Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport

Reviewing initiativesJune backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesPledges

Good article nominations

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN), good article reassessment (GAR), and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the FAQ above or search the archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

ChristieBot error reporting -- where to look

I've recently made some changes to the way ChristieBot handles errors. Since I know there are some editors who help out by fixing various kinds of GAN error, here's a summary of how it is now supposed to work, and what can usefully be monitored. My hope is that this is a lot simpler and easier for editors to monitor than it used to be.

There are five different ways that errors can show up:

• Individual GAN entries on the main GAN page. Some issues will appear directly next to a nomination entry (in red text). These come from the {{GANentry}} template and may be further tweaked in the future. These usually indicate something editors can fix on that specific nomination.
• Article talk page. Thanks to Prhartcom, who has enhanced the {{GA nominee}} template, if there are errors in the GA nomination template they will now show up on the article talk page in bold red text. These are typically formatting or parameter issues that the nominator (or any editor) can correct. Note that you can also watchlist Category:GAN error to see these, since anything that creates an error in the GA nomination template will put the talk page that category.
• GAN errors page. User:ChristieBot/GAN errors will list all current nomination/template issues. These will be similar to the problems identified on the GAN page and the article talk page, per the above. If you're interested in helping fix GAN errors this is a good page to watch. For example, it will list nominations with missing or invalid parameters, and nominations in an inconsistent state. Note that the "Errors" section on the GAN page has been eliminated. All editor-facing errors should be listed on here; and if the edit summmaries on the main GAN page start with "Errors listed!", that will be a link to this page.
• ChristieBot bug messages page. User:ChristieBot/Bug messages will list internal bot errors (unexpected failures, database issues, etc.). These are not generally fixable by editors, but may be useful for awareness or reporting. Most editors will not find it useful to watch this.
• Operational status page. User:ChristieBot/Operational status will show a summary of the operational state. Sometimes there are temporary system issues that are not bugs or GAN errors; this page will (when possible) show the status. This page is transcluded onto ChristieBot's user page. This may be worth watching if you want to know, for example, why ChristieBot has not run in a few hours; this might tell you why.

This separation is intended to make it clearer which issues might benefit from editor attention and which are informational only. If you see any errors that don't fit this pattern, or if there are any questions, let me know; it's entirely possible I have not yet converted all the messages to fit this plan. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thank you for improving the error handling and reporting in ChristieBot and honored to work with you on the GAN templates. OK, good plan: Watchlist Category:GAN error, User:ChristieBot/GAN errors, User:ChristieBot/Bug messages, User:ChristieBot/Operational status, as well as vigilance for any red text appearing on the main GAN page or on the article talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Uncontroversial GA

I propose a system for uncontroversial marking of B class articles as GA without a formal review. I think this would help reduce the backlog and meaningfully improve the project by getting more articles marked as GA. In order for this to be done well, I think it should only apply to certain articles and only be done by certain editors. To ensure these reviews are findable, the normal nomination process would apply, however after 30 days the nominator could close the review as a pass.

Article restrictions

• No CTOP
• Must be at least 2 years old
• Must have never been previously nominated as GA nor FA
• Must have been substantially edited by at least five people

Nominator restrictions

• G/R ratio as measured by Christie bot must be above 3
• Must have five prior articles currently GA rated

