User:SilkTork/Good articles
{{subst:GAstart}}
Pass: Replace {{GA nominee}} on the article's talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}
Fail: Replace {{GA nominee}} on the article's talk page with {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}
{{User Good Article|*}}
Nominate: Use template: {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}} Instructions: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions
Topics: Agriculture, food and drink · Art and architecture · Computing and engineering · Transport · Geography · Places · World history · Royalty, nobility and heraldry · Language and literature · Mathematics and mathematicians · Film · Television · Media and drama · Albums · Songs · Music · Biology and medicine · Chemistry and materials science · Earth sciences · Physics and astronomy · Philosophy and religion · Culture, sociology and psychology · Education · Economics and business · Law · Magazines and print journalism · Politics and government · Sports and recreation · Video games · Warfare
Reviews[edit]
No or trivial involvement - from no edits at all, to making a few trivial edits
Modest involvement - from edits which were more than trivial, some minor copy-editing and/or adding sources up to adding a very small amount of useful content
Significant involvement - from helpful copy-editing and adding useful content, up to possibly one of the main contributors
Major involvement - one of the main contributors, up to possibly responsible for 90%+ of content at time of GA
Thomas Schweicker self portrait
- Reviews
Penny (British decimal coin) - May 2006 - Nom: User:Computerjoe - Fail (S)
Johann Sebastian Bach - May 2006 - Nom: User:Moreschi - Pass (B) delisted Dec 2006- The King's School, Ely - Oct 2008 - Nom: User:2XVISION - Fail (B)
- William Bedle - Oct 2008 - Nom: User talk:BlackJack - Fail (B) *Failed two further GA reviews
- Quantum of Solace - Dec 2008 - Nom: User:Alientraveller - Pass (GA)
- On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) - Dec 2008 - Nom: User:SpecialWindler - Fail (GA Aug 2011)
- No nit policy (under title of "School head lice policy") - Dec 2008 - Nom: User:Noca2plus - Fail (C)
- Sewri Fort - Jan 2009 - Nom: Nom Fail (C)
- Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 - Jan 2009 - User:Sims2aholic8 - Fail (C) *Failed two further GA reviews
- William Blake - Jan 2009 - User:Jacjohncoles - Fail (B)
- Good Doctor (advertisement) - Jan 2009 - User:GeeJo - Fail (C)
- Echo & the Bunnymen (album) - Jan 2009 - User:JD554 - Pass (GA)
- Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - Jan 2009 - User:YellowMonkey - Pass (FA March 2009)
- Drum (2004 film) - Jan 2009 - User:Editorofthewiki - Pass (GA)
- Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - Jan 2009 - User:YellowMonkey -Pass (FA Jan 2010)
- Finnegans Wake - Feb 2009 - User:Warchef - Pass (GA)
- Cottage garden - Feb 2009 - User:First Light - Pass (GA)
- 2008 Spanish Grand Prix - May 2009 - User:Apterygial - Pass (GA)
- 2008 Turkish Grand Prix - May 2009 - User:Darth Newdar - Pass (GA)
- Downing Street mortar attack - May 2009 - User:One Night In Hackney - Fail (B)
- Kraków - May 2009 - User:Piotrus - Fail (GA Sept 2009)
- The Beatles in Hamburg - May 2009 - User:Andreasegde - Pass (GA)
- 1995 European Grand Prix - May 2009 - User:D.M.N. - Fail (B)
Gilbert and Sullivan - - May 2009 - Sweep - Keep (GA)- New York City ethnic enclaves - May 2009 - User:mynameinc - Fail (B)
