Wikipedia:Good article criteria: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
significant revision (see talkpage) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
|} |
|} |
||
A [[WP:GA|good article]] is a satisfactory article that has not met (or is unable to meet) the [[WP:WIAFA|criteria]] for [[WP:FA|featured articles]]. The good article criteria measure ''decent'' articles; they are [[Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured|significantly different]] from the featured article criteria, which determine our ''best'' articles. |
|||
==What is a good article?== |
==What is a good article?== |
||
A |
A good article has the following attributes: |
||
1. It is '''well written'''. In this respect: |
1. It is '''reasonably well written'''. In this respect: |
||
:(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and |
|||
:(b) it complies with the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|manual of style]] guidelines for [[WP:LEAD|lead sections]], [[WP:LAYOUT|layout]], [[WP:MOSDEF|jargon]], [[WP:WTA|words to avoid]], [[WP:WAF|fiction]], and [[Wikipedia:Embedded list|list incorporation]].<ref>Although the entire Manual of Style ''should'' be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.</ref> |
|||
::(b) the structure is logical, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct [[WP:LEAD|lead section]] summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles); |
|||
::(c) It does not seriously violate the standards in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Wikipedia Manual of style]]. (In particular, sections to go by include the [[WP:LEAD|Article lead guideline]], [[WP:LAYOUT|Article layout guideline]], [[WP:MOSDEF|Jargon guideline]], [[WP:WTA|Words to avoid using guideline]], [[WP:WAF|How to write about Fiction guideline]], and [[Wikipedia:Embedded list|List incorporation]]) |
|||
::(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided. |
|||
2. It is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia: |
2. It is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Attribution|attributable]]'''. In this respect, it: |
||
:(a) provides references to sources used; |
|||
:(b) [[WP:CITE|cites]] [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for material that [[WP:V|is challenged or likely to be challenged]], preferably using [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources|inline citation]]s for longer articles;<ref>Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or [[Wikipedia:Harvard referencing|Harvard references]] at the end of a sentence (see the [[Wikipedia:Inline citations|inline citations essay]]). Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, [[common knowledge]], or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the [[Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines|guideline on scientific citations]] should adhere to the guideline.</ref><ref>It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.</ref> and |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
::(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]; |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
3. It is '''broad in its coverage'''. In this respect : |
3. It is '''broad in its coverage'''. In this respect, it: |
||
:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;<ref>This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|WP:FAC]]; it allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed.</ref> and |
|||
:(b) stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (see [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]]). |
|||
4. It |
4. It is '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral]]'''; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. |
||
::(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; |
|||
::(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. |
|||
5. It is '''stable''' |
5. It is '''stable'''; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.<ref>Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.</ref> |
||
6. Any [[Wikipedia:Images|images]] it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct [[Wikipedia:Captions|captions]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Licenses|acceptable copyright status]]. [[Wikipedia:Fair use|Fair use]] images must meet the [[Wikipedia:Fair use criteria|criteria for fair use images]] and be labeled accordingly. |
|||
6. It '''contains [[Wikipedia:Images|images]]''', where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect: |
|||
::(a) the images are [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|tagged]] and have succinct and descriptive [[Wikipedia:Captions|captions]]; |
|||
::(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. |
|||
::(c) any non-free images have a [[Help:Image page#Fair use rationale|fair use rationale]]. |
|||
==What is not a good article?== |
|||
==Length== |
|||
Lists, portals, and images are not reviewed by the GA system; these items should be nominated for [[Wikipedia:Featured lists|featured list]], [[Wikipedia:Featured portals|featured portal]] or [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|featured picture]] status. [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages|Disambiguation pages]] and stubs in their current form cannot meet the good article criteria. Lastly, an article loses its good article status once it becomes featured. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
==Articles dealing with fiction== |
|||
Articles dealing with fiction should follow the [[WP:WAF|guidelines for writing about fiction]]. In short, articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, or locations, must establish and discuss significance outside the "fictional universe," together with the process of authorship. The focus of the article should remain on discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, not on establishing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe; otherwise, the article may be better placed in one of the many [[other wikis|fictional-universe specific wikis]]. |
|||
==Lists, portals and images== |
|||
Lists, portals and images are not reviewed by the GA system so editors should instead consider nominating them for [[Wikipedia:Featured lists]], [[Wikipedia:Featured portals]] or [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures]], respectively. |
|||
==See also== |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Featured content]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured]] |
|||
== Notes == |
== Notes == |
||
<references/> |
<references/> |
||
[[Category:Wikipedia good articles| ]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia good articles| ]] |
||
Revision as of 00:38, 18 April 2007
A good article is a satisfactory article that has not met (or is unable to meet) the criteria for featured articles. The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are significantly different from the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.
What is a good article?
A good article has the following attributes:
1. It is reasonably well written. In this respect:
- (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
2. It is factually accurate and attributable. In this respect, it:
- (a) provides references to sources used;
- (b) cites reliable sources for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and
- (c) contains no original research.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
- (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[4] and
- (b) stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.[5]
6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Fair use images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.
What is not a good article?
Lists, portals, and images are not reviewed by the GA system; these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal or featured picture status. Disambiguation pages and stubs in their current form cannot meet the good article criteria. Lastly, an article loses its good article status once it becomes featured.
Articles that appear to meet the featured article criteria should be listed at peer review and featured article candidates instead of good article candidates.
Notes
- ^ Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.
- ^ Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.
- ^ It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed.
- ^ Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.