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)

Criteria 2: page numbers?

For GA criteria 2, should the absence of page numbers in citations (for books) be noted in a review? Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 03:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It depends. If the absence of page numbers means you are unable to verify through a spot check, mention that. If you are able to verify even without the page numbers, you might mention it but I wouldn't fail over it. CMD (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

For books (at least, books that do not obviously have the cited claim as the main topic of the entire book), I would definitely at least note it in a review, as CG asks. What the consequence should be for not addressing the note is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the verifiability criterion is not met if it is not feasible for the reader to check through the entire source to find if the text is supported IAWW (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's tricky because the sources are offline, so I need quotes provided for source verification / integrity anyway. Those quotes are pending. If they are able to provide them, then that seems like verification criterion pass to me? But either way, I commented that I highly recommend adding the page numbers. Also, in my spot check of online sources, everything I checked was accurate. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 14:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't pass if the books were big and the nominator refused to add them (very unlikely), however it's worth noting that this question comes up semi-regularly on this talk page, and different reviewers have different opinions on how to treat that situation. IAWW (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I’d ask politely. Sometimes, you give the book to someone else or donate it to the library after using, and then you have to wait a while before getting it back. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Idea

We have review circles already, but I have a potentially better idea for easily(ish) getting GAs:

A group of five or seven editors (they don't have to know each other prior, in fact, this may be preferable) works together on getting an article to GA. With 5 editors, 3 work on that, with 7 editors, 4 work on that. After they think they are done, they send messages to the other editors, who go through the article and the criteria together to determine if it passes, and, if not, to help fix the mistakes. Ideally, each person would have one request for an article to improve, and they would rotate.

This has several improvements:

1. Low fail rate, as the reviewers would be trying their hardest to get it to pass.

2. Faster, as the number of editors working in tandem gets thing done more easily.

3. Neutral on the backlog, as the group would review itself.

4. More thorough, as the reviewers would be looking for different qualities and the editors would each vet everything carefully.

Any thoughts? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea within WikiProjects, because I think it will only really work among people who know each other and the subject material. However, some projects, like the UK Railways project where I hang out mostly, are quite solitary, so I couldn't see a huge uptake from us but you never know. Other projects I know can be very communal like the Doctor Who WikiProject, so you'd probably see more interest from them.

My second thought is that some people are just better noms or reviewers. For example, I have reviewed quite a few articles for MRSC who never does any reviews in return, but I don't have a problem with that because both nominating and reviewing are equally as important for the project, and people should focus on what they want to do and are good at. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 00:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. I was informally talking about a similar idea about ten years ago. I even came up with a roadmap for it, but it's buried in my sandbox userspace history and I'm too lazy to find it. I hope something like this eventually gets rolled out. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

GMTA. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Putting this here for the notifications. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox, @Viriditas: Should we add this discussion somewhere else? Should we ping people in review circles, or is this canvassing? _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 04:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Your biggest enemy here is inertia and culture. I mean, look at the main page. It hasn't changed in forever. This place attracts people who don't like change. The best way for you to see something like this happen is to make it happen yourself. Find people who are interested in collaborating on something like this and then push it from the bottom up. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei: They expressed support for a similar idea related to collaboration in general in 2025, now on the Wikipedia:Editor reflections page. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you want to join this endeavor? Are there any people you'd like helping? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(Again, I'm getting ahead of myself):

Anybody who want to participate, please sign below. Pings to @JacobTheRox, @AirshipJungleman29, @Viriditas, @Nephellium, @Linux Luvver. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I'm really busy with a lot of other projects right now, but I'm willing to be a consultant of sorts who can provide limited feedback when I'm pinged to a review. I kind of like difficult questions, so if anyone gets stumped over something or finds themselves in a jam, I'm happy to be pinged for an opinion during a review. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That’s a shame. Are you expecting them to clear up over the summer? Do you have any recommendations for invites? _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Mariamnei, up above. She didn't respond to the last ping. You may want to contact her on talk. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If you ever want to help or send in a request, you’re more than welcome to! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be happy to participate once off Wikibreak, but as I have said before, I am sceptical about reviewing articles which I am too unfamiliar with. I guess the two options are:

• You have a team of 6 reviewers all from a very similar background and focus area, and they work through articles in that scope
• You have a team of 6 reviewers from very different content areas, and then each review is likely to have at least one person familiar with the topic to help lead on areas more specific.

JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 06:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wikipedian12512! I think I will only help occasionally, as I am on a "race" to make as many Annonaceae-related articles as I can. I'm going to be more available over the summer, I hope. Nephellium (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(Ping to @Myceteae). _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Most of my work involves creating and editing redirects and participating in behind the scenes discussion, especially RM, RFD, and talk pages of articles of interest to me. I don't think this is something I would participate in. Most of my direct edits to articles are minimal. I have zero experience with the GA process. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I already have a few people (from real life) whom I would plan to do this with (courtesy pings to @Nephellium and @Linux Luvver).

I would prefer more. At least two. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 11:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, as long as you don't run into conflicts of interest between nominator/reviewer, or peer pressure to avoid negative criticism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. The whole idea kinda depends upon that. I think we could do it, but there would need to be rules (e.g., an experienced GA reviewer/nominator must be in the group to ensure it is done correctly). _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that it is worth piloting, and I would be glad to participate! Yet two issues come to mind:

1. I'm not sure how much I could help improving articles in subjects that I'm less familiar with. How can we ensure that the editors in the group are a mix of experts (who would be responsible for the content), and non-experts (who help with prose, neutrality, and spotting jargons unclear to broader audience)?

2. I also wonder how we can keep the group dynamic supportive without it ever drifting into rubber-stamping each other's work, simply because we all want each other to succeed! Maybe it would help if at least one reviewer per group came in fresh, without a prior working history with the nominator, so there's always someone approaching the article purely on its merits? Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Both ideas are good!

My answers for them:

If we can get enough people, we can (hopefully) find enough experts in each subject to get groups. Alternatively, on a geography subject, that might cease to be a problem.

For the second one, my solution would be to have the nominators help get it higher than just a basic GA, but yours works too.

Thanks! _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 12:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like it could work. Let's try it as a pilot and see how it goes! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay! :)

Any requests to start with? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer blocked

A user (who is now indefinitely blocked) opened a review of my nomination: Talk:Reine Audu/GA1

Is there a way to delete the review page completely (so the GA counter is "reset")? If that can't be done, could it be reassigned to a willing reviewer? (I can try to find one) — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 04:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 04:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Timeline for Second Opinion

Hi there, I put in a second opinion request a week or two ago and one hasn't been forthcoming. I expect it might be a hard sell, as the article's pretty long and the GA review isn't particularly short itself. How long should I leave it open before going by my impulse of GA fail? I don't see much guidance on the question, so thought this forum might be helpful. Thanks! Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you potentially need to wait for someone with some prior knowledge or understanding of US history in order to comment on whether the article in NPOV, which means you're probably best asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United States and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History or individually reaching out to editors in those fields. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 09:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll definitely do that. I was wondering if you had any thoughts or guideline you could point me toward on the material. While the concern I have is on NPOV, in trying to explain the difference of opinion between myself and them, I saw that the two nominators were both drive-by nominators (at time of nomination, lower than fifth-highest contributors). I also got the impression that at least one of the nominators may not have access to the key sources used on the page. When I made that comment, they didn't respond either way, so could be wrong and the source spot-check did check out (though again, that was mostly pre-existing material not supplied by nominators). This is for the article James Buchanan.

While I'll definitely do as you advise in going to an expert third party, I hoped that someone more entrenched in GA could give their two cents on this area both, 1) what if it was a driveby nom at time of nomination (but reviewer didn't realize) and 2) what if it seems like nominators aren't able to refer to sources in the same way that reviewer can. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Big wall climbing: advice on hold or fail

I started the review of Big wall climbing, which I listed under reviews needing an experienced reviewer.

There is a lot of good material in the article, and the illustrations are excellent, but I do not think it is ready for GA. My main concern is breadth rather than just cleanup. It assumes a fair amount of climbing knowledge and does not explain the subject very well for a general reader.

Thin areas are the development of protection and equipment, fixed ropes and hauling, clean climbing and the bolting/chopping disputes, safety and rescue, access and permit issues, and the environmental history of big-wall climbing. The grade-milestone section is largely a list without explaining what the progression meant. I also think the choice of notable walls is uneven.

