Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

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 565 nominations listed and 470 waiting to be reviewed.

Nominating

Step 1: Prepare the article

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. While anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, it is highly preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the article's subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. The reviewer will be making suggestions to improve the article to GA quality during the review process, therefore the review will require your involvement as nominator. Before nominating an article, ensure that you will be able to respond to these comments in a timely manner.

Step 2: Nominating the article

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.
4. Suggestion (Optional): Please, consider reviewing two (2) nominations, for each one that you nominate. NOTE: This does NOT imply Quid pro quo. Do NOT expect to review an article and have that nominator then review yours. This simply means helping to review articles, in general, will help out the Wikipedia community by cutting down the Wikipedia:Backlog — as a way to help pay it forward. Thank you!

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

Step 3: Waiting

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

Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. 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 suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner (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. A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow you time to fix any issues that may arise (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

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

Step 1: Familiarize yourself with the criteria

Thank-you for deciding to review an article for GA. Before starting a review, 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

To review an article you must

• Be a registered user—make sure you are logged in
• Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review

1. Choose an article from nominations page that you would like to review. Please note:
   • You may review any unreviewed article, but the older nominations towards the top of the lists have been waiting for as long as six (6) months and should be given higher priority.
   • If someone else has started a review you may add comments to the review page, but the review should be closed by the original reviewer.
2. Start the review by following the start review link appearing on the GA nominations page or in the GA template near the top of the article talk page. A new GA Review page will be created. If you wish, you may add opening remarks, an initial review, or one of these templates to the bottom of this review page.
3. Save this page. 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 in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. Consider reviewing only one or two article at a time. If you are in a situation where you absolutely cannot continue to review the article, please leave a note on the nomination talk page.

Step 3: Reviewing the article

1. Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on the Good article criteria, decide whether the article could be immediately passed or immediately failed. Decide if the article is instead partially compliant or only marginally non-compliant and could pass after improvements are made.
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 may use these templates to help organize your review if you wish.
3. If the article is considered 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 state what is needed to bring the article up to standard. You may use these templates to help organize your review if you wish.
4. In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself.
5. Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review. If so, note this on the review page and close the review as a "pass". If not, close it as a "fail". You might also like to consider making suggestions for further improvements if appropriate.
6. Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. Depending on the responsiveness of the nominator, you may decide to put the review on hold for about seven days to allow time for issues to be fixed. You may also ask for a second opinion. See below for how to pass, fail, hold or ask for second opinions.

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

Passing

When you determine 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 may 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 may also leave a personal note for the nominator or use the Template:GANotice.

Failing

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 may 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 may use Template:GANotice if you wish).

Putting the article on hold

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 may use Template:GANotice if you wish).

Asking for a second opinion

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?

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.