User:Nehrams2020/Sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following are tips for avoiding common mistakes when nominating your 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
[edit] Avoid quick-fails
An article can be quick-failed for several reasons, but one of the most common is for cleanup tags. Examples of such tags include: Cleanup, Fact, POV, Copyedit, Trivia, External links, etc. Address the issue(s) raised by the tag before nominating the article. If the article is unstable due to an edit war or frequent editing due to a current event, the nomination may also result in a quick-fail.
[edit] Article length
Although there is no set guideline documenting what length an article must be to pass, 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] Intro
The 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 intro range from one to four paragraphs. The guidelines can be seen at WP:LEAD.
[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's page, ensure that the rationale clearly specifies the particular 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 choose to include citations at the end of a paragraph, but it is usually best to add inline citations directly after the information it is sourcing, even if all of the information is from the same source. This practice prevents other editors and anons from inadvertently including information within the paragraph that is from a different source. If this were to occur readers will not know which information comes from which source.
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 has the source include such parameters 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). By using the templates or Harvard referencing, the inline citations will be easier to read for the readers of the article and will be beneficial when advancing to WP:FAC.
When trying to find sources for 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 potentially be used as a source, attempt to use the Internet Archive, which may be able to harvest an earlier version of the article. Other options for finding information including 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, meeting the guidelines is beneficial for an article's readers and appears more respectable with accurate formatting and uniformity. Below are a few suggested common errors that would improve the article.
- 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.
- 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 that are used conform with the guidelines of WP:EL. Do not include a large amount of 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 a sufficient intro, correct grammar, and adequate sourcing. When an editor reviews an article, s/he can either quick-fail, fail, pass, or leave the article on hold. If an article is quick-failed, 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. When put on hold, the nominator will mention issues/suggestions on the talk 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 there is only a limited number of reviewers. 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 in 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, either by being quick-failed or after the expiration of a hold by a reviewer, 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 outsider 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 and implement them within the article 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 the higher resolution is warranted.
- ^ a b c example
- ^ http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm
- ^ Tanner, Lindsey. "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy", USAToday.com, 2008-02-08. Retrieved on 2008-02-10.
