Wikipedia:Good article help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsDiscussionReassessmentReportHelp Desk
Welcome to the Good Article Help Desk
  • This page is for asking questions relating to a Good article you have nominated or are reviewing.
  • For suggestions relating to the Good article process ask at the nominations talk page.
  • For suggestions relating to changes or additions to the Good article criteria ask at the criteria talk page.

Search the Frequently Asked Questions

Search the Good article archives


The following is a list of users who have volunteered to act as mentors to Good article reviewers. New reviewers are strongly encouraged to contact one of the editors below on their user talk page for assistance and advice on using the Good article nominations process, applying the Good article criteria, and producing a good review. All reviewers are welcome to contact mentors for advice on individual issues.

Mentor list

Mentors often specialize in reviewing articles within a particular area. They also may have expertise in a particular aspect of the Good article process. This is indicated after their user names below. If you wish to mentor new reviewers please add your name to the list. Add name

  1. Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) – Can assist with issues concerning images, inline citations/references, GA sweeps, and GA nominations general questions. A list of the reviews I have performed can be seen at my GA subpage.
  2. bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) – Mostly experienced with CVG and organism GAs, but I'm pretty sure I can handle image, citation, and general questions about GAN.
  3. Yamanbaiia (talk · contribs) – Manual of Style enthusiast.
  4. Juliancolton (talk · contribs) – I can help with pretty much anything related to the GA process.
  5. OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) – Sweeps, references, weasel words, and jargon words
  6. Ceranthor (talk · contribs) – Open to helping with anything.
  7. Majoreditor (talk · contribs) – I am happy to help with most any type of review.
  8. Sanguis Sanies (talk · contribs) – Anything Film and Television related, I'll take stab at anything else: the two GA articles I helped were both Law related.
  9. Mm40 (talk · contribs) – Quality of prose and reference formatting are strong points in my reviews. History, arts, or sports related articles, see here for my reviews.
  10. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) – anything not pop culture or sports is probably fair game for me.
  11. Arsenikk (talk · contribs) – Transport (my field of excellence), video games, economics, business, politics, government, geography, places and engineering; I'm better at content, referencing, images, aesthetics and MOS than prose.
  12. Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) – Art, Architecture, Theatre, Film, most topics really, but I tend to avoid American sports, TV shows and contemporary pop music.
  13. Aircorn (talk · contribs) Willing to help out in most topics.
  14. Hahc21 (talk · contribs) – I love to help, mostly on inline citations, referencing and original research. Mainly on music and video game related articles.
  15. Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) - I've improved over 100 articles to Good article status and reviewed nearly 150. I'm particularly keen on music, albums and places/geography articles.
  16. Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) - More than happy to help.
  17. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) - I have around 60 reviews done so far. I tend to review music related articles. Happy to mentor anyone.
  18. FunkMonk (talk · contribs) — I mainly work on zoology articles, but have an interest in art (broadly speaking) and history as well.
  19. Iazyges (talk · contribs) — I mainly work with history, but happy to help out where needed.
  20. Gog the Mild (talk · contribs). I have nominated 50 GAs, mostly on history. I have reviewed 130, and would be happy to mentor on anything outside popular culture and sport.

Before reviewing your first Good article you should familiarise yourself with the Good article criteria. You may also wish to read the reviewing Good articles guideline and an essay on what the Good article criteria are not.

Reviewing guides from individual editors

Different reviewers have slightly different approaches when conducting reviews and some have outlined theirs below. If you have experience with reviewing and wish to write your own guideline feel free to add it. Add review

  1. Ealdgyth's cheatsheet;
  2. Joopercooper's guide;
  3. Wizardman's guide;
  4. User:Iazyges/Criteria

Anote Tong[edit]

I was going to start reviewing the article, nominated by User:LLcentury in May, but noticed his user page says he has retired. What happens to the nomination? Amitchell125 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC

Consistent uses of references?[edit]

I am reviewing Aneurin Bevan for GA. Please see Talk:Aneurin_Bevan/GA1#References/Notes which raised something about references I am not sure about. Probably not a major issue. Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved. AIRcorn (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Baralt Theatre - YouTube as a source[edit]

I'm currently reviewing the above for GA. Three of the sources are documentaries about the theatre, hosted on YouTube. The videos are clearly professionally produced and the article's main editor indicates that the contributors are respected professionals, e.g. President of the theatre foundation, architectural historian etc. Production is by TV URBE, the channel of Universidad Rafael Belloso Chacín, one of Venezuela's largest private universities. To me, they seem fine as sources, and this Wikipedia:Video links appears to support that view. But this isn't my area of expertise and I'd be grateful for any input from editors who do specialise in sources. Shall also post on the FAC page as I'd be interested in thoughts from there. Thanks in advance. KJP1 (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@KJP1: Personally I am not a big fan of using you tube at all. There are so many issues from copyright to reliability. It has such a bad reputation that it should generally be used as a last resort. If you tube is the best source we have, then maybe it should not be mentioned at all. Anyway from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:
Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.
I would want a pretty good reason why it should be used and you will need to be confident that the uploader is correct and someone worthy of inclusion. Also, depending on the length you may want a time period in the citation showing when the content is mentioned in the video (similar to a book page). AIRcorn (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Aircorn, Kingsif - Aircorn, many thanks indeed for the very full and helpful response. I fully understand the concerns re. YouTube. The problem we've got is that the building definitely is notable, but definitely isn't well-sourced. I've experienced this problem myself when writing about buildings. In this instance, the documentary is probably the best source available about the building, and it is produced by a reputable source, Universidad Rafael Belloso Chacín, although I obviously can't vouch for the uploader. What if it wasn't hosted on Youtube - would that make it more acceptable? I've copied the main article editor in and it may be that they can suggest a way forward. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I'm not sure what much else there is to say - the documentary is produced by a university and features subject matter experts on local and architectural history. It's not excessively long, and contains no POV; the charitable foundation of the theatre was involved in the documentary, so I will also add them as an RS. Of course, it's from Venezuela, where there's even struggle getting information on the major highways, politicians, and their World Heritage Sites because of a general lack of coverage and then even less in accessible reliable sources - self-publishing a documentary (in their cinema climate!) is one of the more successful ways of getting information out. Can I add that I have used two documentaries uploaded to YouTube as video sources for another Venezuela article that is currently at FAC, and the source checks have been happy with them? I don't want to sway you, though, since it should be case-by-case. Kingsif (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
You can only use the sources that are available to you. Kingsif has given a good reason why it should be used and it is unlikely to be fraudulently uploaded or covering biased information given the content. If it was hosted by the university (or linked to you tube from there) that would be better, but it is what it is. I would be inclined to allow it to be used. AIRcorn (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Really helpful - thanks very much indeed for your input. I’ll now get back to the review. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Huế[edit]

I started a review on Battle of Huế/GA1 a while ago and have just noticed that it is not showing as under review on the Nominations page. Have I done something wrong? Likewise Mayaguez incident. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)