:ABOUTSELF content. Seven is not as bad. Preferably both sources ought to be replaced. TarnishedPathtalk 08:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the context of what the source is used for needs to be taken into account. Those sources shouldn't be used for anything related to climate change, but for a week long station closure, i think its fine. Steelkamp (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about the Herald Sun and Seven News being used as sources, and more concerned that this article is not broad in its covereage. There's so little pre-LXRP history there. And for the LXRP, what package of works was this part of? What contractor? What budget? What planning was done? Is there any information at all on the 1889 structures? The passenger counts are not up to date or mentioned in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
You're correct there. I overlooked that when I was looking at the talk page and the reference list. I imagine there could be stories to be found in Trove on the 1889 structures. TarnishedPathtalk 08:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Original GA Nominee here
Back when I expanded the article and made the Preston railway station, Melbourne article to meet GA status back in November/December 2024 to June 2025, it was incredibly difficult to find reliable and secondary sources even after doing deep research about Preston railway station. The Herald Sun and Channel 7 News Australia were the only secondary sources that I could find at the time to add it in to existing paragraphs of the article. Now, I did go have a look once again today to find a reliable, secondary sources, but still couldn't find much about this station.
I used primary government sources, such as Victoria's Big Build when getting this article to GA status because they were really easy to find through research, but I do really wish that there were more secondary, reliable sources, but there is nothing we can do about it.
I've also since learnt that The Herald Sun is more right-wing leaning in politics and may do controversial topics, but from that Herald Sun news article from memory, I didn't see any political or controversial topics in there.
I don't really mind if the Preston railway station, Melbourne article is taken off the GA status article lists, considering it had less secondary, reliable sources and I still couldn't find them.
Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 09:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@PEPSI697, considering @Steelkamp's comment above, have you looked for material about the 1889 structures? Trove or Newspapers.com might be places to find material. If there was content added about that it could potentially make a difference in regards to the proportion of primary sources. TarnishedPathtalk 10:10, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Trove is likely to contain good info. I'm also wondering whether any local history books mention the station. Steelkamp (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
No, I haven't looked for secondary sources regarding the 1889 structures, good point.
I've looked through Trove for the 1889 Preston railway station, Melbourne structures and unfortunately couldn't find anything about those structure despite doing deep research today. Is there anything else I could look up for newspaper archives through Trove related to Preston railway station, Melbourne?
For newspaper.com, the search for newspaper archives was unfortunately behind a paywall and didn't bother deciding to pay for it considering that I wouldn't use this website as much.
Again, I don't mind at all if this article gets taken off the GA status list.
Also apologies for me taking 3 days to respond, I was busy in the last few days.
Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 09:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@PEPSI697: you should be able to access Newspapers.com via WP:TWL, but you'll need to apply for it. If I remember correctly, the Wikipedia side of things should be quick, but I never got my subscription to Newspapers.com to work properly, so I can't say how long it will take for you to get access to Newspapers.com. Icepinner(Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 10:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Trove would have anything from before 1955 due to copyright. What useful newspapers would Newspapers.com even have? Does it have The Age? There might be other ways to access The Age through a library in Victoria, for example. Steelkamp (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
In this situation Newspapers.com wouldn't be any better than Trove, given the subject matter is Australian. TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I've got a subscription through WP:TWL, which has come in handy for my work reviewing nominations at WP:DYK. The licenses are limited, so if they are all allocated at any given time, anyone applying for access has to wait until someone else loses or gives up their access. TarnishedPathtalk 11:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The aritcle is quite long, at almost 11,000 words. This is about 1,000 words longer than the version listed in 2011, and over the 8,000 that WP:SS recommends considering spinning out. I think there are some sections, like "Watershed", "Early European explorers", "American frontier", "Dam-building era", and "Tourism and recreation" that could be spun out, summarised more effectively, or have additional headings to help with navigation. There are also a couple of uncited statements, which I can tag with "citation needed" templates if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
I tend to think all of the human history stuff could be spun out, but the "Dam-building era" section should remain (possibly with some cleanup or being broken down by decades or significant periods of construction). The damming of the Missouri is pretty significant and properly belongs with an article about the river, although perhaps it should be merged with the "Human impacts" section under Ecology, since dams are certainly a human impact. Parts of it are indeed poorly-written, but that's an easy fix. Spinning off the history stuff should reduce the article size, but the "Tourism and recreation" section is sufficiently small I think it can stay where it is. Intothatdarkness 12:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while but I think I can tackle this over a few months or so. I can do some heavy copy-editing and condensing in the longer sections. Shannon [ Talk ] 03:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I am nominating this article because I believe it fails criterion 3(a), which is essentially impossible to fulfill by practically failing to cite Romanian-language sources about a man who spent his entire political career in Romania.
