Template talk:Good article tools

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the inline styles and add the link to the TemplateStyles page, as well as this template's class, as shown in this diff. I made the change in the sandbox first and couldn't find any problems.

– 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Taavi (talk!) 08:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of citation bot and AI detector

AI detector

Citation bot

Hello, these may well be separate conversations but I think including citation bot and the AI detector in the toolbox do more harm than good for the following reasons:

AI detector is not very accurate. It has flagged my writing as "highly confident"ly AI before, when I have used no AI at all. It seems to be more of a detector for decent prose than anything else.
Using AI doesn't go against any of the GA criteria, in fact sometimes if used in the right way it can help improve the prose.
The extra clutter increases the barrier for entry for new reviewers. See for example this review where the new reviewer spent some time using the tool, when their time would have probably been better spent actually evaluating the article according to the criteria. In this case the detector also identified the article as "highly confident"ly AI, which combined with the previous two points made it hard for the reviewer to know what to do with this info.
Citation bot is not relevant to any of the GA criteria, including it in the toolbox only adds confusion over what things are important in a review.
Including these unnecessary tools means people are less likely to discern them from the necessary tools like copyvio detector and the external links checker, both of which are extremely useful and relevant to the criteria.

IAWW (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing the AI detector tool. There's so many websites that do this it feels weird to choose one to provide to reviewers, and as mentioned they're often wildly inaccurate.

I'd like to keep the citation bot link, but it seems to run the bot directly on the page the toolbox is transcluded on, which is often the /Talk:article/GA1. It doesn't run the bot on the article page, and I instead have to wait for it to finish running on the review page before I can click 'Another?' and then manually type in the article title. A link straight to the citation bot would be good, without triggering it to run immediately. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience AIs make average prose, not what I would call decent (your terminology may vary), and its prose improvement depends on the relation to that average. It is an issue we are going to have to figure out how to tackle. On the other hand, it's not in the toolforge, so it should have a higher bar for inclusion. Citation bot was added recently following WT:GAN discussion, but if it doesn't run properly that's an issue. However, stepping back, everything in the box is an "unnecessary tool". Neither the earwig copyvio detector nor the external links checker are necessary. The copyvio checker is often over-relied upon, copyvio checks need to happen in the spot checks. As for external links, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the criteria? If there is a general issue that the toolbox is seen as necessary, that's an overall issue with the whole presentation rather than related to GPTzero or Citation bot.CMD (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any discussion on the addition of citation bot at WT:GAN, could you point me to it? I think copyvio detector is extremely important for detecting copyvio, even though it may be over relied upon, and external links detects non-archived dead links which should be rooted out to make the content verifiable. I think it's a great idea to perhaps change the presentation to make it clear what tools should be used for what criteria, provided we can agree on that. In any case, I think we all agree on removing GPTzero? IAWW (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It came up during a discussion about archiving sources, not anything particularly long or dedicated. We should make it clear that all tools are optional, and they may not map 1:1 with criteria. As for GPTzero, unless there's a strong advocate, other brands are available and all that. CMD (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good. I think the only thing we disagree on is whether citation bot should be included. Could you give an example where citation bot would be useful in the context of a GA review? IAWW (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who called for citation bot or added it, I am merely relaying that it came about due to its utility, a utility which seems pretty similar to the external links tool with regards to GA reviews. CMD (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I would disagree that it has similar utility to the external links tool. Unfortunately I can't find the discussion about citation bot (searching "citation bot" on the GAN talk page doesn't yield anything). IAWW (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was to archive sources to allow for longer access, which is a longer-term solution to finding live links. CMD (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But citation bot doesn't do that. That's what IABot does? IAWW (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I recall it being brief. At any rate, we've tangented from my initial comment where I noted SnowyRiver28 said that Citation bot doesn't actually work from the box. That is a much stronger argument for removal than particular reference management. I would also go further than SnowyRiver28 below and say we should have a note this is optional in the actual toolbox. CMD (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing the trigger from the citation bot link and just including a link to the web page would be ok rather than complete removal (if it’s not possible to have a link that will trigger the bot on the actual article instead of its talk page), but I agree something should be done as it’s currently unusable SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proposing the edit Snowy. Hopefully some others will weigh in on whether to include citation bot or not, and then we can proceed with picking a layout. I will say that if we are going to keep citation bot we may as well include IABot as well. IAWW (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, might as well run a few bots on potential GA articles to bring their standard up a little more even if it's not explicitly required, so long as we make it obvious these aren't make-or-break parts of the review process. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be for agreeing on a bot or package of bots that could either be run through GANs automatically or all run through with one click, if it eases the potential confusion over a growing number of potentially helpful bots. CMD (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although it’s not an explicit requirement of GA review, I think it should be kept regardless for the simple reason of “why not?”. Running the citation bot on the page improved the articles citations and rarely does any harm to the page. It might as well be left there to ensure maximum quality (even if not an explicit requirement). SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason why not is because keeping it creates confusion over what things are important in a review, especially for new reviewers. IAWW (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense, although I don’t think including the link creates any expectation or distraction for a reviewer, but maybe a note could be made on the GA review instructions that says that tools like the citation bot aren’t a requirement and are just an additional tool SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that IAWW (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing both of these tools for the criteria reasons mentioned. Additionally GPTZero is notoriously inaccurate modern reinforcement learning techniques mean there will never be a cheap way to detect state of the art AI generated content. Czarking0 (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:Good article tools.
(edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · transclusion count · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Remove the line:
| [https://gptzero.me/ AI detector]
As per discussion above.

Change the line:

|[{{fullurl:toollabs:citations/process_page.php|edit=toolbar&slow=1&page={{urlencode:{{{1|{{SUBPAGENAMEE}}}}}}}}} Citation bot]

To

|[{{fullurl:toollabs:citations/process_page.php|edit=toolbar&slow=1&page={{urlencode:{{{1|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}}}} Citation bot]

Suggesting to fix citation bot link while discussion continues on whether it should remain or not (might as well have it working if it's going to be there for the time being) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited my request slightly so that the fix for the Citation Bot tool will make it run on the article, instead of opening the web page as in the previous edit request. It's just the magic word that was incorrect earlier. I've tested this on a few GA review pages for articles I'm reviewing and it seems to work well. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Line 1:
 {{Sidebar
-| class = wikitable plainlinks
+| class = good-article-tools wikitable plainlinks
+| templatestyles = Good article tools/styles.css
 | width = auto
 | title = GA toolbox
-| contentstyle = font-size:110%;padding-top:0.2em;line-height:1.6em;
 | content1 =
-{{Unbulleted list |item_style=text-align:center;
+{{Unbulleted list
   | [[toolforge:copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1&title={{{1|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}|Copyvio detector]]
   | [[xtools:authorship/en.wikipedia.org/{{{1|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}|Authorship]]
 Line 18:
 | heading2 = Reviewing
 | content2 =
- {{Unbulleted list |item_style=text-align:center;
+ {{Unbulleted list
   | [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates|Templates]]
   | [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|Criteria]]