- Ælfhelm of York - July 2009 - User:Deacon of Pndapetzim - Fail (GA - next day)
- James Brown - Aug 2009 - User:Nergaal - Fail (C)
- Imperial War Museum - Aug 2009 - User:IxK85 - Pass (GA)
- City of London School - Aug 2009 - User:Tbo 157 - Pass (GA)
- History of Sesame Street - Sept 2009 - User:Figureskatingfan - Fail (FA March 2011)
- Imperial War Museum Duxford - Oct 2009 - User:IxK85 - Pass (GA)
- Sholes and Glidden typewriter - Nov 2009 - User:Elcobbola - Pass (FA Nov 2009)
- Sweetheart of the Rodeo - Nov 2009 - User:Kohoutek1138 - Pass (GA)
- Buildings and architecture of Bath - Nov 2009 - User:Rodw - Pass (GA)
- Cyprus - Nov 2009 - User:Vizjim - Fail (B)
- Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962 - Nov 2009 - User:Mainstream Nerd - Pass (GA)
- Hong Kong - Nov 2009 - User:Tavatar - Pass (GA)
- Pink Floyd - Dec 2009 - User:Parrot of Doom - Pass (FA Oct 2012)
- HMS Belfast (C35) - Dec 2009 - User:IxK85 - Pass (A Class Sept 2011)
- The Kinks - Jan 2010 - User:I.M.S. - Fail (FA March 2010)
- Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) - Jan 2010 - User:I.M.S. - Pass (FA March 2010)
- Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons - Feb 2010 - User:SuperMarioMan - Pass (FA July 2010)
- Milford Haven - Feb 2010 - User:Alvear24 - Pass (GA)
- Charlie Chaplin - Feb 2010 - User:Abie the Fish Peddler - Fail (GA Nov 2013 - FA Jan 2014)
- Semi-periphery countries - Feb 2010 - User:D.j.weingart - Fail (C)
- Elizabeth II - Feb 2010 - User:Nergaal - Fail (FA Feb 2012)
- Top Gear Race to the North - Feb 2010 - User:Guy0307 - Fail (B)
- Rings Around the World - Feb 2010 - User:Cavie78 - Pass (GA)
- Captain Beefheart - Feb 2010 - User:JJARichardson - Fail (B)
- Port of Liverpool Building - March 2010 - User:Daviessimo - Pass (GA)
Catholic Church - March 2010 - Delist (B)- Akmal Shaikh - March 2010 - User:Ohconfucius - Pass (GA)
- Straight razor - Aug 2010 - User:Dr.K. - Fail (C)
- Portsmouth - Aug 2010 - User:Jaguar - Fail (C)
- Joseph Merrick - Aug 2010 - User:Belovedfreak - Pass (GA)
- Ray Harvey - Aug 2010 - User:YellowMonkey - Pass (GA)
- Regency Square, Brighton - Aug 2010 - User:Hassocks5489 - Pass (GA)
- Citadel of Arbil - Aug 2010 - User:Zoeperkoe - Pass (GA)
- Toilet paper orientation - Aug 2010 - User:Melchoir - Fail (B)
- George Washington - Sept 2010 - User:M.O.X - Fail (GA June 2011)
- Dusty Springfield - Sept 2010 - User:Jaan - Fail (B)
- Sutton Hoo - Oct 2010 - User:Johnbod - Fail (B)
- Wisbech Grammar School - Nov 2010 - User:Rob - Pass (GA)
- Attack on Cloudbase - Dec 2010 - User:SuperMarioMan - Pass (GA)
- Pavement (band) - Dec 2010 - User:Patriot8790 - Fail (C)
- Malaysia - Dec 2010 - User:Chipmunkdavis - Pass (GA)
- Three Laws of Robotics - Dec 2010 - User:Chaosdruid - Fail (C)
- Tillingbourne Bus Company - Jan 2011 - User:Alzarian16 - Pass (GA)
- Douglas Bader - Jan 2011 - User:Dapi89 - Fail (C)
- Roman Dacia - Jan 2011 - User:Nergaal - Pass (B delisted Nov 2011)
- Heartbreak Hotel - Jan 2011 - User:GDuwen - Pass (GA)
- Paris Métro Line 12 - Jan 2011 - User:Ktlynch - Fail (B)
- Alexander the Great - Feb 2011 - User:Aeonx - Fail (GA Dec 2011)
- St Twrog's Church, Bodwrog - Feb 2011 - User:Bencherlite - Pass (GA)
- St Tyfrydog's Church, Llandyfrydog - Feb 2011 - User:Bencherlite - Pass (GA)
- St Mary's Church, Pentraeth - Feb 2011 - User:Bencherlite - Pass (GA)
- Royal Grammar School, Guildford - March 2011 - User:Glanis - Pass (GA)
- Battle of Rowton Heath - March 2011 - User:Ironholds - Pass (GA)
- Round Hill, Brighton - March 2011 - User:Hassocks5489 - Pass (GA)