The four sources that are cited are hardly up to standard. One is a speech made in 2003 on the floor of the Romanian parliament. I need hardly say that this cannot be considered a reliable source about anything. Another, while a slight improvement, is essentially hagiography, relying on interviews with his aged daughter. A third, while quoting a bona fide expert, is rather superficial. Source four duplicates #3 and can be eliminated on that basis.
As noted, Roth spent over three decades at the highest levels of the Romanian state. He was written about extensively by his fellow citizens: in newspapers, in magazines, in diaries and essays. Similarly, Romanian historians have been writing about him for at least three decades, if not significantly longer. The fact that none of this material has made its way into the article raises serious questions about its comprehensiveness. — BiruitorulTalk 23:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
I believe that this is holding the article to a standard above the bare-minimum requirements of the GA criteria and these are issues that would be raised if it were being compared to the more stringent FA criteria. But I'm just the guy who checked the boxes, so do what you will with it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
The whitewashing of Roth's Nazism is a troublesome concern: the article manages to mention that he opposed the Romanian Nazi Party from within without ever bothering to even mention what he was doing therein in the first place -- are we to believe that he was kidnapped by the Nazis and forced to wear the uniform? I want to emphasize the level of bad writing that went into this: it's not just that his Nazi affiliation is mentioned only to be immediately qualified as irrelevant; it is also that the reader is not given a basic fact (which would have incidentally been available in local sources) about when he joined a political party, in fact even that he joined that party. Imagine an article about Trump switching directly from when he owned casinos to when he was president -- "and that, boys and girls, is the whole story".
Now I'm not saying that Roth was literally Hitler -- it is quite evident that he came to oppose Nazim (very lightly so, and at very little personal risk, and after having joined with it knowing full well what it stood for). Though even on that note, the article manages to be infuriatingly lopsided: it coaches us on how Roth supposedly once told Hitler to, as it were, cool it with the antisemitism, but we are spared having think about how he only did so after having himself joined a movement and a party that he knew to be antisemitic!
But true enough: he wasn't Hitler, and even Schindler was a Nazi before he was anything else. But it is still poor form, and it should have struck the reviewers as poor form, that this aspect, of his voluntary political commitments in that controversial era, is only lightly touched, in what is a text that manages to dwell mostly on his martyrdom and the many services he did to the world by always being in power. This is the sort of article that you get when you only mix in encomiums, and the exact part of the sources you use that reassure the reader "all is okay", instead of doing proper, dispassionate, research into what the sources actually say. It also strikes me as odd that the editors were apparently aware of the abundance of Romanian (and Hungarian, and local Saxon) sources, but made a conscious editorial decision not to use them -- see the mention of Arcanum hits on the talk page. ("I can see through Arcanum that there were a lot of attacks at the time by doing date range from multiple newspapers" -- you see, the editor saw that there were articles critical of Roth, but gleefully concluded that we should ignore their content. The editor didn't even search for a monograph that would synthesize what those articles said, and if they were at any point correct. The editor just made a conscious choice to ignore them, as we, the idiot readers, and Roth's wonderful legacy as well, need to be protected from a grown-up discussion about Roth and the Völkisch movement. Let's take a moment to put these two things together: the article uses interviews with Roth's daughter, but consciously glosses over articles mentioning his dealings with the far-right. What sort of article do you imagine emerges from that mix, if not puffery and defense of the great man? Is there even a single source used that outright criticizes Roth for anything?)
This is a study-case in how not to write an article, and it should be removed from the GA list pronto, pending massive improvements.
