Talk:Knowledge cutoff/GA3
GA review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: 16dvnk (talk · contribs) 12:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 18:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
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)