User:ErikTheBikeMan/GA Essay
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: I'm almost always open to passing an article if issues are addressed and reasoning is given |
Typically, I will do a review in three steps, first reading through the article and taking notes, which I post on the review page, then performing the actual review itself. Finally, I will wait seven days (or longer, if I don't have time or the author requests it), then either pass it, if improvements have been made, or fail it, if they havn't. I don't believe I have ever passed an article straight up, since I will usually have an issue or two, which may not cause it to be failed otherwise, but that I would like to see it fixed.
Step 1 - Finding an article to review[edit]
First, I will look through the list of Good Article Nominations until I find one that interests me. Then, I will post a notice that I'm reviewing it on the page and begin reading.
Step 2 - First read-through[edit]
Here, I will read the article and make a few notes (in the ==Notes== section) about the article. Once this is done, I will go over my notes, then read the article a second time.
Step 3 - Second read-through[edit]
During the second reading, I will comb slowly through the article, finding things that just don't work. If they're simple, I'll quickly fix them, but if they're not, I'll list the problems in the Notes section.
Step 4 - Formal Review[edit]
Next, I do the full review with the help of my GA review template, systematically going through each of the criteria and giving it a pass, fail, or neutral grade. As I do this, I rarely give specific rationale as to why I have passed something, but often will for anything I have failed or given a neutral grade.
Step 5 - Improvements[edit]
If the article does not fully meet the criteria (which it often doesn't), I will put the review on hold for seven days in order for improvements to be made, which they often are.
Step 6 - Promotion[edit]
This is my least favorite part of the review process, since it is easily the most boring. I will list the article as a Good Article in all the proper places, then notify the nominator on his/her talk page.