This guideline helps editors review Good article nominations. If you want to discuss the decision of a reviewer, please see Good article reassessment.

This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut: WP:RGA

Good articles meet a set of minimum standards (the Good article criteria) for quality of writing, factual accuracy and attribution, broadness of coverage, stability, and appropriate use of images. This guideline provides advice to reviewers on how to apply these criteria fairly and hence decide how and when to list a nomination as a Good article.

Contents 1 About the process 2 Why articles are nominated for Good article status 3 How to review an article 3.1 First things to look for 3.2 Process 4 Mistakes to avoid in reviews 4.1 Giving problems, not solutions 4.2 Expressing opinions, not citing policy and guidelines 4.3 Passing articles that do not meet the Good article criteria 4.4 Not checking the history 5 Delisting articles 6 Useful tools 7 See also 8 Notes

[edit] About the process

The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. Anyone (with a username) can review an article: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required. A reviewer should be able to read the article critically, and apply the Good article criteria fairly. If the reviewer believes that the criteria are met, the article can be listed as a Good article. If the criteria are not met, the reviewer is left with two options. If the problems are minor or easy to fix, the article can be put "on hold" for a week or so. If the problems are serious or extensive, the article can be failed. In the latter case, editors should be invited to renominate an article once it meets the standards: almost all articles can be improved.

The process is dependent on reviewer integrity. Reviewers should avoid reviewing articles that they have edited significantly, and should focus on applying Good article criteria and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as verifiability, no original research, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and some key provisions of the Manual of Style; the review should not be influenced by personal feelings about the merit of the article topic.^[1]

[edit] Why articles are nominated for Good article status

In order to review an article well, it is helpful to understand why articles are nominated. Occasionally nominations are made by editors who happen to discover an article that they believe is good quality, but the vast majority are made by editors who have spent extensive time working on the nominated article. Such editors have an emotional stake in the article and are usually interested in continuing to improve it.

The Good article process is one of the main systems that provides a critical review of an article. Thus, when someone nominates an article, what he or she is really saying is probably

"I have done all that I can so far to improve this article. I think it is a good piece of work. Could you please review it, and if it is, please pass it. If it is not, what can I do to improve it?"

When reviewing, keep in mind that nominators want guidance on improving an article which is not yet up to standard, and appreciate especially specific comments to aid that endeavor. Explicitly labeling suggestions as optional can be helpful to avoid misunderstandings. While it is not a reviewer's responsibility to fix an article, fixing small problems is often helpful. Reviewing is a serious responsibility, and the most dedicated reviewers spend considerable time on each article.

[edit] How to review an article

[edit] First things to look for

Before conducting an extensive review, skim over the article looking for a few basic problems that are commonly seen in GA nominations.

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.^[2]
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.^[3]
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags.
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed (as described at Wikipedia:Good article nominations) without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues. Some reviewers refer to this as "quick-failing". However, because the GA process is intended to help editors with article improvement, "quick-failing" may not be the best option. Even if an article has obvious shortcomings, the more specific information that the reviewer can provide to help editors meet all six Good article criteria, the more they will help the overall process of article improvement. Therefore, "quick-failing" is discouraged. Just because you are not willing to review an article in-depth after taking a cursory look does not mean it should be removed from consideration.

If it is apparent from the article edit history and talk page that the nominator has already put extensive work into the article and is genuinely trying to improve its quality, then generally a quick-fail is inappropriate even if obvious issues still exist. Give someone else a chance to review the article and provide the needed help.

[edit] Process

1. If you decide to conduct a full review, read the entire article and check for the following, with reference to the Good article criteria. The article should be:
   1. Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar. Also look for proper formatting and general organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks and sections as described in those parts of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria.
   2. Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references.^[2] Ideally, a reviewer should have access to the sources cited, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources. At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources), that they support the statements, and that the article contains no plagiarism: any text copied from sources should be contained within quotation marks, or a quotation template.
   3. Without original research.
   4. Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions.
   5. Written from a neutral point of view.
   6. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars (constructive routine editing is fine).
   7. Compliant with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. If images are used, they should have free licenses, or have appropriate fair use rationales.
2. Decide if the article meets the Good article criteria as spelled out above.
   1. If it does, pass the article by removing it from the nominations page, adding it to the Good article list, and changing the appropriate tag on the article's talk page. A brief note of congratulations or tips for further improvement on the review page is also appreciated.
   2. If it does not, decide if a hold is appropriate:
      1. Holds should be applied if the changes needed are minor, and can be reasonably expected to be completed within a week or so.
      2. If a hold is appropriate, change the status in the templates on both the article talk page and the nominations page to "on hold".
   3. If the article's problems lead you to believe that the changes are not likely to be met within a week fail the article by removing it from the nominations page and changing the tag on the article talk page.
3. Whether you fail an article or put it on hold, always clearly explain on the review page, for the nominator. You can use the Good article criteria as a guide for how to organize your critique; however, the criteria should not be used merely as checklists. Your review should be extensive enough to allow the article to be improved and renominated, so that it will pass in the future.