(The structure of the article is incidentally incoherent, at various points driven by the editor's personal musings into how each new thought should be a section -- why is there, as a random example, a two-line separate section for "Roles in Transylvanian Saxon institutions"? how can this be methodologically different from what is in the rest of the article? Just who thought this was a way to write an article, let alone an example of what constitutes good writing on wikipedia?) Dahn (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
The question about primary sources, of political speeches, used as RSes is not, btw, "above the bare-minimum requirements". Such sourcing is prevented by the bare-minimum criteria for writing an article, let alone a GA. Dahn (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
It also does not work that an article barely checks the GA criteria but then "something happens" and a myriad of sources get added to where it is good for the FA. Nah. What we get in that promotional line-up is a fruit of the poisonous tree -- a half-assed, encomiastic article gets plastered with two or three more sources, all of the same nature, all used in the same unilateral think-happy-thoughts manner, and the half-assed GA becomes a half-assed FA. And from then on it becomes cited as a model for how to write other articles -- someone recently mentioned the FA on W. B. Yeats which is less detailed than the preface in a paperback Yeats I used to own, incidentally by, among many other things, also having very little and timidly worded material on his Blueshirts involvement (imagine the chutzpah it took to say that the article on that monument of Anglo-Irish culture and European poetry was "complete" in that form). Dahn (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Erm, what exactly is the status of this reassessment? Is it just being ignored at the moment? Dahn (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
This article was kept at AfD with the general consensus that the topic was notable and WP:NOTCLEANUP, but many agreed that the page had huge systemic issues and may need a total rewrite due to rampant synthesis throughout the article. I think it should be delisted pending a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Look at the original GA review. That was not a review. That GA should never have been allowed. This article has never had a proper GA review. Bgsu98(Talk) 03:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
You haven't checked if this article meets the GA criteria, so this reassessment is also not proper. A review with no comments is itself not a reason to open a GAR. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't see how the article does not meet the GA criteria. Some comments from the reviewer–@Thepharoah17–would have been nice (WP:GANI#R3) but with 22 reviews and 16 GAs, it's clear that they are familiar with the review process. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
At the time of the GA pass, May 10, it appears that there was no citation for her birth year, and the WP text of the name of her title did not match the name of her title as reported in RS. Different reviewers I’m sure have different priorities in BLPs that they spot check for verifiability, but it does seem to me that birth year and job title should be very high on anyone’s list. If we had some comment we could point to as evidence that any amount of fact-checking occurred in this review, it might be easier to overlook the miss on the birth year and job title.
Either way, the article has expanded significantly since May 10. I would think a case could be made that the article is over-focused on the more lurid details (therefore not broad in its coverage) and someone might reasonably be able to articulate that our presentation of the more lurid stuff is not neutral.
My understanding is GA Reassessment is not meant to assess new material added after the GA pass. Mikewem (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
GA Reassessment examines the article in its current form. Bgsu98(Talk) 15:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Bgsu98 is correct, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason to reassess the article. In a strange sense, more attention dedicated to this article has meant that uncited statements are being noticed. I agree that "the article is over-focused on the more lurid details", but that does not mean that it is not broad in its coverage. Broad coverage is the floor, not the ceiling. It seems to me that editors have come here instead to try to paint a particular view of Harp that is hasty. I'm not seeing any problematic sources on a brief glance, it might be correct, and it probably doesn't warrant a GAR yet. I would want to see a rewrite done before a GAR, which strikes me as an article for which a rewrite is beyond the realm of possibility. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
The problem is this article never had a proper review in the first place. Thepharoah17 received a notice on their talk page about sparse GA reviews around the time this supposed GA was completed. It should have been vacated and sent back to the queue at that time. Bgsu98(Talk) 17:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
GAR does not appear to be the avenue for that. The review was already completed. The point of this process is to assess whether the article meets the GA criteria at the current moment, regardless of how detailed the review might have been at the time. If you are not able to explain why this article does not meet the criteria, then this needs to be closed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
As one of the editors who was part of the more attention, I’m very sympathetic to the argument that the increased attention was good for filling in citations.
But the increased attention did result in the addition of a lot of potentially non-neutral material.
