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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4 Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 GA help: 1, 2 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I wrote a somewhat different user essay (How to stay motivated when reviewing Good Articles), encouraging the reviewers to be a bit more selfish. The simple assumption is that happy reviewers equate to more reviews. Not sure if this essay is helpful, but it's a try. Input welcome! Thanks, Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Quite good! These are helpful ideas. I made a few copy-edits to your page (feel free to revert them).

• Would you like to touch on the responsibility to complete the review and the goal to wrap it up in around seven days?

• The text touches on it in the second sentence ("responsibility and commitment") and provide a possible workaround (review strategy #2). I heard from editors who avoid taking a review because they are not sure they can really finish it, so this is definitely an issue for some. Do you think we should stress the responsibility aspect a bit more (overdoing it – becoming too selfish and motivation-focused – is obviously no good for a collaborative project)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your instinct to not preach is probably the right one: touch on the reviewer's commitment and goal, then move on. It's good that the essay is focusing on the reviewer finding ways to have fun when they review. Prhartcom (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the essay could use a closing section. Even if only one positive, motivating sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yeah. I'm not good with closing sentences and can't think about one atm, but will add it as soon as something comes to mind. And of course, if you already have an idea, please feel free to add it. And thanks again for the feedback, much appreciated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps add to the list of motivations not only "give back" but also "pay it forward"? (I've seen people do this.)

• Added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a good time to remind the reviewer to suggest changes rather than demand changes? And to collaboratively fix simple issues themselves? (Sometimes it's quicker than explaining.)

• Excellent suggestions – I took both on-board. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that motivation is important. All reviewers should read this. Prhartcom (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: Excellent – thank you very much for your copy edit and your suggestions, and see my replies above! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, I enjoyed reading your essay and think it is valuable to all good article nominators and reviewers. I have recently decided to get back into doing good article reviews after having years long hiatus from doing them. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 22:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen an editor have two GAR quick failed in the last week and a peer review speedy closed. This editor has 30+ GAN presently. I do not feel that I can fairly do 30+ reviews but wanted to see if this was something that should be brought up? Czarking0 (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the editor? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is really unclear. have two GAR quick failed – Do you mean GANs? GARs can't be quickfailed. Also like Bgsu says I think you need to say who the editor is or any judgements will lack context. IAWW (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why should penalties be applied for having GAs or GARs failed? Wikipedia is a work in progress, no one should be punished for their articles not being GA standards... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The implication, if I understand correctly, is that the alleged editor was tempted to quick fail a few GANs to advance his/her own articles in the queue. So the critical question is whether the quick fail of these nominations were done correctly or not. A.Cython (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, that makes more sense DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation was that the editor's nominations were quickfailed. Perhaps Czarking0 could clarify, and indeed do us the courtesy of naming the editor (is it User:ElijahPepe?) so we can talk facts rather than vague suppositions? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is correct, Czarking said nothing about the editor QFing other peoples' nominations in a bad faith manner. Their concern is clearly that someone who has nominated 30+ articles has already had two of their nominations be quickfails, implying that there may be issues with some of their other nominations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is ElijahPepe who has quickfailed one article Talk:Online Safety Amendment/GA1 in the last month. I don't know what the two in the last week is referencing, Czarking0 has failed Talk:Pete Hegseth/GA2 today. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 17:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think ElijahPepe is operating in good faith and am not trying to make a disciplinary thing here.

