Wikipedia:Good article review circles
 | The following is a draft working towards a proposal for adoption as a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal. |
| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
Welcome! This page is for people who want their Good Article Nomination (GAN) reviewed and are also willing to review someone else's GAN. It's similar to a quid pro quo or horse trading arrangement. However, the problem with horse trading is that it can lead to low-quality reviews, quick approvals, and a culture of complacency. The review circles model aims to involve around four users who list their GANs and form a circle. In this setup, no one reviews the GAN of someone reviewing their own work, reducing pressure to pass the work and ensuring more thorough reviews.
How to participate[edit]
Step 1: Include your article[edit]
Include your article in the nomination pool below using the GARC-list-item template:
* {{GARC-list-item|article= |GAN-subpage= |topic-to-review= |nominator= {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} }}
Parameters
- article: The name of the article you want reviewed.
- GAN-subpage: The GAN subpage number. Eg. Talk:Barack Obama/GA1
- topic-to-review: A topic or area of interest you would prefer to review. Eg. US politics, Geography, Sport, no preference, etc.
- nominator: The user nominating the article up for GAN (typically you).
Step 2: Wait to be paired[edit]
Wait for a coordinator to match you with an article to review, and for a user to review your article.
Current coordinator: GMH Melbourne (talk)
Step 3: 24-hour cooling-off period[edit]
Once paired with another user you will receive a message on your talk page notifying you. Once you receive the message you will have 24 hours to either accept the invitation to start the review. If you feel the article is out of your depth or is beyond your current editing abilities, you will also have the option to decline and your article will re-enter the pool.
If at any time, before and including this step, another user starts reviewing your article, it will be removed from the nomination pool.
Step 4: Review the article[edit]
Try to complete the review within a timely manner (reviews should take no longer than seven days). Also ensure you that you are responsive to the user reviewing your article. It is also encouraged to contribute where you can to other reviews taking place within your review circle, thus strengthening the quality of the GAs outputted by this process.
Nomination pool[edit]
- Matthew Charles Johnson (talk | hist) 🟢 –– Review preference: Political biographies –– GMH Melbourne (talk)