Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. 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.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

  1. 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.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days).
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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 or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. 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 or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. 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.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. 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.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  2. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  3. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project

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.

Articles listed for reassessment

Israel Keyes

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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) 20:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I'd welcome a new review to know what needs to be done to keep this as a good article. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Looking at this:
  • The "In media" section is a MOS:POPCULT issues. Starting off with the easy problems, at a list of true crime shows which made specials on Keyes, cited to IMBD or the shows themselves, isn't that informative
  • Sourcing. What makes Hunter (2016) a WP:RS? I'm not finding much on the way of the author that would make him a SME, and the publishing house appears to nearly exclusively publish Hunter's true-crime works. Similarly, the true crime shows, can we find anything better? And I like The Charley Project, but it's a self-published Wordpress blog written by one person (and doesn't even verify what it's cited for in this article). I'm also not sure I'd entirely rely as much upon Callahan's book -- it's not really academic non-fiction, more of the true-crime thriller non-fiction that is not known for its rigourous publishing standards. Overall, I'd say the sourcing needs a lot of work. (I'd also really like to look at non-contemporary news sources, but I understand those may be harder to find)
  • Some of the article veers into analysis of primary sources: "He initially cooperated to an extent...but he declined to disclose full details about many of his alleged killings without assurances regarding sentencing", that section is cited to the interview transcripts.
Based on this, I'm going to have to say Delist for now, until improvements are made. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Liverwort

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Concerns were raised by a temporary account on the talk page several months ago including lack of citations, potential original research, and a lead not written in summary style. They have not been addressed. Most of these issues appear to have been present since the article was listed as good nearly two decades ago. — An anonymous username, not my real name 17:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

The lead seems pretty serviceable: it'd be nice to move the (few) refs out of it, but it's not major. I've removed a little vaguely OR-ish text. There are a couple of 'better source needed' tags but they are minor issues. The main issue is lack of citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Natalie Harp

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
GA Reassessment examines the article in its current form. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply

Cyclone Fani

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article should never have been passed in the first place. Most critically, it fails GAC 3, with no information whatsoever on warnings issued, flooding, and numbers for precipitation, storm surge, or other quantitative impacts. It also fails criterion 1a, with redundancies like "equivalent to a Category 5 tropical cyclone" and the failure to spell out the acronym in "The state government of Odisha and its agency OSDMA ". It fails criteiron 1b with the use of an ampersand in the "Impacts & aftermath" section. Since the failure of criterion 3 is not an easy fix, a GAR is needed. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

