>What's troubling about the OP is that this WP article was a good article, and so should have had some kind of thorough vetting. That's disconcerting. It did f

>What's troubling about the OP is that this WP article was a good article, and so should have had some kind of thorough vetting. That's disconcerting. It did fail featured article review because it was missing page numbers. I can hope that if the hoaxer had then provided fictitious page numbers, someone would have looked for the sources. >Also, once an article reaches good or great (or whatever) status I'm not sure if there's any way for visitors to get that exact version of the article, rather than just what today's edit it. It'll be listed on the talk page, though obviously that doesn't help the average visitor. (Though, the average visitor probably wouldn't notice the good article badge in the first place.)