Thoughts on this or a similar system? Czarking0 (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think skipping the source check is a mistake, and that's the most time-consuming part of a GA review. This would devalue GA for little benefit (how many long-term GA nominators could aspire to ever bringing their G/R ratio up to 3, and how long could it stay that way after a few quick awards of more GAs under this system?). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think all long-term GA nominators should try to keep their ratio above three. I agree this will only lead to a few more quick awards per nom. Let's say there are 50 people that actively meet the criteria and they could each nom 1-2 articles (they still need to meet the authorship criteria). That's about 50-75 new GA each year. This is meaningful compared to the ~1,000 GA made each year. If you think these restrictions would still result in a watering down of the GA brand, is there a tighter set of restrictions that you think would not risk the GA brand? If not, what leads you to believe that the set of editors who could use this tool without watering down the GA brand is empty? Czarking0 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I, for one, go into the GA process primarily because of the in-depth review process that it (sometimes) provides. I don't want a pretty green star for nothing. And getting "50-75 new GA each year" will do nothing about the backlog. What is this exercise supposed to accomplish? If it is not purely watering down the GA process by giving away some GAs without the review and source checks, what else is it for? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Then you would never need to use the uncontroversial GA process. "Getting "50-75 new GA each year" will do nothing about the backlog" why do you think that? Since you avoided answering most of my questions I will avoid answering the rest of yours. It is not a discussion if only you ask the questions. That is an interrogation. Czarking0 (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. "Watering down" means that your proposed system would deliberately prevent all partipants in the system from missing out on the same collaborative improvement, removing much of the motivation for having a GA system. If we just wanted to find some way of quickly evaluating our own articles as B-class we could just, you know, go around evaluating our own articles as B-class. No special process or rules needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In the deep past (more than 10 years ago), I was told not to evaluate my own articles as B-class, and since then, I have not. I think there was also informal guidance, now lost in the sands of time, that B-class and above assessments were supposed to be done by people other than the primary author. Not sure what happened to that norm or if it still applies. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I also tend not to evaluate my own writing, but I don't think it's a strong norm. Probably relatedly, I don't observe any strong community feeling that B-class has anything outside of a vague predictive value. (Sometimes MilHistBot gives my work a C-class and I can't figure out why, but at least it's feedback of a kind.) CMD (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is literally what GA started out as in its original incarnation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this is where the WP:ACLASS GA split comes from, but I we may have thrown some baby out with the bath water Czarking0 (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Aside from the spot check issues David identifies, what are the rationales for your restricting articles to "Must be at least 2 years old" and "Must have been substantially edited by at least five people"? How would those things correlate with quality? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

To me, it sounds like they are saying that this would ensure that mistakes are caught between those 5 editors over a 2 year period. But I don't think this necessarily guarantees that this type article would be more accurate than a new article with 1 editor... hypothetically, multiple editors over time could cause source integrity issues, as their revisions might collide and contradict one another. A new article with one editor wouldn't have that kind of problem.

That's one strength of a nomination: even if someone is nominating an older article that has had many editors, the nominator is saying: I've reviewed these citations, I've prepared this article specifically for nomination. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 00:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Which they would still be doing under this system as they are still required to nominate and leave the review open for a time for others to pick up. The restrictions on time and editors are to prevent gaming. I think we should all assume articles get better as time passes and more editors engage with or seriously question the point of wikipedia. Czarking0 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we should all assume articles get better as time passes I think this is a fairly baseless assumption to make, and we should be careful before we upend the GA system based on it. Many articles degrade over time with careless edits (this is why we have FAC and GAR after all). Having multiple editors is in no way correlated to quality either - one significant cause of that kind of deterioration is random people inserting new content that's poorly integrated into the whole. Old articles that make it to GA/FA are often wholesale rewrites because articles written piecemeal tend to be less good. Conversely, being new or only having a single major editor isn't a mark of poor quality - many GA/FA noms are these kinds of single-person passion projects. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure but these criteria are not proposed to replace the GAC. They are proposed to prevent articles which may be controversial from entering the uncontroversial GA corp. A brand new article which someone promotes to GA without review is likely to be challenged. An article that has had more editors work on it is more likely to have its GAN seen. I'd be fine replacing the age and editor count with a number of users adding it to their watchlist. Czarking0 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm.... interesting proposal, but personally I don't agree with this. Even editors with many promoted GAs make mistakes that are caught in the source spot-check phase of a GA review. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 00:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Then would you be in favor of increasing the number of required spot checks? I could change your sentence to Even articles with five spot checks sometimes have additional mistakes that are caught in a ten spot-check GA review. The point of GA is not to be ironclad. It is to provide examples of good articles. Czarking0 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea. Even the most seasoned of nominators need spot-checks for their articles, lest very bad and time-consuming things happen. I also think the proposed restriction for articles are not aligned with marks of quality. Articles with more editors are generally of lower quality and source integrity, and articles tend to decay in quality over time, not improve. The best articles are those primarily written by one or two editors in one go - piecemeal construction almost always results in sloppy work.

