Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- This guideline is intended to help editors in nominating articles at Good article nominations. If you want to discuss the decision of a Good Article reviewer, please see Good article reassessment.
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
The following are tips for avoiding common mistakes when nominating an article at WP:GAN. Additionally, it contains information about what to do during and after the review. Before nominating an article it is recommended that the article comply with the manual of style, meet guidelines set by related WikiProjects, and meet all of the Good article criteria.
Contents |
[edit] Before nominating: review your own article
- See also: WP:RGA
The easiest way to avoid problems with a nomination is to put yourself in the reviewer's position. Read the guidelines on reviewing Good articles and the Good article criteria, and check that if you were reviewing your own article, you would pass it. Do not think of your goal purely in terms of getting the article listed as a Good article: your goal is to get good feedback on the article, and hopefully, perhaps after some improvements, get it listed. However, if you don't even get good feedback, then the whole enterprise will have been a waste of time.
There are several problems which crop up frequently. Make sure you avoid them.
[edit] Clean-up tags
If there are valid clean-up tags on your article, including Cleanup, POV, Copyedit, Trivia, External links and multiple Fact tags, then you need to address the issue(s) raised before nominating the article.
[edit] Instability
If the article is unstable due to an edit war or frequent editing due to a current event, the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating.
[edit] Article length
Although there is no set guideline on article length for GAs, it is best for the article not to be too short or so long that there is not enough focus on the topic. The article should be broad, covering multiple areas to give readers an overview of the topic.
[edit] Lead
The lead (introduction) should summarize the topic by touching on all of the various sections within the article. For articles of various lengths, guidelines recommend that the lead range from one to four paragraphs.
[edit] Images
Carefully scrutinize any non-free images against WP:FUC. Non-free images must only be used if their exclusion would impair a reader's understanding of the article. Non-free images must be low resolution (less than 300 pixels vertically or horizontally)[1] and include detailed fair use rationales. On the image page, ensure that the rationale specifies the article that the image will be used for. Look at similar articles that have reached GA/FA status for examples. The use of images should comply with WP:MOS#Images and WP:CAPTIONS.
If possible, use only free images that are available/applicable to the article's topic. Look for images already located on related Wikipedia articles or search Wikimedia Commons. If there are no images available, consider uploading an image of your own if you have the permission or ask the permission of an author of an image on websites such as Flickr.
[edit] Inline citations
- See also: Wikipedia:Citations
When using inline citations, source any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability. Statistical information (ex: 47% of all goods were sold; 3 million people ran in the event; the city sustained $588 million in damages.) and quotes should have an inline citation directly after the statement. Some editors provide citations at the end of a paragraph, but they are best added directly after the information they source, preferably at the end of a sentence if this does not cause confusion. This practice prevents other editors from inadvertently including information within the paragraph that is from a different source, which will confuse readers.
Inline citations need to go directly after the punctuation with no space in between (ex: The production crew worked for three years on the film.[2] Do not place the citations like this: ...on the film[2]. or ...on the film [2]). If the same inline citation is used more than once then use the <ref name="Exampletitle"> format rather than duplicating the source with the same <ref> beginning. If your article uses a large number of inline citations, please use {{reflist}}, or {{reflist|2}}, in the references section of the article.
Additionally, instead of just including the URLs when sourcing an article, such as this,[3] consider using the citation templates found at WP:CITET which includes parameters such as author, article title, date of publication, website name, access date, etc. A citation template would look like this.[4] Harvard referencing, another citation method, can also be used, and looks like this (The Guardian, February 20, 2008). These methods make inline citations easier to read.
When trying to find sources of information within an article, use a variety of resources such as books, websites, videos, newspapers, journals, encyclopedias, interviews, etc. Use a local library for researching information in printed resources, and for finding online resources, use websites such as Google News and Google Scholar, online databases, and search engine searches. If you find a dead link for an article that could be used as a source, bear in mind that the Internet Archive may be able to provide an earlier version of the article. Other options for finding information include asking members of a related WikiProject, asking experts of the topic you are researching, or asking editors who have edited similar or related articles.
[edit] Brief fixes
Although the Manual of Style is quite comprehensive in improving every aspect of an article, a nomination does not need to meet every MOS guideline to reach GA status. However, the more accurately and uniformly the article follows these guidelines, the greater the benefit for its readers. A few common Manual of Style errors are listed below.
- Avoid contractions (such as wouldn't, can't, should've, etc.) within the article unless they are part of a direct quote.
- Measurements should include both the customary and metric units. Consider using the Convert template for easier editing.
- When using abbreviations make sure they are explained at their first occurrence in the article.
- When wikilinking, make sure to wikilink full dates and avoid overlinking common knowledge terms and topics. See WP:CONTEXT for guidelines. Also, ensure that the wikilink directs the reader to the correct article instead of a disambiguation page.