More than happy to redo this, but I ask you please wait until I’m done moving in two weeks time. – LuniZunie(talk) 03:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We can pause this until then, but I would still like the original reviewer to answer why they thought writing like I fixed here could possibly pass for criterion 1A. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The GA criteria make clear that Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status. It's true that there are some places where the article's prose could probably be improved, but I don't agree that there are major issues that prevent it from meeting the GA criteria of being clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience. GAs don't have to meet the stricter FACR standard of having prose that is engaging and of a professional standard. The examples given in the GAR nomination of minor redundancies and failing to spell out an acronym in my view wouldn't be an adequate reason to fail a GA nomination on the basis of criteria 1. MCE89 (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The sentences I fixed in my diff were egregiously bad, to the point of being confusing, as is not spelling out an obscure acronym. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that your copyedit is an improvement, although I find "egregiously bad" and "glaring horrible sentences" to be fairly hyperbolic. I don't think the failure to spell out the acronym is likely to confuse readers — OSDMA is wikilinked and the surrounding context makes its meaning fairly clear. I've edited the article to spell it out regardless. Are there other any issues that you believe prevent the article's prose from being "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience"? MCE89 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I stand by my original assessment because basic, glaring, grammar errors like saying it peaked "at an" ESCS really obstructs clarity for readers. ESCS is a common noun that is fully lower-case per MOS:CASE. The original sentence was akin to this: "John Doe peaking at an Olympic-caliber sprinter", which fails to convey that John Doe became an Olympic-caliber sprinter. Also, the lack of distinguishing between 1- and 3-minute sustained winds made the article almost contradictory in the eyes of readers. None of these can be said not to affect the clarity of the lede. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Cheers mate. I'll ping you back here when I'm available. – LuniZunie(talk) 13:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Back, will fix up the article over the coming days. – LuniZunie(talk) 11:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@LuniZunie: It has been almost a week. If you don't intend to make progress on this soon the article may have to be delisted by default. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I’m aware, I’ve been doing research in the background. – LuniZunie(talk) 10:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@LuniZunie: This is something you should've done before submitting this article for GAC. If you're not making at least some edits within another week, this will be deemed to be a delist by default. Jasper Deng (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I know, I'm trying my best, there is a lot going on right now as I start college. By research in the background, I mean I am compiling sources and figuring out what to write to meat criteria, hence why no edits are published. Can't push an edit to a page if the edit is only half complete. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@LuniZunie: Although you did make edits, it has now been over a week since. If you don't resume soon I will assume you no longer wish to improve the article and will delist it accordingly. I do not like having to repeatedly remind you; you have to take ownership of this task. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, I'm not in a place mentally right now to be able to work on it. I don't wish to waste your time so please proceed with delisting it. When I am in a better place, I'll redo a GAN. I'm super sorry for the hassle. – LuniZunie(talk) 12:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jasper Deng, I oppose delisting this article. LuniZunie and I have both made tweaks to the prose to fix the minor style issues that you pointed out, but regardless I think the prose quite easily meets the GA standard of being clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience. You've identified a handful of statistics that the article didn't mention, but you haven't explained why these are main aspects of the topic (noting that the GA criteria state that an article is not even required to cover every major fact or detail of a topic). LuniZunie and I have added in the majority of these statistics regardless ( ). Can you point out any specific remaining concerns that you have in regards to the GA criteria? MCE89 (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, the aspects I mentioned are major aspects of any high-impact storm and thus GAC 3 is far from being met. How a storm was prepared for is super important, so watches and warnings must be covered. What the storm did is important, so omitting the quantitative data I mentioned is unacceptable. I saw your edits but they are still inadequate, not the least because the 1.5 m is not converted and it is not specified where it was recorded. These are essential things of a storm so omitting them does not satisfy the requirement for broad coverage.@Hurricanehink:. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Additionally, there's no alt text, a newly enacted requirement of 1b (see WT:GAC).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jasper Deng I've added alt text, although I note that there is an ongoing discussion at WT:GAN about how this new criteria should be applied to articles passed prior to its addition. Can you please explain exactly which of the main aspects of the topic you believe the article currently fails to address? I'm sure you're not suggesting that the only thing preventing this article from meeting the GA criteria is that it doesn't state the location where the 1.5 metre storm surge was recorded. Please remember that the GAR process encourages editors to work cooperatively to resolve [issues] and that the priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs. I understand that we clearly have differing views of what the GA criteria require (I don't, for example, believe that the use of an ampersand is enough to fail an article on criteria 1b), but it would be helpful if you could explain why you believe the changes that have been made are inadequate and exactly what you believe still needs to be changed. MCE89 (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

USS New York (BB-34)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, especially in the "Interwar period" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply

Katie Melua

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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)reply

1976 San Diego Chargers season

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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)reply

Lhasa (prefecture-level city)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Article contain unsourced statement and many citation needed tags Real4jyy (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

This one will be tough to retain as a good article. It is a bit of a battleground over whether the Tibetan terms should be kept at all, versus Han names, and over the difference between the city and the much larger prefecture. Uncited stuff is added, the text is swapped around, and citations lost. The article is bound to degrade. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Great Comet of 1882

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Article contain 5 citation needed tags Real4jyy (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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)reply
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)reply
@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)reply