Also, the vast majority of the backlog is new articles created or expanded by individual editors, so this wouldn't really help to begin with. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think not. No matter how many GAs I have, some always come with more suggestions than others, and these always improve the article in the end. The articles I've written are all better for having gone through GAN, so a lot of quality would be lost with this system. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, I think that this would be a change that goes far beyond the GAN process (as it fundamentally changes how article ratings work), so the best place to start developing an idea like this is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 07:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It would make more sense to me as an idea for resurrecting A-class than for changing GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Please no. The GA process used to work close to that (example) and subsequently acquired a bad reputation that took many years to repair (and in parts of the 'pedia the bad reputation still persists). —Kusma (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Additionally, like others above, I nominate articles at GA mostly because I want another human to thoroughly read and review them, not so much for the green plus. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I second this view, the value of GA comes solely from the human review. Yes the green plus is nice, but the fact that our articles are more useful to the average reader is nicer. The value added from a reviewer giving feedback with the possibility that they can say "no" and not pass it is what helps produce better articles. Five disconnected editors over two years is a very different thing. Just my two cents. 📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 23:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Opposed since tbh this is still quite close to rubber stamping GAs, which we should not even be doing. I know there's a backlog, but usually plenty is because some are longer or more complex articles that needed time to review. I've reviewed plenty of GANs by veteran editors and mostly also require some copyedits, especially on some technical information, or using terms I'm unfamiliar with.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Script for nominating good articles

I've created Discussion+, which among other things can submit good article nominations. This overlaps with GA Helper, but as a general script I hope it will still be useful to have this functionality. In the future I intend to expand it to include Good Article Reassessments. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it is always great to have more scripts to help. Speaking of scripts, I was wondering whether we could/should include options to add a pledge to the nomination / add the nomination to a review circle in the scripts, perhaps conditional on the user's experience level. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I can easily include that, if someone can tell me where to read about them - I don't know anything about how GA works. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article review pledges, using the |note= parameter in {{GA nominee}}. Vestrian24Bio 10:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kusma and Vestrian24Bio: Done. For the review circle, it currently assumes that the nomination is on page one. I'm working on a larger upgrade that will support obtaining the correct value. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Thank you, from a brief glance at the code, it looks quite neat. —Kusma (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Concern about a new reviewer

Hey all. My nomination on the Uruguayan Regional Workers' Federation got picked up by a new reviewer, HPGirl362 (talk · contribs), and I found the feedback they left to be rather vague and confusing. I asked for some clarification on their comments and requested they seek a GA mentor, but was left feeling something was off. I then noticed that they had reviewed my nomination, as well as a nomination on Hubert Rocherau's preserved room by Bungle491 (talk · contribs) within half an hour of acknowledging a review they'd received for Jankers EF 127, in fulfilment of a pledge they had made. Leaving aside the critical feedback Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) left on that review, I was surprised that they could review two articles so quickly; the article I wrote on the FORU is almost 4,000 words long, not something one could easily review in less than 15 minutes after reviewing another article. So I went to Pangram and pasted their review comments for both articles into it, and both times, it came back saying the text was 100% AI generated. Can someone else from the project have a look at these reviews and the nomination by this user? I'm rather concerned about this. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

All those reviews appear clearly AI generated to me, down to the vague and not very Wikipedia-oriented phrasing. I suggest voiding them and putting the articles back in the queue. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Generalissima. Those "reviews" all follow similar vague structure and look AI-generated to me. They should be voided. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I've reset both of those nominations and sent them back to the queue in the same position that occupied before. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Cheers pal. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you think some of these AI reviews are good faith misunderstandings around WP:EPAI. Could we try an editnotice on all /GAn talk pages explaining this prohibition, or another kind of banner somewhere, for example on the GA nominee template? (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that they're just unaware that we even have a policy against AI use. The vast majority of new users don't understand policies or guidelines because we suck at making them accessible. In the case of this user, their only major edits before their GA nomination were rolled back as copyright violations; if they don't even understand that copy-pasting text from sources isn't allowed, how can we expect them to write and review GA-level articles without using a robot? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Concerns regarding a recent GA pass