- Single sentences or very brief paragraphs normally shouldn't stand alone. Either attempt to expand on them by adding more information or going into greater detail or incorporate the paragraph with another section.
- Language use should be consistent. Editors contributing from different countries tend to use their own spelling conventions, which can result in, for example, use of "theatre" and "theater" in the same article. Analyze the existing prose and the topic's context to determine which variant should be used.
- Ensure tense remains consistent. For instance, if you say "Bob said hi," then all future commentary should be in the past tense ("Jane agreed and said hello" as opposed to "Jane says hello").
- Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. An article that is filled with a large number of lists can be difficult to read and will not flow very well.
[edit] External links
Ensure that the external links conform with the guidelines of WP:EL. Do not include too many external links, but provide enough that a reader could use them to pursue more information on the topic. Some external links can be converted to inline citations to source information within the article.
[edit] During the review
[edit] Reviewers
When you have nominated an article, the only way for it to pass is for a reviewer to look over the article and make sure that it complies with the GA criteria and meets other MOS guidelines such as an adequate lead, correct grammar, and reliable sourcing. When an editor reviews an article, s/he can either fail, pass, or leave the article on hold. If an article is failed immediately, one or more significant issues need to be addressed before the article can be renominated for the same reviewer/another reviewer to look over the article. When an article is passed or failed, see below. If an article is placed on hold, the reviewer believes that the article is close to passing, but several issues need to be addressed before the reviewer will pass it.
Reviewers do want your article to pass, but they may see problems or areas for improvement in your nomination that conflict with the good article criteria. After putting an article on hold, the reviewer will mention issues/suggestions on the review page of the article that should be addressed by the nominator and/or contributors to the article. Some issues may be raised concerning the GA criteria, MOS mistakes, or ideas for expansion. If you disagree with a particular issue explain your rationale on the talk page, ask for further clarification, seek another editor's opinion, or, as a last resort, use good article reassessment.
It is best to be respectful to reviewers who are looking over your article. At times mistakes can be made by either the nominator or the reviewer, and the best way to prevent/solve them is for both parties to assume good faith. Remember that reviewing articles can be a difficult task, and number of reviewers is limited. Attacking reviewers may remove them from the process, which will extend the time for articles to be reviewed and reflect badly on the GA process.
[edit] After the review
[edit] Pass
If your article passes, there are several things you can do. First, make sure that the reviewer adds the article to the list of good articles at WP:GA, and all WikiProject banners on the talk pages are updated to reflect the GA status. Keep the article on your watchlist to watch out for vandalism, POV, or removal of content. Consider adding a GA userbox for your user page documenting your achievement, and alert WikiProjects related to the article. They may be interested in mentioning the improvement of the article within their newsletter or spotlight department.
Another option after the article passes is to improve the article further to reach A and/or FA status. For A class, related WikiProjects may have a department that can review the article to determine if it should be rated as A class. To proceed to Featured article status, a peer review may be recommended first, before looking over the FA criteria. The article can then be nominated at Featured article candidates if you believe it meets the criteria.
[edit] Fail
If your article fails there are several options available. If issues that a reviewer brought up were not addressed, consider fixing any problems that were raised and renominating the article again at GAN. For further improvement, have a few independent editors or the League of Copyeditors look over the article for you to give it a copyedit and point out where the article needs modifications.
If you disagree with a reviewer's assessment of an article, you can seek mediation at Good article reassessment. This process will have multiple editors look over your article and determine if the original reviewer misinterpreted the GA criteria or performed an improper review. Although it is possible that the initial review of the article may be overturned, it is also possible that several editors may agree with the original reviewer and believe the article does not meet the GA criteria. If this is the case, look to any improvements that the reviewers suggest, implement them, and renominate the article again at GAN.
[edit] Other tasks
- Consider reviewing one or two (or more!) articles at WP:GAN, to help with the large backlog that exists there. Since you have now had experience in the GA process, and have had your article pass or fail, you can help other editors determine if their articles meet the GA criteria. You can review articles in the category that your article was in or pursue other topics that interest you. If you're new to reviewing, there are suggestions and tips at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. If you are unsure about the process or need help in reviewing an article ask one of the WikiProject Good Article participants or leave a message on the talk page of GAN for assistance.
- If you don't want to perform a full review of an article, you can still assist with the Good article reassessment process. The review by multiple editors helps to ensure that articles meet the GA criteria, and determine if an article should maintain its GA status or be delisted.
[edit] See also
- GA criteria — Requirements for an article to reach GA status.
- User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet — Guide for other common mistakes and MOS errors.
[edit] Notes
- ^ This is the equivalent of 0.1 megapixels, as described here. Non-free images with higher resolutions must explain why this is necessary.
- ^ a b c example
- ^ Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy - USATODAY.com
- ^ Tanner, Lindsey. "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy", USAToday.com, 2008-02-08. Retrieved on 2008-02-10.
