Good article mentors provide assistance and feedback to editors who are new to reviewing. If you are interested in reviewing but are not sure where to start, requesting a mentor can make the process easier. To request a mentor, press the button below and follow the instructions.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Mentors can:

Help find an article suitable for a new reviewer to review
Explain any of the good article criteria and how to assess them
Check a review to make sure it was done correctly
Answer any other questions about how to review a good article nomination

Mentors are not expected to complete any part of the review. Mentorship is optional, and you do not have to request a mentor to begin reviewing.

Mentors ()

This is a list of users who have volunteered to be good article mentors. If you wish to choose a specific mentor, you can leave a message on one of their talk pages. Remember that not all of them might be active or be able to help at any given time.

If you're an experienced reviewer, you can add your name! You do not need to be on this list to answer a request for mentorship. Mentors are encouraged to add the mentorship page to their watchlist.

Current requests

Sangsangaplaz

I have reviewed a few articles like Vinland Saga (TV series) but I wish to gain more experience.

Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 10:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangsangaplaz: Hey there. I think you're doing very well on reviewing prose, you just need to make sure to cover other areas of the criteria as well. For example, doing spot-checks of the cited sources to ensure they verify the information in the article and look out for possible plagiarism of the sources. Earwig's tool can help with the latter. In addition to the prose review, a review of the sources will go a long way to make doubly sure an article meets all the criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst Just a quick question. How I do I verify the reliability of sources? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangsangaplaz: Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a good guideline for determining the reliability of sources. It goes over different types of sources, which ones are questionable and the context to consider when determining reliability. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I already read WP:RELY but I've seen and added sources which were already found to be unreliable by consensus in Wikiproject pages. I just want to make sure I remove those kinds of sources. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 06:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrainman

Hi,

I have already started a review here: Talk:June/GA2. With regard to this one, it seems not to meet the broad coverage criteria. I wonder if I was right about that, with a subject such as this its a little hard to decide what proper coverage would look like.

Thankyou

𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Terrainman. To me, at a glance, the article looks like it might be a GA, or close to it. In terms of lead citations, please note WP:LEADCITE. It's common to not duplicate citations in the introduction, and perfectly acceptable as long as the lead only summarizes the body. You indicate it's a info-dump, but don't really give feedback on how it could be written better and how being an infodump doesn't meet the criteria. In terms of broadness, I feel the article does meet that criteria. There is no 'major' aspect missing. If there is a single bit of information missing (which countries use a word that looks like "June"), that's not a reason to fail the article, as this can be remedied within 7 days.

Overall, the goal of a GA review is to improve the article. The best way to do this is by giving a list of actionable feedback. Your review is very short so far. Please try to help the nominator improve the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've since learned about leadcite. 'Giving actionable feedback' is something I will make sure to do in the future. I am still not convinced the article is broad in its coverage, but that is just my gut instinct rather than anything actionable to the author, so I will mark it as neutral. I retracted my written review and will rewrite the review in the future. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing @Terrainman: usually reviews are done within 7 days. Of course, with the holidays that might be difficult. But it would be good to let the nominator know when you plan to finish the review roughly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordano53

Greetings! I have written a review on Talk:Rodney, Mississippi/GA1. It has been a few years since I've last reviewed, so I'm a bit rusty. I analyzed using the criteria and did my best to explain any concerns in great detail. I just wanted to ensure I'm not missing anything or that there aren't any glaring issues with my review. I'd like to help with the backlog of nominations, so I just want to be on the right track before doing so!

Thanks!

Jordano^5³ 23:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Article, and well cited. I think you are right to push on some tone aspects. The weakest area may be the lead section, but that is so tough to learn except through experience. I think your approach to encourage all the great aspects while providing aspects which could be improved (and not required for GA) is great. The nominator has far and away built the article themselves and they've done excellent work.

I wonder if you could share some info and see how they'd like to approach it -- do they know about a bibliography section for the book and then having the references be with the page numbers? Do they know about {{rp|p=14}} that they could embed? I couldn't get their last reference ("AHQ: Black Legislators in Arkansas, 231") to resolve, do they know about |url-status=? I see an error in the info box because they've included a <ref> tag in the elevation that causes it to be unable to convert. Again, those might not be things you are asking for them to change, but instead wondering how they want to move forward.

I think GAN is a great touch point to expose editors to areas you've grown familiar with over your reviews, that they might not know about. It is so much easier to discover information when you have an issue instead of just hoping to come across it organically in policy pages. Again, I think the approach is great, and love to see the hands-on approach to jump into quick fixes. And please, take any of this feedback that you find useful and throw away the rest :) Matthew Yeager (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight as well as for some examples! The elevation issue was actually caused by me, and I have fixed that. I also went ahead and switched the URL status for that link. I thought about the "bibliography" example as well, although it's nice to hear a second opinion confirm it. Jordano^5³ 00:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check a few sources to make sure there wasn't any close paraphrasing (Earwig can't detect this) and that the article is generally accurate to the sources? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did my routine spot-checks and checked for CLOP, although I should take note of that in the review. Jordano^5³ 00:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]