CIH (computer virus)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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) 20:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Hi @Bgsu98: I'm happy to step in and do a GA review of the article if that'd help - if there are updates to be made, is there someone in particular I should ping to go through them? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I am the primary author of that article and the person who nominated it, you can ping me. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jishara: Pinging because I just noticed your signature, even though I assume you have this page watchlisted. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you! I'll do a look through soon and give you a full standard GA review (sorry about you having to go through this twice for the same article, BTW). Should go as normal and should hopefully be pretty smooth. I'll ping you with my review. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bgsu98: I've completed a full GA review as new and any issues found have now been resolved. Is that enough to close this as keep or is there anything else that must be done? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Since I opened the GAR, I cannot be the one to close it. Someone else will take care of it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Well, this article was actually in quite good shape. Just a couple small things, I'd say, @RecycledPixels: Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):
    MoS is followed in all relevant cases, and prose is clean and clear throughout.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Copyvio % at its highest is 15, and it's all unrephrasable stuff. Reference list is present and presentable. One uncited sentence, however - "By leaving the size of infected files unchanged, the virus is able to conceal the fact that the file has been modified." Spotcheck of 10 sources (36, 37, 25, 35, 16, 8, 42, 43, 49, and 4) revealed no issues.
    That should have been attributed to Wang 1998, which was the source of much of that paragraph. I've fixed the citations. From the source, "It is in these areas that CIH stores its code, thus infecting a file without increasing its length." RecycledPixels (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Sounds good, but that doesn't quite say that it's concealing - does the source confirm that it's concealing or just that it's not lengthening? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    "Cavity infectors, which seek a 'hole' within a file large enough to hold the entire virus, are not new...", and "CIH fragments its code to take advantage of slack space at the end of sections in PE files" (from the diagram caption), and "CIH breaks its code into chunks that it uses to fill 'slack space' at the end of the sections in his hosts. It checks for files with insufficient slack space, refusing to infect them."
    Ducklin 2018 also has a paragraph about it, it calls "Code Caving". "The final notable feature of CIH that we'll look at here, a technique that is very much back in fashion amongst penetration testers and cybercriminals alike, is the trick of adding malicious code to an existing file without changing its size. Early parasitic viruses were usually prependers or appenders, meaning that they inserted their modifications into the victim file at the very start, or added them at the very end, something that made the malware coding easier but unavoidably increased the size of the file, too. CIH, in contrast, is a cavity infector, meaning that it finds unused or unimportant parts of the host file and insinuates itself there instead, so that the size of the infected file doesn't change." I've added a citation to that source to the article to address your concern. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Perfect! Looks good. now just waiting on 4. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Based on the sources, it seems like all the important aspects were covered, and it doesn't really stray.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    not sure it's quite accurate that the virus was named after the guy - i mean his initials were in the code but at least three sources say the virus was named after the initials and they had no idea about the guy's existence for at least a little bit - i'd reword that. the word "limitations" (about the laws) feels a little non-neutral as well. i also wouldn't say that it "had some advantages" - that's a strange way to put it IMO.
    The statement about the initials is 100% inaccurate; an anon user has tried to put a footnote into the lead a couple of times that says that, and I've just taken that back out again. In the History section, it says his classmates also noted that the virus name was based on his initials that had appeared within the program, CIH, I've reworded that sentence to make it clearer that the CIH name came from a text string that researchers found within the program, and that Chen's classmates identified the connection between the text string and Chen's initials.
    As for the "limitations" of the law, do you have any suggestions? After the initial news rush of his arrest, coverage of the ultimate fate of Chen's criminal case were pretty nonexistent. Ducklin2018, which is what is cited in the article, says "as far as we know, however, he was detained and investigated in 2000, but due to the nature of cybersecurity laws in Taiwan at the time, he was never tried or convicted of any crime". That's the most reliable source I could locate about it, but there was never any definitive statement by prosecutors that "we've dropped charges because 'x'" that I've found after a ton of searching, at least in English sources. Unreliable sources that I found but haven't included in the article suggested that in order to convict Chen, prosecutors would have to had to prove intent to spread a damaging virus, and that would have been difficult to do because Chen said he submitted the virus as a class assignment in his school and the distribution of the virus happened because of other students in the class. That, to me, sounds likely to have been the reason for not being prosecuted, I just don't have a good source for that, or even for what the law says, but trying to perform legal analysis seemed like dancing a bit too close to the OR line anyway. It also explains why the school didn't punish him for anything more than just not providing a removal tool.
    I'm sorry, I can't find the "had some advantages" text that you're referring to. Is that that the CIH virus takes advantage of the wasted space between objects in a PE file? I could have written it something like "The CIH virus exploits the wasted space", but that changes the meaning slightly from what I intended. The use of the wasted space was a novel approach and it was very advantageous to use it because at the time one of the ways people noticed and detected virus infections was by the change in file size. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @RecycledPixels: For clarity, I meant "the CIH infection did have some benefits" - didn't quote it correctly. i feel like that's a really awkward way to word it. As for why he didn't get charged I wouldn't go with "limitations", i'd say something like just "due to the laws" and not "due to the limitations of the laws". There's actually a retrospective analysis here from CNA Taiwan, though, and probably more, so try to add from that if possible (if you want to search for more use his Chinese name 陳盈豪) When I was digging, I also found this, which seems useful for that too - check and try to add the stuff from there too because it looks like it gives useful context. