|A good article is|
If there are valid clean-up tags on your article, including Cleanup, POV, Copyedit, Trivia, External links and multiple Fact tags, then you need to address the issue(s) raised before nominating the article.
If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as:
then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article.Instability If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as:
then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article.
Although there is no set guideline on article length for GAs, it is best for the article not to be too short or so long that there is not enough focus on the topic. The article should be broad, covering multiple areas to give readers an overview of the topic.
The lead (introduction) should summarize the topic by touching on all of the various sections within the article. For articles of various lengths, guidelines recommend that the lead range from one to four paragraphs.
Carefully scrutinize any non-free images against WP:FUC. Non-free images may be used only if their exclusion would impair a reader's understanding of the article. Non-free images must be low resolution (less than 300 pixels vertically or horizontally). This is the equivalent of 0.1 megapixels, as described here. Non-free images with higher resolutions must explain why this is necessary. and include detailed fair use rationales. On the image page, ensure that the rationale specifies the article that the image will be used for. Look at similar articles that have reached GA/FA status for examples. The use of images should comply with WP:MOS#Images and WP:CAPTIONS.
If possible, use only free images that are available/applicable to the article's topic. Look for images already located on related Wikipedia articles or search Wikimedia Commons. If there are no images available, consider uploading an image of your own if you have the permission or ask the permission of an author of an image on websites such as Flickr.
Articles are expected to be well-supported by reliable sources. While it is not necessary to provide a source for every single sentence or any common knowledge facts, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires a source to be named for all direct quotations and any statement that a reader is likely to dispute, such as statistical information (ex: 47% of all goods were sold; 3 million people attended the event; the city sustained $588 million in damages).
Editors may use any style of referencing and any method of presenting citations that they choose, so long as the article is internally consistent. Well-developed articles generally use some form of inline referencing, which allows the readers and future editors to identify which specific source(s) support any given statement. The two most common inline reference styles are footnotes and parenthetical references.
Whatever method you use for formatting, providing full citations is strongly preferred to providing only a bare URL, which appears to the reader as either this:  or as http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm
When trying to find sources of information for an article, use a variety of resources such as books, websites, newspapers, journals, interviews, etc. Consider using a local library for researching information in printed resources. To find online resources, use websites such as news aggregators and Google Scholar, online databases, and search engine searches. If you find a dead link for a source, the Internet Archive may be able to provide an earlier version of the article. Other options for finding information include asking members of a related WikiProject, asking experts of the topic you are researching, or asking editors who have edited similar or related articles.
Although the Manual of Style is comprehensive in improving every aspect of an article, a nomination does not need to meet every MoS guideline to reach GA status. However, the more accurately and uniformly the article follows these guidelines, the greater the benefit for its readers. A few common Manual of Style errors are listed below.
Ensure the external links conform to WP:External links guidelines.
Such links belong either in an infobox or in the last section on the page, which should be titled "External links"; they should not be present in the body of the article. One common error is linking company websites or stock trading websites to the names of things mentioned in the text, like this: "Meta-Wiki is an organization that..." or "Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) is a publicly traded company". Such links should be moved to the appropriate infobox and/or external links section instead.
If the subject of the article has an official website, that website should normally be linked. Otherwise, do not include too many external links, but consider providing enough high-quality links that a reader could easily find more information on the topic. Webpages that are used to support text in an article should generally not be duplicated in the external links section. No article is required to have any external links, and every external link must be justifiable. Common errors are listed at WP:ELNO.
Reviewers initial notes
I base nearly all similar articles I contribute to on the GA article Mitt Romney. I believe it will be fit this review to base his notes on the similar article already listed as GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.||
|1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.||
 ** OK, I removed some of the excessive details and citations. —Designate (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) * The "Pre-speakership congressional activities" section is divided into several mini subsections. They are too short and need condensing. * Post-speakership section needs condensing as well. * Same with the "Personal life" section ** I condensed these sections. —Designate (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)* The lead has a great deal of inline citations. For GA consideration it should not. All information should be in the body of the work. Similar GA articles comply to this standard.
|2. Verifiable with no original research:|
|2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.||
* The line
is out of place in the lead and sticks out like a sore thumb. It has no source and is not in the body of the article.
|2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.||
* The first section: Early Life, has a  tag. Do not remove the tag unless the claim is referenced or removed. GA articles cannot be listed with tags. ** Someone removed the statement. *The claim to reference 135 is not substantiated by the reference.
|2c. it contains no original research.||There is a citation needed tag. Reference the statement.
alternate history article defines it as a genre of fiction. —Designate (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) *Comment It is a sub-category or sub-genre and therefore should have a title to reflect starting with fiction. To do otherwise is not supported by the first category and seems misleading.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)* See point 4 above *The "Alternative history" section in books is false. That should be under "fiction" as those are all novels. **The first line of the
|3. Broad in its coverage:|
|3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.||Probably a little too broad here and there but that's a focus issue.|
|3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).|
|4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.||This has to go:"Gingrich stands for his beliefs and does not shy away from positions that could be considered controversial". POV and OR|
|5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.|
|6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:|
|6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.||
 does not have proper sourcing and cannot jusify the Public Domain claim from the information provided with the description only. It should probably have the full boiler plate if not at least the exact information that would be found on it. I would just add it and fill the decsription that's there, the author information with the link provided as the source and full date information. The link should have most of the information or easily searchable. It should resemble this image from the same source:File:Clinton_health_care_elderly.jpg. ** Fixed. Designate (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)* The image of Clinton: File:Clinton1997SOTU.jpg
. This last image must be removed before GA can be listed. It has NO context in the prose and only serves as decoration. ** Are you sure? It seems weird to leave it out. Ronald Reagan has his portrait included, and that's a FA. Same with George H.W. Bush which is a GA. I think the GA criterion is "relevant to the topic [Gingrich]", not necessarily "context in the prose". Designate (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)* The same is true with this one:File:SpeakerGingrich.jpg
|6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.||There is no context to use the portrait.There is consensus and presedence.|
|7. Overall assessment.||Very good article. Lots of hard work.|
I have not ended the review as of yet and originally thought this would be a pretty easy pass with a few fixes here and there...but I am discovering some referencing issues. If that becomes a problem guys I will declining whether than holding if there are too many.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
GA listing hold begins today
I have not gone through every reference but have noticed it has some issues. Probably not so much that it can't be listed if, at the very least, the ones marked are corrected as well as the rest of the fixes mentioned are implemented. If all the review notes are corrected in 7 days from today, 2:46 am Pacific Standard time I am prepared to list the Article.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)