Template:GAList

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]] b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]] b (citations to reliable sources): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]] c (OR): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]] b (focused): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]] b (appropriate use with suitable captions): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

Template documentation

Usage

{{subst:GAList|1a=|1b=|2a=|2b=|2c=|3a=|3b=|4=|5=|6a=|6b=|7=}}

or, full usage:

{{subst:GAList
|overcom=
|1a=
|1b=
|1com=
|2a=
|2b=
|2c=
|2com=
|3a=
|3b=
|3com=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6b=
|6com=
|7=
|7com=
}}

Available arguments are aye, nay, wtf, and ???; some synonyms are also available for these arguments; any other argument or no argument at all gives an undecided mark. Note that the template should be substituted, as the GA guidelines are reviewed from time to time and this template may be changed.

The template also allows comments to be added to the top of the review, and also to each numbered item, using additional parameters

 overcom, 1com, 2com, ... 7com.

See the example below for usage.

Example

{{subst:GAList
|overcom=This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
|1a=aye|1b=aye
|2a=nay|2b=???|2c=aye|2com=The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3
|3a=aye|3b=aye|4=wtf|4com=Is section 3 really neutral?
|5=aye|6a=|6b=aye|6com=I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid
|7=nay|7com= Good luck improving the article}}

results in:

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Is section 3 really neutral?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

See also

• {{GAList/check}}