It looks like more than copyedit to me, but I would like a seasoned reviewer to opine on hold vs fail with encouragement. This nonminator has been very active in the climbing area, definatly should be encouraged. Appreciate the help. WhaleFarm (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but you are asking the nominator to go into unnecessary detail already covered in daughter articles. I think you are bringing your personal need for technical understanding to a topic that would lead the nom to violate 3b, so it's a bit of a pickle. When a similar concern about one of my past articles came up in this regard, I was asked as the nominator to gloss the topic points. It sounds like that's what you want the nom to do, but I don't think it deserves to be failed in its current version. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

WhaleFarm, you wrote in your review that the article "does not yet explain big-wall climbing very well to someone who doesn't climb. It needs more on how the climbing is actually done, how much gear is involved, how the equipment and ethics developed, and what happens when things go wrong." I don't think it does. That would definitely violate 3b. If there is something specifically that confuses you and needs a gloss, ask the nom for it. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that including ethics, environmental impact, rescue costs, in an article on climbing would be unnecessary detail? WhaleFarm (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's avoid leading questions. I would recommend opening a line of communication with the nom, sharing your concerns. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the comm is open, all of this is in greater detail in the ga1 talk. If the nom says he can address or discuss my concerns, I' more than happy to hold and then pass WhaleFarm (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The SOP is to state your concerns and put it on hold. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would not want to read 12 links to follow the flow of article. The 3a issue is that many well documented, notable issues, such as permiting, rescue, environment are underweighted. There's also a Wikipedia:ONEDOWN issue. You have to be pretty versed in climbing to make sense of this article.

I climb (or did), but this article wasn't easy to follow. More prose, less jargon would help. @Viriditas I would love hear how it read to you. Another opinion on the article prose would be insightful. WhaleFarm (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It reads like a general overview of the subject. The narrative can be tightened and worked on for flow, but not seeing anything deserving of a quick fail. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@WhaleFarm, can you add some linebreaks or something to your review? It's a massive wall of text right now. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

good point, I should have looked at it in preview, not just in the edit. I keep forgeting that source to view eats line breaks. See if this helps. If still too dense, I can break further. WhaleFarm (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I don't really understand what you mean by the article seems to be written mostly for people who already seriously climb - I do not seriously climb, and I can read it, and I don't think someone who seriously climbs would get much out of this. Queries like It lists haul bags, portaledges, ropes, food and water, but does not give the reader much idea of how much equipment is involved. How heavy might the load be for two climbers spending several days on a wall? How many haul bags might they have? Water alone is a major load. don't make much sense to me either - I don't have any idea what size or weight a "haul bag" is anyway, so this number wouldn't be meaningful to me. And again with At present, the article covers remote walls around the world but says little about access, permits, closures, power-drill rules or fixed-anchor policies. I wouldn't expect this article to say any of these things, and if it did, I would be requesting that they be removed, as trivia. It's not a guidebook. Though I agree that "Evolution of grade milestones" doesn't explain much and probably should.

Which is to say, I think you're expecting a much more in-depth article than a general reader would, and I don't think the article should be failed for the reasons given. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is what I imagined:

=== Impact and ethics ===

Early big-wall climbers relied heavily on soft-iron pitons hammered into cracks. Many were left in place, while others became stuck or were later cut off, leaving metal and visible scars in the rock.[cite] Bolts were also used to climb sections with no natural protection, but climbers disagreed over how many were acceptable. Some routes were heavily bolted, then partly “chopped” by later climbers who thought the bolts unnecessary, only for some of them to be replaced again.[cite]

By the 1970s, nuts and later spring-loaded cams allowed climbers to protect without hammering and the damage. This helped establish the idea of “clean climbing,” in which removable equipment was preferred.[cite] Royal Robbins was one of the strongest voices for limiting bolts, less damage, and leaving routes in a condition that preserved the challenge for later climbers.[cite]

These arguments never produced a single set of rules. Climbers have continued to debate when bolts are justified, whether old bolts should be replaced, whether electric drills should be allowed, and whether removing another climber’s bolts is acceptable. Land managers regulate some of these practices,power tools, wildlife impact, magazines discuss.. Yosemite....[citations] WhaleFarm (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Instead of three, recommend one small paragraph or several sentences added to the history section. However, a GA does not have to be comprehensive. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like maybe you want to collaborate on this article? You can always join in with the nominator and leave the GA review to someone else. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the nominator? If not, why not? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

No response to date WhaleFarm (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"to date" meaning in the twelve hours since you finished your review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

actually 3 days, but can I get back to the origonal question.