- Closing Time (album) - May 2011 - User:Tbhotch - Fail (GA Aug 2012)
- Pulp Fiction - May 2011 - User:Taro James - Fail (B) *Failed 3 further GA reviews
- Steve Davis - June 2011 - User:Armbrust - Fail (B)
- The Beatles in India - June 2011 - User:Andreasegde - Pass (GA)
- 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix - June 2011 - User:Midgrid - Pass (GA)
- Battle of Cádiz (1669) - July 2011 - User:Roscelese - Fail (C)
- Willie Nelson - July 2011 - User:GDuwen - Pass (GA)
- Eastbourne - July 2011 - Keep (GA)
- A1 road in London - Sept 2011 - Delist (GA Dec 2012)
- Xavier Mertz - Sept 2011 - User:Apterygial - Pass (GA)
- Micky Adams - Sept 2011 - User:EchetusXe - Pass (GA)
- George Villiers (1759–1827)- Oct 2011 - User:Choess - Pass (GA)
- Live and Let Die (novel) - Oct 2011 - User:SchroCat - Pass (FA April 2015)
- Bastille - Oct 2011 - Pass (A class Jan 2012)
- Aqualung (Jethro Tull album) - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
- Myth of Skanderbeg - Oct 2011 - Fail (C)
- The Ash Garden - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
- Mervyn King (darts player) - Oct 2011 - Fail (B)
- Augustów Canal - Oct 2011 - Fail (B)
- Margaret Sanger - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
- Helmichis - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
- Whitby - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
- Synthpop - Nov 2011 - Pass (GA)
- Somerton, Somerset - Nov 2011 - Pass (GA)
- Courtney Love - Nov 2011 - Fail (B)
- Otis Redding - Nov 2011 - Fail (GA July 2012)
- Stones Brewery - Nov 2011 Pass - (GA)
- Goldfinger (novel) - Nov 2011 - Pass (GA)
- Arrested Development - Dec 2011 - Fail (GA Oct 2012)
- Snow Prince- Jan 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Boardwalk Empire (episode) - Jan 2012 - Pass (GA)
- (What's the Story) Morning Glory? - Jan 2012 - Pass (GA)
- 2011 Tucson shooting - Jan 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Mormons - Feb 2012 - Pass {GA)
- The Voice UK - May 2012 - Fail (C)
- Catch a Fire - May 2012 - Fail (GA June 2012)
- Arsène Wenger - May 2012 - Pass (FAC)
- We're Only in It for the Money - May 2012 - Fail (C)
- Get Carter - June 2012 - Fail (C)
- The Concert in Central Park - June 2012 - Pass (FA Sept 2012)
- Honky Tonk Heroes - June 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Jailhouse Rock (film) - June 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Krista Branch - Aug 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Clitoris - Aug 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Joyce Kilmer - Aug 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Dylan Thomas - Aug 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Straight Outta Compton - Sept 2012 - Delist (B)
- Love Me Do - Oct 2012 - Withdrawn (C)
- Van der Graaf Generator - Oct 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul - Nov 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Early skyscrapers - Nov 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Late Registration - Nov 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Annie Hall - Jan 2012 - Fail (GA - March 2014)
- Incense Route - Feb 2013 - Delist (Start)
- All Things Must Pass - March 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Yeast - April 2013 - Delist (C)
- River Welland - May 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky - June 2013 - Fail (B)