[edit] Mistakes to avoid in reviews

[edit] Giving problems, not solutions

When reviewing an article, do not just describe its shortcomings, provide suggestions to fix them. For example:

• "The lead is messed up" does not give editors any guidance to make the lead better. Instead, try something like. "The lead does not adequately summarize the article. Try expanding it. See WP:LEAD for more information".

Using the Good article criteria as a guide to organize a review is a good thing, but do not merely use it as a checklist. For example:

• "This article violates criterion 1 of the Good article criteria" with no further information does not help anyone improve the article. Instead, try something like: "This article is dominated by its plot summary and takes an "in-universe" perspective. According to the Manual of Style, an article about a work of fiction should be written primarily from an "out-of-universe" perspective. That needs to be fixed before this can be a Good article."

[edit] Expressing opinions, not citing policy and guidelines

When reviewing, focus on providing the best review you can for that article. Take care not to be distracted by whether related top-level articles are lackluster, or let frustration over how many articles there are covering a given topic area show through.

Avoid commenting on the perceived "merit" of the subject of the article. If an article on a porn star is well-written, well-organized, well-referenced, and follows the relevant Notability, Manual of Style and biography guidelines, then you should not fail it because you think Wikipedia has too many articles on porn stars.

Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria.

[edit] Passing articles that do not meet the Good article criteria

Beware of the several temptations to pass an article that does not meet Good article criteria. For example:

• You are a fan of the subject, and want to see the article listed. (Instead, consider improving the article, rather than promoting it.)
• You want to illustrate a point.
• As Good articles are not Featured articles, it is all right to let things slide. (It is not. The standards for Good articles are less exacting than those for Featured articles, but this does not mean that Good articles have no standards.)
• It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria.)
• The editors of the article have obviously spent a considerable effort improving the article during the Good article review process, and even though it does not meet all of the criteria, it is much better than it was when it was first nominated.

[edit] Not checking the history

The article history can help you spot many problems before you review an article:

• If the article is the subject of ongoing edit wars, it is unstable, and thus should not be passed.
• If the article has been the victim of vandalism recently, you may not be looking at the version the nominator intended. It is all right to revert the vandalism to the last clean version, and review that one.

[edit] Delisting articles

The Good article process began on 11 October 2005, and the nominations system was introduced on 10 March 2006.^[4] In 2007–2008, the Good article criteria were strengthened as standards raised. Therefore, it is not uncommon to find articles on the list that no longer meet the criteria. If you come across an article which no longer meets the criteria, you may remove it from the Good articles list by following the delisting guidelines. If you feel that an article was improperly delisted, it may be taken to Good article reassessment.

[edit] Useful tools

• Checklinks check external links and citation parameters
• Linkcount report the page types wikilinked to
• Readability readability analysis
• WPPageHistStat edit history overview
• Contributors sortable page version history

[edit] See also

• GA Mentors users available to advise on or check over reviews by new users
• GA review cheatsheet a user essay
• Zen and the art of good reviewing a user essay
• Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
• Dispatches: Finding reliable sources online
• Dispatches: Plagiarism
• Dispatches: Reviewing non-free images

[edit] Notes

1. ^ This is a particular consideration for articles within the scope of a WikiProject where the reviewer is an active member. Sometimes it is helpful for an article to have an expert reviewer, but on other occasions it is preferable that the reviewer is not too close to the topic.
2. ^ ^{a b} Small articles that have a single main source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline citations. The amount of inline citation will vary from article to article, but claims that are seemingly dubious, controversial, or which state an opinion must be attributed to a reliable source.
3. ^ Articles on controversial topics can be both neutral and stable, but this is only ensured if regular editors make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced. Note that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are equally covered; instead no point of view should be given undue weight.
4. ^ See Good article statistics.