I think a good solution for right now is for interested editors to take a critical look at the Relationship with Donald Trump section for neutrality, with an eye towards volume of material we cover in the section. Even the name of the section might conceivably attract criticism. The word Relationship possibly implying a “relationship”. Mikewem (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Uncited statements, especially in the "Interwar period" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
The article needs more work, but I've trimmed out the material that had been added without sources as a first step. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Hey there. Are there any particular sourcing issues I should look at? I see a few things have been added over the years, like books that aren't sourced. —Ed!(talk) 07:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Following up. Happy to do some more edits but not clear on what needs work at this point. —Ed!(talk) 17:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
There are several 'citation needed' tags in the article (8 to be precise) that haven't been addressed since Jan 2024. JuniperChill (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Per this thread, this GA review is suspected of having been entirely generated by a LLM. Unless an editor undertakes a proper GA review of this article, this article should be delisted. Note: I am in no way impugning the quality of this article.Bgsu98(Talk) 20:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
I previously nominated this for GAR but later deleted it, i can easily fix up this article. Monathephantom (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Real4jyy and Monathephantom, I fixed most of the citation needed tags by either finding and adding sources or deleting material I couldn't find a reliable source for. However, another problem I found was that much of what is attributed to Plummer 1889 in the article isn't actually in the source. I'll be very busy for the foreseeable future, so I won't be able to work on the article anymore. Heythereimaguy (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
@Heythereimaguy Good job with adding sources! I recommend keeping the sources to the body though and not the lead per WP:LEADCITE Monathephantom (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Per this thread, this GA is suspected of having been generated by a LLM. Bgsu98(Talk) 20:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
When I reviewed this one, I was ambivalent whether to pass or fail. I was not too happy with the overall narrative, but it was decent enough. Well at least to what I know about the subject, which was not deep enough to write myself but enough to feel that it was not quite there. I leaned over pass because it will some more exposure by other editors who might be able to contribute beyond my skills. Here we are. A.Cython(talk) 00:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
No comment on possible LLM issues, but reading through this I noticed some portions that seemed confused. I corrected a few errors but I also think are some issues that would take more time to address.The article kind of conflates Chinese and Korean printing. It would make more sense to discuss the vast scope of the Chinese written alphabet when mentioning the "wooden type, arranged on revolving tables" because this gives the context on why Wang Zhen might have used wooden type and also why he needed revolving tables instead of just drawers or bins or something.The line "The Gutenberg press benefited from its use of the Latin alphabet with a relatively small set of characters." comes after Korean printing, but it's not really relevant when Korean Hangul also has a relatively small set of characters. Korean metal type printing was (I believe) largely controlled by the state's production of ink, paper, printing, and printed documents. This is a huge difference compared to Europe where there were many competing printers and a vast range of printed materials. The article talks about books, but doesn't cover non-religious books like Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. It also doesn't really touch on printing images in general. Cards are mentioned only well after the printing presses have shifted playing cards from woodblock luxury items to common things available in every home, pub, inn, and pharmacy. It also results in the Game of the Goose and the whole modern industry of printed games. The details of things like that, of post cards or of paper money might veer out of scope for this article, but printing presses very much changed the cost and cultural significance of ephemera and I think that is probably in scope for this article but not covered.Finally regarding scope: if the type of press this article covers is specifically the type using pressure then it should probably give a little more coverage to modern letterpress usage and explain how laser and offset printing are different. If the scope is more broadly mass printing, then it should give a lot more coverage to offset printing and laser printing as the dominant methods of modern printing presses. I think either direction would be defensible. Hope this helps, Rjjiii (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, this same user led to Pat O'Keeffe getting delisted as well. Can we just PLEASE block them already? They are a NUISANCE and a NET NEGATIVE to this website. UltraCobson (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
This user already said he would stop using AI and rewrite the articles. I think we should give him another chance. If he keeps using AI, it will be right back to the admin noticeboard. Векочел (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I couldn't even revert their edits because they've got "conflicting edits". They most likely made them that way so they couldn't get reverted. This is some true evil if I've ever seen it. UltraCobson (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
An orange {{Unreliable sources}} tag is placed on top of the article, indicating that the article may have unreliable sources. ScarletViolet★ 14:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Delist. A criterion of WP:GACR6 is that there must be reliable sources. I still see sources from PR Newswire, Facebook, Blu-ray.com, and various Blogspot sites in the references. Furthermore, I see an {{Additional citations needed}} template for the Video game subsection. Unless these issues are resolved soon, I believe we should delist this article. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Let me take and rework this one. It's typical franchise bloat and the article is too long. The good news is the multiple attributions should allow me to slim down sourcing to the best of the bunch. I was looking for a new GA nom anyway and it would be a shame to delist this one. Deborah.artemis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
I plan to work on this one after the weekend. We're all fine if I'm given a couple of weeks? Thanks. Deborah.artemis (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
As no one has replied, I am considering it agreed that this will remain listed and I will work on it. Deborah.artemis (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
I've dispensed with the blogs without compromising any of the info. The release date on the blue-ray was wrong, in fact, so I've fixed that. The Express and The Post are tabloids but they can be referenced on a movie article. I want to go over it general bloated writing, so if there are any comments in that regard then please let me know. Deborah.artemis (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent work! There are two recent edits that I think should be reviewed by another set of eyes:
A large amount of content regarding speculation about the film's prospects was removed.
A paragraph in the Box Office section was restructured but it looks to me like redundant information was added. I sent a messasge to @ScarletViolet on their talk page alerting them to this.
Also, there is still one citation to Blu-ray.com, which was mentioned as unreliable in this reassessment conversation. OrdinaryOtter(talk) 04:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Some of the aforementioned sources are still in the article, so my position to delist the article still stands. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The page is missing substantial information in the Adaptations & Licensing section. There is no mention of Skibidi Toilet: Emergence, an officially licensed spin-off series. The information pertaining to the Next Level lawsuit is also outdated, as Next Level and Invisible Narratives have already reached a settlement (which isn't mentioned). No mention of collaborations with PUBG, Discord, Stumble Guys either, which are rather significant. Overall I believe the page is no longer broad enough to keep its GA status.