- Courtney Love - Nov 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Guinness Foreign Extra Stout - Nov 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Hawker Sea Fury - Nov 2013 - Fail (B) (second opinion)
- British National Party - Nov 2013 - Fail (B) (second opinion)
- Rose (Doctor Who) - Nov 2013 - Pass (GA}
- Teenage Whore - Nov 2013 - Fail (B)
- Leslie speaker - Nov 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Chess handicap - Dec 2013 - Fail (B)
- Outlaw Run - Dec 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Iron Rattler - Dec 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Blink-182 - Dec 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Moby - Dec 2013 - Fail (C)
- Full Throttle (roller coaster) - Dec 2013 - Fail (S)
- Norwich Grammar School - March 2014 - Pass (GA)
- Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer) - March 2014 - Pass (GA)
- Ben (album) - April 2014 - Delist (C)
- Peter Ostrum - May 2014 - Nom - Pass (2nd reviewer) (GA)
- Marie of Romania - May 2014 - Nom - Pass (2nd reviewer) (GA)
- Banská Bystrica - May 2014 - Delist (C)
- Bolton - - May 2014 - Keep (GA)
- Carnoustie - May 2014 - Delist (C)
- Watford Gap services - May 2014 - Nom - Pass (GA)
- Belfast - May 2014 - Delist (C)
- Ahmedabad - May 2014 - Keep (GA)
- Patio 29 - May 2014 - Kept (GA)
- Wookey Hole Caves - June 2014 - User:Rodw - Pass (GA)
- Askam and Ireleth - June 2014 - Delist (C)
- Basingstoke - June 2014 - Keep (GA)
- Pichilemu - June 2014 - Keep (GA)
- Istanbul Metro - Oct 2014 - User:KazekageTR - Fail (C)
- Nipo T. Strongheart - Nov 2014 - User:Smkolins - Fail (B)
- Simon & Garfunkel - April 2015 - User:Saginaw-hitchhiker - Pass (GA)
- Bethesda Methodist Chapel, Stoke-on-Trent - June 2015 - User:Sotakeit - Pass (GA)
- Sleaford - June 2015 - User:Noswall59 - Pass (GA)
- Bass Maltings, Sleaford - July 2015 - User:Noswall59 - Pass (GA)
- Hello, Goodbye - July 2015 - Nom/User:Beatleswhobeachboys - Pass (GA)
- Faversham - July 2015 - User:Ritchie333 - Pass (GA)
- Westholme House - July 2015 - User:Noswall59 - Pass (GA)
- Snoop Dogg - July 2015 - User:Musa Raza - Fail (C)
- The Allman Brothers Band - August 2015 - User:Saginaw-hitchhiker - Pass (GA)
- Bulgars - August 2015 - User:Crovata - Fail (C)
- Gene Roddenberry - August 2015 - User:Miyagawa - Fail (B)
- Buddy Holly - Sept 2015 - User:GDuwen - Fail (C)
- W. H. Auden - Oct 2015 - Keep (GA)
- Leo Frank - Oct 2015 - User:Tonystewart14 - Pass (GA)
- Isaac Folorunso Adewole - Dec 2015 - User:Wikicology - Pass (GA)
- Billy the Kid - December 2015 - User talk:Aerospeed - Quick Fail (C)
- M62 motorway - December 2015 - User:Rcsprinter123 - Quick Fail (B)
- Jaipur - December 2015 - User:Magentic Manifestations - Fail (S)
- North Circular Road - Jan 2016 - User:Ritchie333 - Pass (GA)
- Industrial Revolution - May 2016 - Delist (C)
- Brunei - June 2016 - Delist (C)
- Aubrey House - December 2016 - User:No Swan So Fine - Fail (C)
- Janet Jackson (album) - Dec 2017 - Delist (C)
- Vagina - May 2018 - User:Flyer22 Reborn - Pass (GA)
- Central Park - Sep 2019 - User:Epicgenius - Pass (GA)
- Death of a Pop Star - Nov 2019 - User:?uest - Pass (GA)
- Singapore - Nov 2019 - User:Feinoa - Fail (B)
- Good Charlotte (album) - Nov 2019 - User talk:Yeepsi - Pass (GA)
- White blood cell differential - Nov 2019 - User talk:SpicyMilkBoy - Pass (GA)
- Them (band) - Nov 2019 - User:Amirhosein Izadi - Fail (B)
- Lacrosse - Nov 2019 - User:Mnnlaxer - Fail (C)
- The Killers - Dec 2019 - Delist (B)
- DeFord Bailey - Dec 2020 - User:Shearonink - Pass (GA)