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I changed the wording to clarify that it was the awareness of the consequences of the virus that had the benefits, not the actual virus. Good catch. I removed the "limitations" portion of that sentence about prosecution. I'll look into integrating a sentence or two from the two sources you identified, but not right away, I'm going to be away from my computer for a while after this. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    No rush at all! Ping me when you get a chance to make the updates - those two sources turned out to be really informative IMO and give a decent amount of info about what the virus creator was up to, etc, so i'm looking forward to seeing how a bit of that gets integrated. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Jishara: I've added information about the 2003 criminal code amendment about computer offenses and the CNA source for the unofficial "Chen Ing-hau clause" nickname. The IThome source didn't have anything I was interested in using. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @RecycledPixels: I do think a mention of him creating an antidote program as well (subject of the IThome) should also be included for fullness. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Jishara: I'm relying on machine translation for that article, but I don't see that Chen wrote the virus remover. CIH detector and removal programs were available from all of the antivirus companies by Summer 1998, long before his involvement in the creation of the virus was known, so I don't see much importance in Chen holding a press conference in April 2000 to tell people to run virus scanners, much less a removal program that he had written himself if that was the case (kind of like the call you get from the second scammer who offers to help you recover all the money the first scammer stole from you). RecycledPixels (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    i would say we should put in a mention, though - it's currently a bit imbalanced compared to actual coverage in its section about Chen, who is a BLP Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    The article is about the computer virus, not Chen. I don't think his press conference should be included. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Fair enough about the press conference, but I do think we need just one or so more sentences there (1) to close off the scope there and (2) to make sure of a neutral POV. ping me when you get a chance to add. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Perhaps I need to go back a couple of messages and reply again to your "it's currently a bit imbalanced compared to actual coverage" statement. Please explain that. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    The way the subsection about Chen's currently written doesn't really read as encyclopedically neutral towards him - I think just adding one or maybe two sentences about it would help Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Can you explain what you don't find neutral? The only thing that I see that might be interpreted as not neutral is the sentence about boasting about the virus, and that's a phrase straight out of the BBC source. Perhaps that was a translation error, and something like "he was proud of his work in creating the virus" would address your concern? RecycledPixels (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    It's not any one sentence - none of the sentences themselves are really neutrality violations. it's putting them all together that makes me go "hmm, that looks a little non-neutral". As such, as I mentioned I think the easiest way to fix would be adding one more sentence about what happened after that Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    about what happened after that After what? RecycledPixels (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    His actions/interaction with the virus after he was confirmed to have created it - right now everything there is things happening to him, not by him. Sorry for the delay btw I somehow didn't see this. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I think the point where we're disagreeing here is that he didn't have any actions/interaction with the virus after he was confirmed to have created it, other than being arrested/questioned two times, to which the article dedicates four paragraphs. All of the secondary coverage about him related to "they caught the guy who did this, he could be in prison for a long time, ohmigod! they let him go!, hey they arrested him again the next year, and then some vague 'we don't really know what ever happened to him' retrospective articles." As I've argued above, an article about him holding a press conference a year after the major impact, telling people to run antivirus on their computer doesn't add anything to that content that's not already extensively covered in that section. In 2000, CIH had minimal impact, by then it was very well known; it was a big deal in 1999 and if Chen had held his news conference then to alert everybody about how serious the virus was going to be, that would have been a big deal worth including significant content in the article. One person in Taiwan who claimed the virus damaged his computer in April 2000 filed an official complaint, which led the Chen's second arrest/detainment that September, already mentioned in the article. On the other hand, I am glad you were able to help me finally track down the information about the 2003 law revision, which is a great addition to that section. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @RecycledPixels: We do actually know what happened to him - he taught cybercrime and worked as a computer scientist and consultant for a bit, and more specifically was the chief of the section at a comms company where he became known for being really good at catching bugs in the aughts, and at some point went into investigating high-profile crimes through technology and investigating cyberbullying of a celebrity. The current writing of the article gives a very negative impression of him (the beats are he created it and supposedly gloated, though he claims it was unintentionally released, he was investigated twice, then laws) - that's a bit of a problem for a WP:BLP (yes, the article isn't about a BLP, but the section "Programmer" is fairly lengthy and entirely about him) where reliable sources show that that isn't the whole case. My initial suggestion was the press conference because I think that'd be the easiest way to make the coverage more neutral as per criteria 4 while keeping it cohesive, but if you'd rather do something about his later life or something else that'd work too. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I have added a sentence about Chen's later work as an operating system kernel researcher. It is apparent that we will not be able to resolve this disagreement about the appropriateness of the material in this article, so I have added it, even though I do not feel it belongs there. Let me know if that has met your expectations. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Looks good! Thank you so much for that, I appreciate it. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There are some reverts in the history, but I don't think they're edit wars - they look like routine cleanup.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):
    One image in the article, and it's used appropriately, captioned, and has alt text!
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