I personally never have more than one GAN at a time as I don't think I can do a good job with more volume. I recognize that others are able to do more than I. However, when I see multiple quickfails with 30+ additional nominations I worry that others are not recognizing their own limits. Czarking0 (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors may be working on multiple articles at the same time over extensive period of time. Once all these articles are finished (from their point of view) then they can submit them all together. As far as I know, there is no limit how many GANs one can submit. I am more concerned with editors submitting multiple GANs but fail to review other people's work (the rule of thumb is two reviews per GAN). All of these take time, so let's assume good faith. A.Cython (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to say that two of the editor's GAN were QF'd by other reviewers. I worry about the 30+ GAN in the review pipeline. Czarking0 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the second GAN quick failed in the last week? Is Wikipedia:Peer review/Kash Patel/archive1 the peer review you reference? It was closed on procedural grounds as Elijah already a PR open. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 17:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One GAN quick failed in the last week, which was by Czarking0 today; you can check my talk page. First, by no means is there any obligation to do 33 reviews by yourself. Second, the implication that my articles aren't worthy of GA status isn't supported by the passes I have had since I started doing GAs for BLPs: Kingsley Wilson, Emil Bove, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, and Gary Shapley. The quickfail that's being brought up is for Pete Hegseth, and the peer review is for Kash Patel; I was unaware that you could not have more than two peer reviews open at a time, and I had frankly forgotten that I had opened it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kash Patel/GA3 was the other QF I was talking about. I was incorrect about last week as this was months ago Czarking0 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on the validity of your QF today either way, but it does rather undercut your case if much of your original post is incorrect. (Not to mention that it was unclear enough that the discussion immediately derailed into a misunderstanding of your concerns.) Do you think it might have been more productive to talk to Elijah yourself on his talk page rather than hastily bringing this to a public noticeboard without double checking your assumptions? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to address his talk page. Maybe read that first if you think it is relevant. Czarking0 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the post with your concerns about the Kash Patel article, but this thread isn't focused on the Patel article, it expresses a more general issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably would not have passed Kingsley Wilson and may take it to GAR at some point. Lutnick looks pretty good. You certainly make a lot of articles about republican leaders. Czarking0 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly make a lot of articles about republican leaders. Care to explain why this is relevant? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything actionable at this time. Two QFs in a week isn't necessarily cause for alarm just yet, but I don't even see that - I only see one QF from the past week. If you go through ElijahPepe's 30+ other GANs and find several other articles that are easily QF-able, then we can discuss that problem. But I don't think we need to apply any "penalties" or "punishments" right now. Barring the existence of prevalent QF-able issues, such as maintenance tags, across these articles, reviewers will get to the articles in due time.

As for the number of GANs that ElijahPepe currently has open, that's a separate issue. There's a current soft cap of 20 GANs; any additional GANs are automatically hidden by ChristieBot. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the perspective. I had tried to bring the question for my understanding of the process. I did not know about this soft cap. I did not mean for this to turn into a conduct discussion about a specific editor as I think Elijah is a good faith editor that is bringing a lot of value to the project. Of course, anyone can look through my contributions so it is not like I could keep the issue that had brought this to mind a secret. Czarking0 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is alright to insert myself into this conversation, but I believe ElijahPepe is a good faith editor and I had the pleasure of working with them to pass Brilyn Hollyhand as a good article. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 21:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Platinum (talk · contribs) picked Contramar for review two weeks ago. They also nominated Gustav Ammann for GAN. Since that day, they haven't edited. Reviewing their edits, they edited once in November and from then, until January 2025. They left a review, but one of the points was vague ("Some sections of the prose must be rewritten to become more neutral or provide clarity. Some sentences can also be clubbed together for better readability. I will fix the prose while you work on my other comments, but feel free to let me know if you want to handle this/want clarification."), so the nomination is stuck because of this. What can be done? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the user doesn't respond by the 5th January, I'll take it up and finish the review 😁 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Apologies for the delay in completing the review. I will be responding to the nominee's comments today and will work with them to wrap it up ASAP. Ajay Platinum (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful that this review was able to carry on with a new reviewer. To answer your question 'What can be done?', the normal route is to increment, as stated in the Instructions under "if a review seems abandoned." Prhartcom (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On its own:

• Is WP:ARTICLESIZE grounds for failure or putting a review on hold?

• Is a single instance of a potentially incorrectly licensed file grounds for failure or putting a review on hold?

Thanks in advance. ~2026-80356 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the specific article to which you are referring? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bgsu; sorry, that was me on my phone. I am currently reviewing the entry for the 2025 Singaporean general election, and I cannot for the life of me determine whether this modified version of the Singaporean coat of arms is correctly licensed or not.

There is also the small matter of the page being 14,858 words in length — and that's only counting the prose. SelfDestructible (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Putting a review on hold" generally means waiting for problems identified to be fixed, so presumably any GACR issues are "grounds" for this. CMD (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bad file licensing is definitely grounds for placing a review on hold under criteria #6a. My opinion is that for GA status, we should be a lot more lenient on article size stuff than at FAC, but for truly egregious cases (which would mainly involve clear summary style failures or off-topic information) this would be grounds for failing the article or not passing until criteria #1a (clear and concise prose) and #3a (on topic and written in summary style) are met. I think for GA status it's more helpful to approach the article size issues from a perspective of summary style and off-topic information than a raw word count; 8,000 words for a major historical figure or core scientific topic is clearly different than 8,000 words for a more minor topic. Hog Farm _Talk 01:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are that the article cannot be a stub. Whether an article is a stub based on length is a little bit up for debate. A review can be "put on hold" for any reason at any time prior to it being passed or failed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My personal rule is I quickfail anything that doesn't meet the minimum requirements for DYK (1500 characters in length). For comparison, a very short GA I wrote (Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad) shows as 2956 characters in length with the DYK tool. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, and happy holidays! I originally posted over at WP:Good article mentorship, but my request kept getting archived; there are a couple of other pending requests there if any experienced reviewers wanted to take a look?