- Energy in Turkey - Dec 2020 - User:Chidgk1 - Fail (C)
- Beowulf - Jan 2021 - User:Chiswick Chap - Pass (GA)
- Eurovision Song Contest - March 2021 - User:Sims2aholic8 - Pass (GA)
- The Good Will Out - April 2022 - Nom: User:MusicforthePeople - Pass (GA)
Pass:112 Fail:69 Quick Fail:2 Delist:14 Keep:8
- Nominations
- Necktie - May 2006 - Pass - Delisted June 2008 (C)
- Beer pong - May 2006 - Pass ([1]) - Delisted Aug 2007 (B)
- American and British English spelling differences - July 2006 - Fail (C)
- Beer - Sep 2008 - Pass (GA)
- George Harrison - Dec 2008 - Pass (FA}
- Van Morrison - May 2009 - Pass (GA)
- Kraków - Aug 2009 - Pass (GA)
- Chuck Berry - May 2010 - Pass (GA)
- Deptford - Feb 2010 - Pass (GA)
- Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China - Sept 2010 - Pass (Delisted Jan 2011) (B)
- Covent Garden - Sept 2010 - Pass (FA)
- I Heard It Through the Grapevine - Oct 2012 - Pass (GA)
- A1 in London - Dec 2012 - Pass (GA)
- Savile Row - April 2013 - Fail (GA)
- Savile Row - May 2013 - Pass (GA)
- Organ transplantation in China - Dec 2013 - Fail (B)
- Kilgour–Matas report - Oct 2014 - Pass (GA)
Pass:14 Fail:3
- Involved
- I Am Legend (film) - Feb 2008 - Pass (GA)
Pass:1
- Totals
Pass:127 Fail:72 Quick Fail:2 Delist:14 Keep:8
All: 223
Templates for use in reviews[edit]
{{User Good Article|*}}
{{subst:GAList2
|overcom=
|1a=
|1acom=
|1b=
|1bcom=
|2a=
|2acom=
|2b=
|2bcom=
|2c=
|2ccom=
|3a=
|3acom=
|3b=
|3bcom=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6acom=
|6b=
|6bcom=
|7=
|7com=
}}
- Lead
* Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific [[WP:MOS|manual of style]] guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in [[WP:LEAD]]. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.
- Start
{{subst:GAstart}}
I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. ~~~~
===Tick box===
{{subst:GAList2
|overcom=
|1a=
|1acom=
|1b=
|1bcom=
|2a=
|2acom=
|2b=
|2bcom=
|2c=
|2ccom=
|3a=
|3acom=
|3b=
|3bcom=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6acom=
|6b=
|6bcom=
|7=
|7com=
}}
===Comments on GA criteria===
;Pass
;Query
;Fail
===General comments===
- Vandals
- There is a fair amount of reverting of edits by IP accounts. It is not uncommon for high profile articles to get a lot of attention by casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do regular contributors feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable?
- GAR
==GA check==
- It's worth being aware that for many (I think it's actually most) readers the lead is all that they read. The modern editions (post 1972) of Encyclopedia Britannica split the encyclopedia into the Micropædia (short articles) and the Macropædia (detailed articles) - most topics would be covered in both, but at different levels of detail. The Micropædia is our equivalent of the lead. The lead does serve as an introduction to the topic, and invites people to read the sections that interest them for greater detail, but the lead should also be able to stand alone - provide the reader with a summary of the main points of the topic. Generally, if an aspect of a topic is deemed important enough to justify a section of two or more paragraphs, then that aspect should be summarised in the lead; if the topic is not important enough to be mentioned in the lead, then perhaps it shouldn't have so much attention paid to it in the main body. Keeping a balance between the lead and the main body is tricky, but does help to keep the mind focussed on what are the important points.