This nomination was marked as passed by an editor who recently returned from a year-long block for content editing issues. They themselves still have issues with misinterpreting sources and wikivoicing attributable content. They have previously edited the article and have shown explicit support for the nominator elsewhere. A quick review of the article suggests that it does not meet the GA criteria. Can this pass be overturned? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you would need to nominate this for good article reassessment & include your reasons in the nomination. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 19:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden Why can't it be overturned, as the two assessments mentioned in above thread were? The reviewer clearly did not follow the instructions. They have contributed to the article, there are sources consisting of screenshots hosted on Commons with no indication of the original publisher or newspaper, some sources cannot be verified, and there are extensive copyright violations. Please take a look at it yourself. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessments is for when an article promoted to GA through the proper process of its time no longer meets the criteria. Pulling reviews is for when it is shown that a review was not carried out properly. If White Rivers has a conflict of interest in any way, this does not necessarily mean that the GAN needs to be pulled as long as it was carried out properly, if other editors are happy that the article would have been promoted anyway. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

"Some sources cannot be verified" Objection, please see where this same user has horrifically failed, maybe purposefully, at verification by falsifying an entire page of a published book. White Rivers (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems like whataboutism and ad hominem. SheriffsInTown could hypothetically be the worst editor known to Wikipedia and it would make no difference here. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

That was my mistake. I was looking at the same page number of a different book by the same author. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, why do you think one editor supporting another in a DRN makes the former ineligible to do a review for the latter in regards to a different article? As long as the review is carried out properly I don't understand this being considered inappropriate. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a targeted appeal. They have has done this in the past. White Rivers (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

My only edits to the page were minor infobox formatting and a linking, and your claims about misinterpreting sources have zero evidence, nor do they have any relevance to what you want to do. You previously launched a retaliatory SPI investigation against me with even more conspiracy theories and fabrications aswell based on that very same singular DRN comment and gaming the system. The best path forward is to nominate for a GAR and let an independent, third-party reviewer evaluate the article. I have already asked you to note your problems with the assessment and you have failed to do so. White Rivers (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Your assessment says: The references section is very thorough. Spot-checking shows that the text tightly aligns with the citations provided. The historical quotes are handled perfectly with explicit block attribution, preventing any plagiarism issues. Do you really think that the content aligns with the sources and that there are no copyright violations? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The similarities that earwig copyvio flagged were all block-quoted and attributed a part from one sentence which I did mention and has since been rephrased. White Rivers (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

In an article with 4743 words, I count that 1753 are quotes containing verbs. That's 37%, which is surely far too high, especially as those quotes are still in copyright. Is this proportion appropriate? This is Wikipedia, not Wikiquote, and there are massive downsides to using large numbers of quotations. I also saw quite a few prose issues while reading the article to count the quotes, and it is generally preferred these days that nominations are placed on hold to sort even trivial comments, rather than passing immediately. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

That's fair point regarding the quote density. I agree that 37% is high for an encyclopedic summary and presents an unintended bottleneck. I thought it were appropriate via the block quoting and attribution during my initial evaluation but after looking at WP:NFCC, I'll agree to place it on hold so the text can be properly summarized in an original encyclopedic voice. Cheers. White Rivers (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown Without casting any judgement on the dispute, could you please justify your claim that the article "clearly fails the GA criteria"? Earwig returns a high similarity between and a medium similarity with and – are these concerns or forks of Wikipedia? If they are copyvio/clop, the article will need stubifying and revdeleting with some urgency. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox The Dawn source is dated September 2000. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• This entire complaint sounds petty and vindictive. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Bgsu98 Do you think it was a fair review? I believe my complaint identified issues with the review. This is not the only issue; there are also WP:DUE issues. If someone believes that a review was passed erroneously, shouldn't they raise it? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  The review wasn't up to scratch, but I still haven't seen any evidence that the reviewer acted in bad faith. It's clear that SheriffIsInTown and White Rivers have an ongoing dispute that seems to be a petty race to the bottom, so I recommend that you voluntarily don't interact with one another, or, if you do, to do it somewhere else. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 10:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  This situation is unfortunate, and I feel bad about it. You are right that the review was not up to scratch, and that is why I wanted to raise this. In fact, this nominator and reviewer duo has been scratching each other's backs in few areas on Wikipedia already, and with this review I felt like this back-scratching activity was extending to GAN. The reviewer opening the review and passing it in less than 24 hours while ignoring major issues with the article seemed like the reviewer was scratching the nominator's back. I wanted to nip this in the bud. This will create a lot of work for our volunteers if reassessments are opened for every review they do of each other's articles, if this becomes a recurring pattern. If one nominates and the other passes, then the other nominates and the first passes. I saw with this review that this was starting to happen and wanted to raise this up. Less than par reviews like this would be detrimental to the overall project. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's a one-off occurrence. Not a collaborated or continuous attempt to destroy Wikipedia by making bad reviews. It's my first review and yes I overlooked issues and made mistakes. But please assume good faith for once. White Rivers (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I will end this discussion here, but I do not agree with your statement. I recommend that you request a second opinion. Otherwise, if you pass this article in its current state, I will have no option but to request a reassessment. I will raise further issues at the appropriate forum if the behavior I am seeing, which is slowly developing into WP:TAG, continued. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think you should really consider just not interacting with one another. Even if that results in poor quality articles slipping through the net, that will not jeopardise the project as a whole. There are plenty of other people who monitor GA passes and reviews for issues, and using GAN as a battleground between the two of you will not help anyone. Disputes bring out the worst in people, so by not interacting you will both be showing everyone your finer qualities. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 18:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I know this isn't the right forum for this, but Sheriff has serious ownership issues (several other editors agree). Rather than avoiding conflict, he repeatedly targets anyone who disagree with him, following their contributions and reverting their edits. I considered filing an ANI but I'm not familiar with the process and most editors I've asked have either said the same or that they avoid it entirely.