@Jishara: Thanks for your review. I've responded in the comments and made some changes to the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

@Jishara: I have responded to the latest round of feedback. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Songs for You

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per Special:Diff/1376749699 basically undoing all of the edits made to make this a GA over AI-generation concerns. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Printing press

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Per this thread, this GA is suspected of having been generated by a LLM. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

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)reply
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)reply

Avatar (2009 film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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)reply

  • My Source analysis found these:
    • Scribd - unreliable source
    • jamescameron.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog
    • Daily Express - unreliable source
    • New York Post - unreliable source
    • marketsaw.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog (x2)
    • upcomingfilmscores.blogspot.com - unreliable / deprecated blog
    • PR Newswire - unreliable source
    • Herald Sun - unreliable source
    • blu-ray.com - unreliable source (x2)

Vestrian24Bio 11:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply

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)reply

Flag of Tunisia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Most of the Previous flags section cites the self-published Flags of the World (WP:FOTW). This 2008 GA is not up to snuff Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Aquarius (Tinashe album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I reviewed this article (poorly) back when I was still new at making GA reviews (thank the lord I made better ones down the line). As discussed before, the original nominator has been blocked from mainspace as a result of using AI in articles (which is generally prohibited). As a result, there may still be some AI writing left over, which we gotta get rid of. RedShellMomentum 23:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • There are two directions we can go. We can restore the version of the page in June 2025 before it was expanded with AI tools, and remove the GA tag, or we can all team up and rework the page to restore GA status but with human English composition replacing suspected text. I think the easier choice is the first one, and that old version of the page is actually pretty good. I would suggest delisting the page. We can all poke at it a bit as the spirit strikes, with no pressing schedule to meet. Nobody would have to compare and evaluate sentences to see whether they were AI-generated. Delisting is easy for the community of editors, and the reader will still be satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delist - While we can try to fix the AI use, there's sentences that don't seem to make sense due to the original nominator's language barrier: "In February 2012, it saw the release of her debut mixtape, In Case We Die (2012)" (what is "it", Tinashe's career? A career is inanimate and cannot see things) and "As August Brown of the Los Angeles Times calls the album's music 'weird, wonderful world of experimental beat' which he compared to other PBR&B singers, including FKA Twigs and Kelela, continuing to say the album has rhythm and swing 'yet cut through with melancholy'" ("as" doesn't make sense?). Clocking in at just 95 in-line references and 1.7k words, there would also be concerns about comprehensiveness. I think those issues go beyond what we as non-subject matter experts can or are expected to fix.--NØ 04:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Skibidi Toilet