- Sometimes editors simply place in an article the information they find on a topic with insufficient judgement of selection and organisation of the material; then, when the article looks big enough the assumption is it it will become a Good Article as long as the prose is OK. Some other editors, on the other hand, are able to assess the wide range of material available on the topic, and to judge which points are important and should be mentioned.
GA check[edit]
Philosophy[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I am a supporter of the Good Article project as I feel it motivates editors to improve articles, and it gives readers a sense of confidence that an article has reached an acceptable standard that has been verified by an experienced user. Unfortunately, not all topics are equal, and some articles that are well written, scholarly, comprehensive, huge, informative and educational may not be listed as a Good Article because the scope of the topic makes it difficult to satisfactorily meet all the GA criteria; while some rather short, plain, simple articles on minor or trivial subjects do meet the criteria because the topic is discrete, limited, and uncontroversial. However, while the GA stamp does not always guarantee a scholarly and interesting article, it does generally mean the article meets some minimal standards. And if another reader feels an article does not meet those minimum standards the article can be easily delisted. One of the pleasing aspects of the system is this ease of involvement so people are not put off by bureaucracy or any sense of elitism or ownership - it is fully in the collaborative community spirit of Wikipedia as a whole. I both write and review Good Articles. Reviewing is generally a pleasant experience - most articles are a pleasure to read because people have put some unified or concentrated work into them; and it's often possible, with the detachment of an uninvolved person and fresh eyes, to see where the article can be improved, and then to help the editors move the article forward. This is a collaborative experience and is enhancing for everyone involved - especially when at the end of it the article does get listed. Sometimes the experience can be less pleasant if the involved editor(s) are not helpful, or hassle to get the process done quickly with more regard for the GA status than with improving the article - thankfully these incidents are not common. The work involved is variable - with some reviews it can simply be a case of making a couple of suggestions here and there, and when those are done, passing the article, such as with Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948; with others there may be a period of working with an editor to get the article to GA status, such as with Finnegans Wake and Imperial War Museum.
Each review is different and brings its own problems to overcome. Some reviews can be fairly quick, others take a long time. Small, discrete topics like albums, especially the less important albums, are easier to do than articles on the band that made the album. The more important the topic, and the more complex and sprawling it is, the more difficult it is to get a well balanced and satisfying article. Typical stages of a review:
|
Guide[edit]
A guide to reviewing a Good Article
|
|---|
To be able to review an article you must:
To prevent mistakes and frustration for all users it is strongly advised that a reviewer has some understanding of the review process, the Good Article criteria, and related policies and guidelines. It is also of benefit if the reviewer is patient, helpful and has a collaborative nature. Autocratic reviewers who make demands, and refuse to negotiate create stress and ill-will. At the same time, the reviewer must apply the criteria firmly and fairly, and not be persuaded or bullied into overlooking weaknesses in the article, so confidence and a sense of what is fair and right is important. A GA reviewer carries no authority at all, and is simply a fellow Wikipedia editor who is willing to independently check an article against the GA criteria.
Before starting a review, glance at the article itself to assess the nature and amount of the material and potential difficulty, and note who nominated the article and the significant contributors (check history) to see if there are editors with whom you've had significant previous disputes or have had problems working with - it is better to decide before a review starts that the work is too challenging than part way through a review. If you haven't already done so, read guides and essays such as Wikipedia:Good article criteria, Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles, User:Joopercoopers/Zen and the art of good reviewing, User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet It also helps to look at recently completed reviews at Wikipedia:Good articles/recent.
A review may be started by browsing through the list on Wikipedia:Good article nominations and then clicking on the (start review) link near the end of the article listing, just before the name of the nominator. Or, on the article's talk page, click on "follow this link" in the GA nominee template Leave a comment and/or checklist, such as An easy way is to cut and paste the following: {{subst:GAList2
|overcom=
|1a=
|1acom=
|1b=
|1bcom=
|2a=
|2acom=
|2b=
|2bcom=
|2c=
|2ccom=
|3a=
|3acom=
|3b=
|3bcom=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6acom=
|6b=
|6bcom=
|7=
|7com=
}}
When saved, the list presents like this: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
#:A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check| }} In the check box you place y for pass, ? if unsure, or n for fail like so: #:A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|y}} Below each check box is an optional comment box: #:: {{#if:||}} #:: {{#if:||Comment here}} Some editors like to use these for making comments, others will make comments outside of the checklist, and some may use both. There is no prescribed way of setting out a GA review - though a number of reviewers like to make bullet points that the nominator and other editors can comment on individually, others will make subsections using level 3 (===) headers. An example: ===Comments on GA criteria===
===General comments===
Having set up the review, you now move on to reading the article and checking it against the GA criteria.