I've completed a review of Talk:Bella Ramsey/GA1, and feel it's ready for promotion. As this is my first ever GA review however, I was hoping a GA Mentor or experienced reviewer could just double check that I've not missed anything important before I did so. Cheers, Nil🥝 21:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That looks more than sufficient! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good review. You caught quite a few issues, including often forgotten wp:lead issues and the more technical image licencing issues. There is a source spotcheck and the noting of insufficient sourcing. If I was to nitpick there is no explicit mention of criterias 3, 4, or 5, but I emphasise it's a procedural nitpick and the review is good. CMD (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 @Chipmunkdavis Thank you both, much appreciated! Nil🥝 03:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just started my review for Seven Nation Army, and I was clearing the basics (ie, 5 and 6, copyvio bot, citation bot and the like) but then I noticed that the sound sample has no rationale at all. What do I do here? This is probably the simplest part of the GA criteria, and every other multimedia file is fine except for this one, so do I remove this or provide a rationale on my own? Or do I wait for the nominator to do so? Thanks in advance! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is some rationale for inclusion at File:Seven Nation Army (sample).ogg#Summary. Is your concern that what is given is insufficient? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Then let me fix this real quick. They forgot to remove the notice that tells you to add a rationale. I'll remove it real quick. Apologies. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. That damn thing is the first thing I look at when checking these, so to see it say "to the uploader! provide a non-free rationale!" made me go "Uh oh...". Let this be a lesson to always change that to "file has rationale=yes" if it has one. Apologies again for my own ignorance. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble, thanks for taking on another GA review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 23:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I just finished it up a moment ago. (I was finishing up the source spot checking, it had about 22-25% of the sources cited, which is clearly enough for a review). I think I'm getting the hang of this. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently I completed an extensive peer review (around 10 hours of work, including spot-checking source-text integrity and finding additional references) of an article which I hoped to see at GA.

Unfortunately, the nominator got banned recently. Even though I'm not the main contributor to the article, would it be acceptable for me to nominate it, given that I feel I understand the article very well and am prepared to address any issues during the GA process? Any advice would be appreciated. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Always unfortunate when a talented editor ruins their efforts by socking. I think it's perfectly fine to nominate it as long as you note the circumstances alongside your nomination and make an effort to familiarize yourself with all the sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a shame to see. Thanks for the advice and answer, I'll make sure to do that. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I share Generalissima's perspective here. As I've said before, the point of disallowing drive-by nominations is to ensure that nominators are sufficiently familiar with the article and its sources to be able to deal with any issues brought up by the reviewer, and anybody who meets that requirement—even, in principle, somebody who has never edited the article or indeed Wikipedia at all—should be able to nominate it. TompaDompa (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I am reviewing an article Arithmetic billiards in the discussion, apparently a source from here [1] uses Wikipedia as a reference. And surprisingly, the nominator could not find it, yet I could. What bugs me is, can such a source still be considered reliable? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an academic peer-reviewed source then I do not see why citing WP would make it less reliable. A.Cython(talk) 01:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the authors, it appears to be, the authors are all faculty members from the University of Luxembourg. I could be wrong here, but I doubt that something like this, that's authored by faculty members from a university wouldn't be peer-reviewed. Again, sorry if I'm wrong. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 01:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'm concerned about the review at dersu uzala (1975) (nom), at the nomination we have had a content dispute, for which i asked for a second opinion. in the notice for a second opinion the reviewer commented that the second person should take over reviewing the article. as a result i've asked twice for the review to be closed as failed; the reviewer denied this request and accused me of WP:GAMING and they left a notice asking for a sysop to comment on whether my actions constitute GAMING. quote: "by your asking to simply close the GAN without any further appreciable work on the article from you, for the purpose of then directly re-opening it with the sole purpose of somehow getting a clean slate with another editor seems a poor idea." it feels to me like a bfe accusation. as far as i can tell from the gan guidelines there's been nothing wrong with my request. the diffs to the article demonstrate that i've been willing to compromise and followed the majority of the advice of the reviewer.--Plifal (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment, but the idea that you want to keep a review open but don't want to review the article is bizarre Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from ErnestKrause why they consider the explicit GAN instructions "If a review stalls or there is disagreement over the interpretation of the good article criteria...you may ask the reviewer to fail the review, then renominate the article to get a different reviewer to be WP:GAMING ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Plifal: I closed the GA for you. You are free to immediately resubmit it to GA in order to find a second reviewer. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!--Plifal (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]