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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)reply

Chapter Three: The Case of the Missing Lifeguard

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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) 20:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I wrote and nominated this article, so I don’t think I am allowed to give an opinion here on if it should stay a GA (obviously I think it should since I nominated it), but I am curious as to what will happen now? Will people here assess the article to see if it meets the criteria or not and decide that way, or will it simply be delisted entirely because of the AI generated review? Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 20:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You are of course allowed and encouraged to offer your opinions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Apologizes for not responding after a month wait, I intended to give my reasons for why this should stay a GA but forgot to. I believe this article satisfies all criteria, for example the images are relevant and properly tagged, the prose is consistently solid, and all the references are cited properly, with a comprehensive look into every aspect of the episode, going as far as I could find to get every detail I could. I don’t believe anything is missing (pun not intended) from this article, but if it would be preferred for someone else who didn’t work on the article to comment, then I’d also be fine to wait and respond to any issues they may have Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 22:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bgsu98: Hi, just wondering what the status on the article’s reassessment is, since this has been active for more than a month? Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 12:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bgsu98: and @Crystal Drawers: I'm happy to step in and do a new GA review of this article - Crystal Drawers, are you free/available enough to make fixes if I spot problems, etc? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jishara: Hello! Yes, I’d be happy to answer any issues you have with the article. I should be able to respond to any issues in a timely manner, just please ping me when you post them so I know :) Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 18:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Fantastic! I'll ping you when I do the review, should be within the next day or so. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

@Crystal Drawers: comments below! Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):
    Prose is solid and MoS is followed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    One thing I noticed is that there's a bunch of spot-check things in the background where the source doesn't back up what it's saying - and I know (at least for many of them) the article is right, I've seen some of the show, but the source doesn't actually explicitly say that - for example, that Hawkins is a town, that Eleven has psychic powers, that Nancy is Mike's older sister, the existence of Mrs. Driscoll and a russian code. Also, alienation doesn't seem to quite be what Schnapp is saying, the quote is "It's not my fault that you don't like girls" (emphasis added by me, that word's missing), and the Ringer writer doesn't explicitly say the Russians are the primary villain (and in fact earlier in the article itself you state that the main villain is the Mind Flayer). Cites are formatted correctly, nothing is unrefed, and no copyvio signs.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Nothing seems to be missing, and it doesn't wander anywhere.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Well-balanced and generally effective
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No signs of edit warring or stability concerns.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):
    Do we actually need two different fair use images here? There's the poster, and there's the image of the scene, and I think both are useful, but I'm not sure they're useful enough to need both as fair use images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

J. Wray & Nephew Ltd.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

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 two videos 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.
  • Other problematic sources: sponsored content from the company, a self-published family genealogy site, more primary sources.

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)reply

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)reply
@Dclemens1971 I will try my best to improve the article on 10art's behalf and have removed as many dubious sources as I can. https://singlecaskrum.com/countries/jamaica/appleton-estate-new-yarmouth/ seems promising, but I'm not sure. brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 19:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Alright, I'll take a break and consider things.
Pietrek also wrote for Bevvy by the way, he has a column there called "Ruminations" https://bevvy.co/articles/author/matt-pietrek 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 16:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 02:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1363895279"