DOKUMEN123.COM

GA review

VACATED

This page does not contain sufficient proof of work done as part of a Good article review. Per WP:GAN/I#R3: An in-depth review is provided in all cases except in the case of a quick fail. What is contained here does not even remotely resemble an in-depth review, and there is only a pro forma mention of the Good article criteria. As a consequence, it is assumed that this page does not contain a Good article review. Status quo ante is maintained: The status of the article with respect to the overall GA process is as if this instance of the process had never happened. This does not even count as a failed review. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:31, 25 February 2026 (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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Crystalite13 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarking0No doubt this article meets GA. Very good job, and congrats! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Very impressive prose! Not much I can comment on, well done!

Lead

Y

Training

Y

Features

Y

Paid tier

Y

Mobile apps

Y

Infrastructure

Y

Languages

Y

GPT Store

Y

Deep Research

Y

Images

Y

Agents

Y

ChatGPT Health

Y

Limitations

Y

Hallucination

Y

Jailbreaking

Y

Context Window

Y

Security

Y

Watermarking

Y

Age restrictions

Y

Model Versions

Y

GPT-4

Y

GPT-4o

Y

o1

Y

GPT-4.5

Y

GPT-5

Y

Reception

Y

In art

Y

In politics

Y

Regional responses

Y

American tech personas

Y

Copyright

Y

Applications

Y

Academic research

Y

Computer science

Y

Computer security

Y

Education

Y

Culture

Y

Financial markets

Y

Medicine

Y

Mental health

Y

Law

Y

Stable

Gonna be honest, I was actually pretty surprised that editing history seems pretty constructive. It was protected for vandalism, after all.

Neutral

This part was very good, no problems here!

Sources

Copyvio

Earwig's Copyvio came out fine, just some flags for quotes, all good!

Spotcheck

Ref 162:

Ref 264:

Ref 258:

Ref 92:

Ref 80:

Media

Liked the media usage with the different prompts and examples about hallucination, tagged correctly, good here!

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:ChatGPT/GA1