Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
Good article nominations
Shortcuts:

Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles that meet a core set of editorial standards but are not featured article quality. The Good article nominations page provides a list of articles which have been nominated for Good article status. Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly and are familiar with the subject, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator. There are currently 433 nominations listed and 376 waiting to be reviewed.

Nominating[edit]

GA candidate.svg

Step 1: Prepare the article[edit]

Ensure the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability. Then, check the article against the Good article criteria and make any improvements you think are necessary. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles. Most reviews will require involvement by an article editor during the review process. We recommend checking that someone is available to do this before nominating an article or assure that you will be able to respond to any comments made by the reviewer during the review. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination.

Step 2: Nominating the article[edit]

  1. Paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}} to the top of the article's talk page. Do not place it inside another template such as WikiProjectBannerShell.
  2. In the |subtopic= field add one of the following 31 sections headers that best defines the article:
    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
    If it doesn't fit under any of the above categories, leave the field blank. The nomination will be sorted in the Miscellaneous section.
  3. Save the page.

If you have completed these three steps successfully, a bot will post your nomination on the nominations page under the chosen subtopic heading within 20 minutes.

Step 3: Waiting[edit]

Depending on the size of the backlog there may be a delay of up to six months before someone picks up the review. Conversely, it may only take a few days.

To leave a note related to the review, edit the note parameter of {{GA nominee}} on the article talk page. For example: {{GA nominee|...|note=I might not be able to respond to the review until next week. ~~~~}} This note will appear beneath the article's entry on this page.

Withdrawing: To withdraw a nomination before the review has begun, remove the {{GA nominee}} from the article talk page. To withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, let the reviewer know and then follow the first three steps under the "Failing" section of "Finishing the review"

Step 4: What to do during a review[edit]

Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next. Do not start the review page yourself as this may lead other reviewers to believe that your nomination is already under review. You are expected to respond to the reviewer's queries (if you absolutely cannot, make sure another user can). Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer. Most likely, a reviewer will put the review "on hold", for about seven days, to allow time to fix any issues that may arise. Note that the standard holding time is seven days; however, reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit if they wish.

If a review stalls or there is disagreement over interpretation of the criteria you can ask for assistance at the help page or the nomination talk page.

Step 5: After the review[edit]

At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately or ask to have the article reassessed.

Reviewing[edit]

Step 1: Familiarize yourself with the criteria[edit]

Before reviewing your first Good article you should familiarise yourself with the Good article criteria. These are the standards an article must meet in order to be granted Good Article status. It is also strongly suggested that you read the reviewing Good articles guideline and an essay on what the Good article criteria are not. Ensure the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability. If you need further clarification post a question at the Good Article Help Desk.

Step 2: Starting a review[edit]

To review an article you must

  • be a registered user—make sure you are logged in;
  • not be the nominator and not have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review;

Choose an article from nominations page that you would like to review. You may review any unreviewed article, but the older nominations towards the top of the lists should be given higher priority. If someone else has started a review you can add comments to the review page, but it should be closed by the original reviewer.

Start the review page, either by following the start review link at the nominations page, or by using the link from the template on the article talk page. If you wish, you can add an initial review or other remarks to the bottom of the review page before saving it. A bot will change the Good article nominations page to indicate that you are reviewing the article.

IMPORTANT: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. If you are in a situation where you absolutely can't continue to review the article, please leave a note on the nomination talk page.

Step 3: Reviewing the article[edit]

  1. Read the whole article, and decide whether it could be immediately passed or failed based on the Good article criteria. You can also put the article on hold, to give time for issues to be fixed, or ask for a second opinion. See below for how to pass, fail, hold or ask for second opinions.
  2. If the article is considered fully compliant with the Good article criteria, provide a review on the review page justifying that decision and "pass" the nomination. You can use these templates to help organize your review if you wish.
  3. If the article is regarded as only partially compliant or non-compliant with the Good article criteria provide a review on the review page detailing what criteria it does not meet and, if necessary, state what is needed to bring the article up to standard. You can use these templates to help organize your review if you wish. This may or may not involve putting the review on hold, depending on how much time the reviewer considers is needed to fix the problems.
  4. In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problem(s) is/are easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If the nomination is brought up to standard during the review, note that on the review page and close the review as a "pass". If not, close it as a "fail".
  5. You might also like to consider making suggestions for further improvements if appropriate.

NOTE: Using tables in reviews is not a requirement, it is simply to help keep the review organized. Also, if this is your first review, it is beneficial to ask one of the Good Article mentors to look at your review.

Step 4: Finishing the review[edit]

Passing[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg

When you are happy that the article meets the Good article criteria you pass it by doing the following:

  1. Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article's talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}
  2. Fill in the topic and page number of the review. The five tildes supply the date of the review. The topic parameter refers to the topic abbreviations used on the GA page, but the template automatically converts GAN subtopics into GA topics, so reviewers can simply copy the parameter value from one template to the other. "Page" should be the number of the review subpage (that is, the n in {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}). The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters.
  3. Update any WikiProject templates on the article talk page by changing the "class" field value to "GA" and save the page using "GA" in the edit summary.
  4. List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section and update the tally at the bottom of that section.
  5. A bot will add the Good Article icon to the article and let the successful nominator know that the article has passed. You can also leave a personal note for the nominator or use the Template:GANotice.

Failing[edit]

Symbol oppose vote.svg

If you feel the article does not meet the Good article criteria you fail it by doing the following:

  1. Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article's talk page with {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}
  2. Fill in the topic and page number of the review. The five tildes supply the date of the review. The topic parameter refers to the topic abbreviations used on the GA page, but the template automatically converts GAN subtopics into GA topics, so reviewers can simply copy the parameter value from one template to the other. "Page" should be the number of the review subpage (that is, the n in {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}). The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters.
  3. Save the page using "GA" in the edit summary.
  4. Leave instructions on the review page indicating what needs further improvement.
  5. Encourage the nominator(s) to renominate the article once the problems have been addressed (You can use Template:GANotice if you wish).

Putting the article on hold[edit]

Symbol wait.svg

If the article only has a few issues that need fixing you may decide to put the article "On Hold" for a period of time, generally one week, by:

  1. Changing the status of the template on the talk page so it says "onhold", as in {{GA nominee|...|status=onhold}}
  2. Don't forget to specify on the review page what needs to be done.
  3. A bot will notify the nominator that the article is on hold (or you can use Template:GANotice if you wish).

Asking for a second opinion[edit]

Symbol neutral vote.svg

If you are unsure whether an article meets the Good article criteria, you may ask another reviewer or subject expert for a second opinion by:

  1. Changing the status of the template on the talk page so it says "2ndopinion" as in {{GA nominee|...|status=2ndopinion}}
  2. Make sure to indicate on the review page what issue you are looking for a second opinion on.

NOTE: Do not close a review started by another reviewer without first attempting to contact the other reviewer. While there is no deadline, keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GAN report page.

Questions?[edit]

If you have any questions regarding anything on this page or Good Articles in general, please leave a message at the Good Article Help Desk.