There are as many ways of reviewing as there are reviewers, and you will find a procedure and process that you are comfortable with as you do more reviews. You may decide to follow the GA criteria in the order it is given, or deal with points as you notice them. Some methods you may use are as follows: ===Quick glance=== A Good Article is presentable and readable, and a number of the criteria deal with this aspect. You may decide to take a quick glance at the article to see how presentable it is. There may be potential issues regarding lead sections, layout, and list incorporation, as well as suitable captions which tend to be easy to spot on a quick glance.
While observing some of the points above, you may wish to make an initial comment on the review that, for example, you feel the lead may need closer attention. This has the benefit of alerting the nominator to check the lead, and they may wish to start work on that while you are getting on with the rest of the review. If the nominator has previously checked the lead, they can leave a comment explaining why they feel the lead meets WP:Lead, and you can keep their comments in mind when you do your own check. Some reviewers, however, prefer to do all or a significant amount of the work involved in assessing the article, and then post detailed and organised comments. ===Quick easy checks=== Three of the easiest criteria to check are Stability, Images, and Reference section.
Look at the recent article history and talkpage to check for edit wars and disputes. If there are no signs of an editor or editors reverting edits (angry or insulting edit summaries may alert to this), and no material being removed and then replaced, then you can pass that criteria. While checking the talkpage for disputes, it is worth noting that it is acceptable for people to debate the content of an article as long as the dispute doesn't carry over into the article itself. The nature and depth of the dispute may, however, indicate problems, such as with NPOV, that may make reviewing difficult. The GA process is not for resolving disputes, and if there is a strong dispute in place it may be worth getting everyone's agreement to work toward a common goal; if you cannot get that agreement within a reasonable time - say, seven days - then give serious consideration to how and if you should proceed. If it seems likely that an editor or editors may attempt to destabilise the article or the review, it would be better to withdraw now, and suggest that the dispute is resolved before the article is nominated again.
Click on each image to ensure it has the appropriate wording. Generally, if the image is on Commons, it will be OK to use. If the image is not on Commons, then it may be a non-free image, and you need to check that it has an appropriate non-free rationale to be used in the article you are reviewing. Guideline: Wikipedia:Non-free content. If you are unsure, questions can be asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. While checking the image, also check the captions to see if they meet WP:Captions. Also, check that the image is appropriate for the article. Blurry, poor quality images, images which are mainly of people unrelated to the topic (such as an image of a group of scouts in front of the Taj Mahal, in which the Taj Mahal is barely seen), or an image which has a tenuous or dubious link (such as a picture of a robin in an article on Robin Hood) should be queried with the nominator/main contributors. If there are no images, that is acceptable, provided there are no suitable images available that could be used. It's worth asking if a search has been done, and you may conduct a search yourself on Flickr or geograph.org.uk or other image hosting site that contains free images. If images are crowding texts, that is a WP:Layout issue, and while it needs to be noted as it affects 1 (b), it will not prevent a pass in the Image criteria.
Check if there is a reference section or sections, and these are laid out according to WP:FOOTERS. This is not a check on reliable sources or if challengeable statements are sourced (that's 2 (b)), this is a check to ensure there is a reference section and it is laid out appropriately. This is almost always a simple pass, though sometimes the reference section layout does not conform to WP:FOOTERS (wrong order or inappropriate section names), and this can be quickly adjusted yourself, leaving a note linking to WP:FOOTERS. Bear in mind, though, not to impose your own personal preferences in naming such sections either Notes or References; while References is the most used name, if Notes is used appropriately (and has not recently been changed from References to Notes), then it should remain at Notes.