I started on reading this about a week ago, it's an area of interest, and the nom had several articles up for GA. I took the GA review 3 days ago, and posted asking for an assist in the June backlog. No experienced reviewer has taken it.

I looked at the breadth of other similar articles. I believed this was 3a. Obviously that is a point of opinion. The breadth, neautrality and balance of, say, Everest climbing is much better.

I then looked at the June drive fails. There are a lot of quick fails for issues that could have been worked through on a hold.

Given this, I came here for advice.

I would love to hear "typically, if a task of size X can get to GA, we hold" or "fail only it apears that no attept to understand critiera" or ??? WhaleFarm (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You can fail a GA review if you believe that the issues that need solving are bigger than a seven-day task, basically. Since the idea is that a nominator is given seven days to make any fixes necessary. (In practice, nominators get much more than this, but I still find "can someone be reasonably expected to fix all of this in a week" to be a good rule of thumb.) But in order for it not to be a quick-fail, you'll need to actually complete the review. That is, you would need to address each of the GA criteria and state whether the article passes or fails them and, if it fails them, point to the reasons and what needs to be done to improve it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article and I certainly don't think it should be a quickfail: everything is cited and those citations look okay to me, though some have formatting issues, the worst offender probably being:

Czech free-climber Adam Ondra scales Yosemite rock wall in record time (The Daily Telegraph)

The other thing I noticed is that references have been used to add things to the grade milestone lists, but there isn't a citation for those being the list of them, i.e. there could be other ones that haven't been included. If this is a complete list, it should have a reference to a source listing all entries; if this is the kind of thing where there is no complete list, that should be explained imo, and {{incomplete list}} or {{dynamic list}} can be added depending on the circumstance.

However, these are all things that can be worked with by the nominator, who doesn't seem to have replied yet on the GA page. Therefore, the article should be placed on hold like most imo, and you can work through any issues. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 09:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom finding RE TruthGuardians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ArbCom found that TruthGuardians (talk · contribs) has deliberately misled the community about their connection to and conflict of interest regarding the Michael Jackson family. TruthGuardians brought FBI files on Michael Jackson to GA. Should GA be procedurally removed or do we need to go through GACR? CC @SNUGGUMS, who conducted the GA review. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would send it to GAR. The GA dates from 2020. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

GACR is probably better - then, one hopes, it will be examined by editors who are dispassionate about the underlying issues. If it's just de-GA'd that doesn't leave us with a better or more neutral article. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Going through GAR is definitely better than an automatic delisting. I didn't find any glaring issues at the time I reviewed this at GAN. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:John Wykeham Jacomb-Hood/GA1

Another WhaleFarm nom that needs a bit of outsider input please. We are agreed that there are sources out there which would provide further expansion, but I don't really have a lot of time at the moment and I'm not sure that the extra detail is necessary for GAN. A second opinion on whether the non-included information is necessary per 2a would be appreciated. (Pinging @WhaleFarm as courtesy) JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 13:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Non-free image use question

Hello, I'm reviewing Barbie Fashion Designer, which has 2 non-free images. Both have appropriate fair use rationale and licenses, but they haven't been "patrolled" yet:

• File:Barbie_Fashion_Designer_Screenshot_A.png
• File:Barbie_Fashion_Designer_Screenshot_B.png

Is it okay that they haven't been patrolled yet? Thank you for your help — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 14:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As long as you feel the rationales are reasonable, the GACR doesn't require you to do anything further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Pending GARs

@GAR coordinators:User:Lee Vilenski User:Trainsandotherthings User:Chipmunkdavis There are several GARs dating back to April which I cannot close. If someone could make a decision either way just to get them out of the queue, that would be great! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)