A few minor issues with redundant citations in a few places, outdated info in the Production section (it still assumes Gerasimov is the only one producing the series). — BitByte10 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Bringing this here after discussion at DYKT. I believe the review did not properly assess the sourcing under GACR 2(a) and 2(b). It uses self-published sources extensively when reliable sources are required per 2(a), and it uses primary sources extensively, when 2(b) requires no original research.
9 claims are sourced to Petr Hlousek's self-published rum label archive. Even if this were to be considered an appropriate source somehow, the rum labels would still be primary sources.
A Medium post by Javaun Francis. The nominator said in the review Javaun Francis is a rum educator with a Youtube channel where he does in-depth videos about rum, and owns a company, Louisiana Cane Spirits, and a website, booksrumandthensome.com. Again, I normally avoid Medium for that exact reason, but Javaun Francis is genuinely an expert in the field and his credibility should carry over. I'm sorry, but there is no evidence provided that Francis meets the requirements of WP:SPSEXPERT, and his other website named is a personal Substack.
39 claims are attributed to twovideos featuring interviews with J. Wray personnel published by J. Wray & Nephew's trade association. These are primary and non-independent sources, and while such sources can be used sparingly, here they are used extensively and not just for straightforward, non-contentious claims. Here, for instance, one of these videos is used as a source for a negative claim about a competitor: Unlike some other distilleries, such as Hampden Estate, which re-use dunder during fermentation to increase the concentration of esters, producing higher-ester "funky" rums, J. Wray & Nephew does not re-use it and treats dunder purely as waste. Or for promotional/exceptional claims, such as Their more premium line of rums is Appleton Estate or Park Avenue, a liquor store in Manhattan, at one point was the exclusive distributor of a 20-year-old column still Appleton rum. Two additional claims are sourced to the company's own website
23 claims are sourced to Matt Pietrek's blogs Cocktail Wonk and RumWonk. There was some discussion as to whether Pietrek's blogs would count as WP:SPSEXPERT since he has published a few articles in otherwise reliable sources, but this RSN discussion indicates some skepticism about it.
8 claims are attributed to a Wordpress blog by a "Michael Mosley". The nominator says but the author, Michael Mosley, is a BBC journalist, so I think his credibility on reporting should carry over to his wordpress. But the Michael Mosley who was a BBC journalist died in 2024 and was married to Clare Bailey, while the Michael Mosley of the Wordpress blog does not claim to be a BBC journalist and is married to Bonita. Any claim of WP:SPSEXPERT falls apart.
All told, dozens of claims (a significant majority of this article) are based on primary, non-independent, and/or self-published sources. This should never have been passed at GAN and should be delisted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Would like to apologize for any shortcomings I have not looked up on, but will try to rectify the issues. Thanks. brachy08(chat here lol) 23:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
I have canned an entire section about New Yarmouth, and until I can resolve the claims myself, I'll have to support demoting this article. brachy08(chat here lol) 12:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort you put into this.
I'm not going to lie, I have not been active lately, since I submitted this article for GA just to see if I have been doing a good job editing wikipedia, and to hear that I have been doing it all wrong, and the person I rely on for probably over a quarter of my citations across all articles is not reliable at all, just made me want to step away from editing wikipedia. 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏talk 19:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
You have been doing a good job, but we do make mistakes sometimes.
If you want to take a break, be my guest, but you're not doing it all wrong and he's just not reliable enough. You've done a lot of research on the subject, so you're on the right track. Please don't get disheartened over one failure. brachy08(chat here lol) 01:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Understood. Sorry for the late reply, but given a quick glance at Bevvy, I believe they're kinda reliable, not experienced with reliability but I think it counts as SPSEXPERT brachy08(chat here lol) 07:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
I agree (uninvolved editor here) - i think Pietrek is fine. I'm more worried of the other ones. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
So Hlousek, I agree is a weak source, and it looks like he mostly copied the info from https://old.jamaica-gleaner.com/pages/history/story0030.html, so I replaced his citations with the gleaner one where appropriate, and the rest I could find in some other sources, so there's no more Hlousek citations.
Likewise, it looks like Javaun Francis just took his historic information from A Jamaican Plantation: The History of Worthy Park 1670-1970 so I'm going to cite the book for that one claim. 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏talk 02:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