Some reviewers like to leave the prose and MoS issues to last, as those areas are likely to change as the review develops and editors add or alter material. However, as that first section, "Is it reasonably well written?", tends to be about the presentation and readability of the article, it's worth casting an eye over how the article looks to see if there are potential issues regarding lead sections, layout, and list incorporation, as well as suitable captions as those will tend to be easy to spot on a quick read through. As you notice problems you have the option of leaving a comment directing attention to it, or of fixing the problem yourself. You are not expected to fix problems, but you are encouraged; and if the problems are minor and obvious, such as spelling mistakes, it makes more sense to make the edit yourself, as you would for any other article, rather than listing them on the review page. Creating a list of spelling and grammar errors can give the impression of a detailed and thorough review and keeps the nominator busy doing something very easy, so it is popular, but be aware that it is not a substitute for a critical examination of the article and its sources, so don't be mislead into thinking that a GA review simply consists of making a copy edit list. If there are a number of copy editing issues, and you don't wish to do them yourself, it is acceptable to say that the article needs copy editing, and to give a couple of examples; if the nominator is not able to deal with all the copy edit problems themselves, you can suggest they make a request of the Guild of Copy Editors. If you enjoy listing spelling and grammar errors, but are not comfortable analysing the content, researching sources, and doing background reading, then perhaps copy-editing or peer reviewing may be more your thing. While glancing through the article you may notice clean up tags. That the article has tags is not a reason to fail. The tags may have been added after the article was nominated; they may not be appropriate; or the problem may be minor. The tags are helpful as they are drawing your attention to potential problems. You use that information as part of your review in the same way as if you had found the problems yourself. You may also notice that some paragraphs or sections don't have inline cites. While not every statement in an article needs inline citing, that a paragraph and especially an entire section, has no cites may indicate a problem. Either the section is doing an appropriate encyclopaedic job of presenting material and opinion which would be new to the general reader and therefore open to be challenged so needs citing; or the section is uninformative and needs to be tightened under the focus criteria. By convention, plot summaries are uncited because it is viewed that the film or book provides an appropriate source; however, if you feel that the plot is complex and there may be a question of original research in interpretation, it may be appropriate to raise the issue of possible interpretation or suitable sourcing, so it can be discussed.
Usually this is a quick and easy criteria pass, and can be done in the early stages of a review. If disruption occurs later in the review, you can change from a pass to a fail.
The standard article for review will take about 25 minutes to read through, and you will have approx 70% comprehension of the content. If you are making notes about potential GA problems as you read through then your comprehension may be somewhat less, and the time taken may be somewhat more. A full read though in the early stages of a review is of value as it gives a feel for the topic, and how it has been dealt with. The article may be good enough to give you a good grasp of the topic, be written in a lively and compelling manner, and be well presented with useful and stimulating images. You may be inclined to want to pass it as you enjoyed it so much, and you were impressed at what you learned, but it's important that all the criteria are weighed and appropriately ticked off. Sources do need checking, and cannot be taken on good faith, as we all make mistakes.
Informing nominator and significant contributors.
|
My aims[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
My aims while doing a GA review:
Each review is different and brings its own problems to overcome. Some reviews can be fairly quick, others take a long time. Small, discrete topics like albums, especially the less important albums, are easier to do than articles on the band that made the album. The more important the topic, and the more complex and sprawling it is, the more difficult it is to get a well balanced and satisfying article. Typical stages of a review:
|
Possible[edit]
- Amsterdam
- Bloomsbury
- Brewing
- Cask ale
- Carole King
- Elton John
- Etta James
- Gluten-free beer
- Guinness Brewery
- Guinness
- Guinness Draft
- It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back
- Kilgour-Matas report
- Library
- Mayfair
- Newark-on-Trent
- Normandy
- Notting Hill
- Pale ale
- Pub
- Rochester, Kent
- Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
- Soho
- Stephen Downing case
- Stepney
- Stevie Wonder
- Tapestry (Carole King album)
- Train station
- Tree shaping
- Wimbledon, London
DYK[edit]
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
