Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines: Difference between revisions
C/e. |
@User:Mike Christie: How's this for an explanation of the +1 rule, plus IMO a more logical ordering of the overall logic? |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Any significant contributor to an article may '''nominate''' it, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia may '''review''' the nominated article against the good article criteria. A responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. Nominators should respond positively to constructive criticism and work with the reviewer to improve the article (if there are any issues) to good article status. If the article is promoted, a small plus sign inside a circle {{nowrap|([[File:Symbol support vote.svg|15px|This symbol designates good articles on Wikipedia.]])}} will appear on the top right corner of the article's page indicating that the article is good. |
Any significant contributor to an article may '''nominate''' it, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia may '''review''' the nominated article against the good article criteria. A responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. Nominators should respond positively to constructive criticism and work with the reviewer to improve the article (if there are any issues) to good article status. If the article is promoted, a small plus sign inside a circle {{nowrap|([[File:Symbol support vote.svg|15px|This symbol designates good articles on Wikipedia.]])}} will appear on the top right corner of the article's page indicating that the article is good. |
||
Nominations listed on this page appear |
Nominations listed on this page appear are ranked as follows: First, those by nominators who have no promoted GAs, in descending order of the number of GA reviews they have performed. Then, those by all other nominators, in descending order of the ratio of reviews they have performed to the number of GAs they have had promoted. (For ranking purposes, a single dummy review is added to the actual amount, to handicap in favor of newer reviewers.) |
||
To nominate or review an article, follow the [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions|instructions]]. Similarly, to '''delist''' an article which no longer meets the good article criteria, follow the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|instructions for reassessment]]. |
To nominate or review an article, follow the [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions|instructions]]. Similarly, to '''delist''' an article which no longer meets the good article criteria, follow the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|instructions for reassessment]]. |
||
Revision as of 00:55, 8 January 2024
| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
A good article nomination (GAN) is an article that is to be evaluated against the good article criteria in order to become a good article (GA). The standard of quality for good articles is less than that for featured articles. Here is the complete list of good article nominations: there are currently 587 nominations listed, of which 488 are waiting to be reviewed.
Any significant contributor to an article may nominate it, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia may review the nominated article against the good article criteria. A responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. Nominators should respond positively to constructive criticism and work with the reviewer to improve the article (if there are any issues) to good article status. If the article is promoted, a small plus sign inside a circle (
) will appear on the top right corner of the article's page indicating that the article is good.
Nominations listed on this page appear are ranked as follows: First, those by nominators who have no promoted GAs, in descending order of the number of GA reviews they have performed. Then, those by all other nominators, in descending order of the ratio of reviews they have performed to the number of GAs they have had promoted. (For ranking purposes, a single dummy review is added to the actual amount, to handicap in favor of newer reviewers.)
To nominate or review an article, follow the instructions. Similarly, to delist an article which no longer meets the good article criteria, follow the instructions for reassessment.
 |
ATTENTION NEW NOMINATORS AND REVIEWERS: PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS PAGE. |
| The oldest unreviewed good article nominations are:
Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) | start review) • Exile (American band) | start review) • Jude Law | start review) • Blackpink | start review) • William L. Keleher | start review) |
| The highest priority unreviewed good article nominations are:
Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) • Exile (American band) • Jude Law • William L. Keleher • John Rudge |
Note: For guidance in locating and citing sources for articles, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. For guidance in locating and citing sources for medicine and psychology-related articles, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).