Talk:Knowledge cutoff

Knowledge cutoff was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 30, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Knowledge cutoff was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 10, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Knowledge cutoff was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 20, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 15 July 2025 by reviewer TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs).

Artificial Intelligence

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

GA review

Failed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Knowledge cutoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 16dvnk (talk · contribs) 03:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple unsourced statements. In some cases this is visible from a lack of footnote; in other cases, the next footnote covers only a later unrelated claim

One sentence at end of section "Factors behind knowledge cutoffs"
Two sentences at end of section "Knowledge gaps"
One sentence at start of section "Historical context"

Twelve of 16 references appear not to meet our standards for reliable sources

[1] Conductor, [8] ProjectPro (commercial sales site)
[2-4, 7, 9-11] OpenAI, Anthropic, Google AI, Amazon primary sources about their own products
[5] Otterly, blog
[12] WP:FORBES
[16] non-peer-reviewed preprint

Reference [6] (Brown et al.) appears reliable but cannot be used for the claim that it originated the idea of a knowledge cutoff (in the infobox); we need independent secondary sourcing for that.

Spot-checking the next use of [6], for the claims "Training large language models on static datasets is standard practice. This is necessary for achieving reproducibility and stability in performance evaluation." found no use of the words static and reproducible, and the only uses of the word stable referring to the hardware platform and not performance evaluation.

Reference [6] is also used for the claim "The practice of announcing a cutoff date became an industry standard for transparency after the release of GPT-3 in 2020." as a 2020 publication it seems an unlikely choice for a source about what became standard after 2020 and the word announce does not appear in it.

I conclude that this is very far from Good Article criterion 2 (sourcing) and falls under WP:GAFAIL #1. It was not ready for a Good Article nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA review

Unsuccessful. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Knowledge cutoff/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 16dvnk (talk · contribs) 14:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grapesurgeon (talk · contribs) 17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick declining. This is the second nomination, and not much improvement since then. Seems AI-generated (draft originally declined for that reason), WP:CRITICISMSECTION, too many sections in article. Also "key people" field in infobox strange choice and unsourced. More issues but not worth getting into; article clearly just not ready yet. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Another GA nomination

This article has failed the GA nomination 2 times. I think this hits the requirements, since the major issues like the sourcing issues, the AI issue, and the infobox issues are solved. I am nominating again to further improve this article. I welcome any feedback. Thank you! 16dvnk (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Unsuccessful. RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Knowledge cutoff/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 16dvnk (talk · contribs) 12:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 18:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to quick-fail this. The first thing that jumped out at me was the use of Fox News as the most cited source in this article. See WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE. For an article about a technical subject like this at the GA level, I would expect to see mostly sources that specialize in tech, and if any general audience media were used, at least only the highest quality such as the TIME source that was included.

In addition to that, there's an entire paragraph that's lifted almost verbatim from technologyreview.com. And my one foray into fact checking was to look at This is caused by the fact that almost all large language models are trained on static datasets, and training on newer data would cause a major price concern, given that training the most powerful large language models may soon cost over a billion dollars according to Time.[3] for which I found that the source says nothing about static datasets.

I hate to sound harsh, but this is the third quick fail in a row. I strongly suggest you do not bring this back to WP:GAN. A forum like WP:PR might be a better place to get feedback from other editors. RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.