Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". A proposal's acceptance or rejection is not determined simply by counting votes.

Good Articles are designated so because they meet a set of minimum standards with regards to quality of writing, broadness of coverage, factual accuracy and referencing, stability, and appropriate use of images. While pages such as "What is a Good Article" list these criteria, they do not provide a framework for how to apply those criteria in a fair and equitable manner in reviewing articles for Good Article status. This guide is designed to help Good Article reviewers with deciding how and when to promote an article to Good Article status.

Contents 1 About the process 2 Why people nominate articles for Good Article status 3 How to review an article 4 Delisting Articles 5 Examples of model Good Article reviews 6 Examples of inadequate Good Article reviews 7 See also 8 Notes

[edit] About the process

The process of promoting Good Articles is intentionally unbureaucratic. There are no committees, no requirements (beyond a username) to be a reviewer, and no requirements for multiple votes or consensus building. Simply put, a reviewer is assumed to be competent enough to read an article with a critical eye, and apply the criteria in a fair and equitable manner. If the reviewer feels that the criteria are met, the article is designated as a Good Article. If the criteria are not met, the reviewer is left with two options. If the problems are minor or easily correctable, the article can be put on hold for up to one week. If the problems are serious or extensive, the article can be failed, but it should be noted that all almost all articles stand the potential of being improved, and users should be invited to renominate an article once it meets the standards.

The integrity of the process is highly dependent on the integrity of the reviewers. Reviewers should definitely avoid reviewing articles they have been actively involved in editing, and should also probably avoid reviewing articles that belong to Wikiprojects they are active members of. Reviewers should focus on applying Good Article criteria and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as attribution, neutral point of view, and the Manual of Style, and avoid applying personal feelings about the merit of the article subject.

[edit] Why people nominate articles for Good Article status

In order to understand how to properly review an article, it is important to understand something about why people nominate articles in the first place. While some people simply nominate articles they trip over and think are quality articles, the vast majority of nominations come from users who have spent extensive time editing the articles they nominate. As such, they have a large emotional stake in the article in question, and are often interested in continuing to improve the article.

The Good Article process has become the one of the default methods of receiving critical review on articles. What this means is that when a user nominates an article for Good Article consideration, what they are really saying is:

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

When you review an article, please keep in mind that people expect help in improving articles that are not yet up to standard, and crave helpful comments that will get them to that standard. As such, Good Article reviewing should be taken seriously. Many dedicated reviewers spend considerable time on each article, simply because that is what the nominators have come to expect.

[edit] How to review an article

1. Open the article in question and its talk page
2. Scan the article and decide if an article can be "Quick-failed" before an extensive review. Some issues that may lead to a quick fail are:
   1. A complete lack of reliable sources, see WP:Attribution^[1]
   2. Obviously non-neutral treatment of a topic, see WP:Neutral point of view^[2]
   3. The article has any cleanup tags, including but not limited to {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{fact}}, {{unreferenced}} etc.
   4. The article has been the subject of recent ongoing edit wars. ^[3]
   5. The article uses copyrighted images which do not meet Wikipedia's fair use policy.
3. Read the entire article, and check for:
   1. High quality prose, including proper spelling, grammar, and clear language
   2. Adequate referencing, preferably with the use of either inline or Harvard citations^[1]
   3. If images are used, that they are free images, or if they are copyright, that their use is covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines
   4. Proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as spelled out in the Manual of Style
   5. Neutral point of view and appropriate broadness of coverage of the topic
4. Decide if an article meets the Good Article criteria.
   1. If it does, pass the article by removing it from the candidates 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 opportunities for further improvement should also be left on the talk page.
   2. If it does not, decide if a hold is appropriate:
      1. Holds should be applied if the article is not quickfailed (see above) and if the changes needed are minor and can be reasonably expected to be completed before the hold expires.
      2. If a hold is appropriate, replace the GA tag with the appropriate hold tag, and add an on hold note under the article's entry at the candidate page.
   3. If the article's problems lead you to believe that the changes are not likely to be met within 7 days, or if the article should be quickfailed for one of the reasons listed above, fail the article by removing it from the candidate page and changing the tag on the article's talk page.
5. Whether you fail an article or put it on hold, you should always leave extensive notes at the article's talk page, as well as notify the nominator. One can use the good article criteria as a guideline for how to organize your critique, however, the criteria should not be used merely as a checklist. Your review should be extensive enough to allow the article to be renominated and pass.

[edit] Delisting Articles

The GA process was initiated on 11 October 2005, with the current nominations system instituted on 10 March 2006. ^[4] Since then the good article criteria has been changed or added to many times. Therefore it is not uncommon to find articles on the list which no longer meet the criteria. If you come across an article which no longer meets the criteria feel free to be bold and remove it. If you feel that an article was improperly delisted feel free to take it to Good Article Review.

[edit] Examples of model Good Article reviews

include difs or copy/pastes (with names redacted) of actual Good Article reviews to show what a proper review looks like

[edit] Examples of inadequate Good Article reviews

include difs or copy/pastes (with names redacted) of Good Article reviews to show what a bad review looks like.

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured
• GA nominees task force
• Wikipedia:What is a good article?

[edit] Notes

1. ^ ^{a b} Small articles that are referenced to a single source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline references. However, in the vast majority of articles, there should be heavy use of inline or Harvard references per WP:CITE guidelines. The amount of referencing will vary from article to article, but any article that averages less than about 1 reference per paragraph should send up red flags.
2. ^ Articles on controversial topics can still be NPOV and stable, but scrupulous efforts must be made to keep the article well referenced to insure neutrality. Remember that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are equally covered, merely that no point of view is given undue weight in the article.
3. ^ An article need not be inactive to be considered stable. A very active article may be the sign of a healthy collaboration between editors rather than simply an unstable victim of edit wars. Check the history page carefully.
4. ^ See Wikipedia:Good article statistics