  Pages I've worked on such as the one being discussed, Sharif family, and Asghar Khan, have also come onto his radar with him claiming that he has thousands of pages on his watchlist. Even if that were true, it's hard to believe that out of all those pages, he just happens to be notified about the ones I'm active on lol.
  Thanks to him, User:White Rivers has apparently left WP as well, joining a growing list of editors harassed by Sheriff, including User:Titan2456, who hasn't contributed to WP since October 2025 (he made one final edit in December 2025). Sheriff even accused Rivers of being Titan's sockpuppet, and given Titan's own disputes with him, it's likely that played a role in Titan's departure too. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @WikiEnthusiast1001 If you feel there is behavior that needs to be addressed, my advice is to gather links to diffs that demonstrate your point and prepare a concise, neutral explanation of the situation. Before you file, consider if you still can resolve this dispute via Talk pages. And finally, if you determine that a post should be made, take a look at the different types of noticeboards to see which one best applies. ANI is for urgent and intractable behaviors. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 15:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @WikiEnthusiast1001 If you knew this was not the appropriate forum, then why did you post a comment filled with allegations? You have been making all sorts of allegations on talk pages, user talk pages, and in edit summaries; this needs to end. It would be much better if you stopped POV pushing, stopped violating NPOV, stopped loading articles with undue content, stopped misinterpreting sources, stopped using unreliable sources, and stopped wikivoicing attributable content, and we might find some common ground. Do read WP:PETARD if you want to embark on an ANI journey instead. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:STICK anyone? If either of you continues this mutual tantrum I’ll take both of you to ANI or AE myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Good advice, unsubscribing, will not reply to any further comments in this thread. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Stalled GAR

I nominated Emirate of Çemişgezek for GA in October last year, and it was taken by @Magnesium Cube: 2 months ago. They expected it to be done in under 5 days, but they haven't edited Wikipedia ever since. Although I'd pinged them before, they did not continue the review or reply to my comments, which indicates to me that they are not even checking Wikipedia. Can I fail the review myself and renominate in order to get a new reviewer, or given this will affect its order and deprioritize the article on the list of GANs, would someone else be interested in taking over the review? Aintabli (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Aintabli: I have reset this for you and returned it to the queue in the same spot it occupied before. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Aintabli (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Needing second opinion

Hi, I'm editing the Hinduism in Pakistan page and although the nominator is addressing all of my concerns I feel that I haven't been making much progress as I haven't covered the rest of the GA criteria. So far, I've only given feedback on "well-written" criteria.

My question is, should I continue to review this article and place it on hold for the nominator to address all of my comments or should this article be failed (giving them enough time to fix and renominate in the future)? Chilicave (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I see you've been going through this GA review bit by bit – and doing so in a constructive manner. My advice is to finish the review, let the nominator address what you find and have the process on hold until your requirements are met Billsmith60 (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Chilicave (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Arithmetic billiards

How long does this nomination Talk:Arithmetic billiards/GA1 have to wait for another response from other reviewers? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBTQ and Wikipedia § Requested move 7 August 2026

An editor has requested that LGBTQ and Wikipedia be moved to LGBTQ people and Wikipedia, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)