User:IvoShandor/submissions/GA reviews/criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This essay has not been updated per the revision to the GA criteria in April 2007. Its content will remain mostly the same, however, some sections will need to be combined. Thanks for your patience. 10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Following is how I usually weigh the Good article criteria with my reviews, these explanations are subject to my whims. The criteria is listed first, followed by my explanations.

Note: I only review an article once. If I fail it and you resubmit it another user will have to review it. The more eyes that look at an article the better it will be.

• Criteria #1

It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is comprehensible, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading.

(b) the structure is logical, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

(c) It does not seriously violate the standards in Wikipedia Manual of style. (In particular, sections to go by include the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation)

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

• How I apply Criteria #1

Well written is one of the most important aspects of GA. If an article reads poorly, no matter how well referenced it is, I will never pass it. Good articles must represent some of the best work on Wikipedia and that means the prose should be compelling and comprehensible. First and foremost a usuable encyclopedia must be easily readable.

• (a}: Prose - Prose should be compelling and the grammar correct. A few minor copy editing oversights won't usually cause me to fail an article but I will note it and they should be fixed. Bad writing or confusing statements will be a sure fire fail. Run on sentences, massive misspellings (which should never happen), poor word choice and awkward sentence construction are among the more common errors I see when dealing with GAC. They are all failable offenses. Lists have no place in a "well-written" article, list heavy articles will fail as well.
• (b): Structure - This is a no brainer. Sections should be logically broken and make sense considering the topic. Lead length and other parameters should always conform to WP:LEAD. Leads are easy to write, almost an after thought for all intents and purposes. Not conforming to the lead requirements will also lead to a sure fire fail because of the ease of complying with them. In addition, the lead should provide an accessible overview of the article. If the article lends itself to WP:SUMMARY, because of its length, it should be adhered to.
• (c): Style - I will give quite a bit of leeway here. As long as the violations don't affect the quality of the article or its readability I am apt to overlook many stylistic errors. After all, failure to link a few dates per user prefs never killed anyone. See WP:MOS.
• (d): Jargon - usually if I find that necessary technical terms and the like are unexplained or otherwise not provided appropriate context there are a host of other problems with the nomination. Nonetheless, this problem can be so distracting that even if it were the only major violation of the criteria it is likely that I would fail the nomination.

• Criteria #2

It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations is not mandatory, it is highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.^[1] Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

• How I apply Criteria #2

Factually accurate, along with well written and NPOV, is one of my big three. I am big on inline citations and still don't understand why they are not mandatory for good articles, they damn well should be. After all, how can one possibly know if something is factually accurate if the sources remain ambiguous and, often times, not immediately accesible.

• (a): Sources - Real easy, no sources = no pass GA nomination.
• (b): Inline citations - All good articles should have inline citations. If there are none and there is even one statement that could be questioned by a reasonable person, I will fail the article. See WP:A, WP:CITE and WP:CITET.
• (c): Reliable sources - Most, if not all, sources should conform to WP:V. If your only sources are Bob's Home Page and the North American Skeet Shooters of Anglican Descent Association your article probably has no business at GAC.
• (d): Original research - All GAs should conform to WP:OR. This is where inline citations come in. Without them, entire articles could be considered OR. With no inline cites this criteria is nearly impossible to evaluate. Most articles without inline citations will fail based on the fact that conformance to WP:OR is indeterminable.

• Criteria #3

It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

• How I apply Criteria #3

Broad in coverage, as said not as strict as FA. Should cover all major aspects of a topic. For example, that means a bio shouldn't exclude the first 30 years of someone's life or an article about a building shouldn't consist of only information about architecture.

• (a): Thoroughness - As explained above, don't leave a bunch of stuff out, there should, at least, be some information about all aspects of the topic an article addresses. Sometimes this may not be much, but it can still contribute to its GA status, especially if the rest of the article is fairly thorough.
• (b): Focus - An article shouldn't stray off into a related topic. For instance, an article about Led Zeppelin shouldn't suddenly have a three paragraph section about Led Zeppelin's influence on the development of Def Leppard. Even worse, an unrelated topic, that will cause the article to fall immediately in to the realm of "no way in hell."

• Criteria #4

It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

How I apply Criteria #4

Being a semi working journalist NPOV is one of the most important GA criteria. I apply it relentlessly. Weasel words, some, many, numerous, etc. and other weasely words, such as 'however' and 'although' register on my radar almost instantaneously and raise all kinds of red flags for the rest of the review. I search out, especially harshly, subtle POV, that many editors don't notice.

• (a): Viewpoints - This is where subtle POV comes in. Mentioning certain facts over and over, using weasel words, advancing POV with wording around certain facts. I look for all of this and more. POV can be sneaky and hard to notice but it can still be there. Simple suggestion: Let the facts speak for themselves. You don't have to draw all the conclusions for the reader, humans can think, let them. See WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:WTA.
• (b): Significant views - All mainstream views should be given as equal weight as possible. People coming to Wikipedia to look up something on, say, Abraham Lincoln, should be entitled to information that is generally accepted in the academic world as reliable and true. Fringe information should not get the same weight. If it is included at all it should be in a small section, clearly labeled as such. Oklahoma City bombing, a GA, is a good example of how to do this. Again, see WP:NPOV.

• Criteria #5

It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

• How I apply Criteria #5

Stability: Easy here. If the article is subject of ongoing edit warring, resolve the issues first and then submit the article. Edit warring is an automatic fail. See WP:EW, WP:EQ, WP:3RR.

• Criteria #6

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale.

• How I apply Criteria #6

Images: Pretty lax here.^[2] If you have images, don't steal them, make sure they are appropriately tagged. Especially fair use images. See WP:FU and WP:IMAGE. When in doubt check out Wikimedia Commons for free use images that are easily utilized in Wikipedia, (i.e. you do nothing different to use them).

• Quick Fail

I will quick fail an article, without a full review, if it contains negative tags (OR, NPOV, etc.), which obviously affect the article. If there is a neutrality tag and the talk page makes the article look disputed, yeah, that's a fail. I'll try to give some leeway, depending on the circumstances. If an article has more than five {{fact}} tags , that is generally a good sign that the 'Factually Accurate' criterion is not being adhered to, most likely a quick fail is in order. Sometimes I check images in my first run through of an article, assessing for quick fail, but would be more likely to hold an article (which I don't like to do) for image tags.

• Holds

If I have put your article on Hold and the concerns that caused the hold are not addressed within seven days I will have to fail it if someone else doesn't, which does happen.

As of 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I have been feeling pretty nice and have been using holds liberally. A Wikismile!

[edit] See also

• Good articles
• Good article candidates
• Good article criteria
• Good article review

[edit] Notes