Wikipedia:Good article criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:What is a good article)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
Good article nominations

The good article criteria are the six standards or tests by which a good article nomination may be compared and judged to be a good article. A good article that has met the good article criteria may not have met the criteria for featured articles.[1] The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.

Criteria[edit]

Immediate failures[edit]

An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)[2] if, prior to the review:

  1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.
  2. It contains copyright infringements.
  3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}).
  4. The article is not stable due to edit warring on the page.

In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed.

The six good article criteria[edit]

GA candidate.svg

A good article is—

  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[3]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:[4]
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[5]
    2. 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;[6]
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and
    2. 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.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9]
    1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[10]

What cannot be a good article?[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria. At the time of assessment, they may or may not meet featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.
  2. ^ Quick fail was added to the process solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination, since anyone can nominate to GA (see WP:SNOW). Unless the reviewer is dealing with a "drive-by" nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review, quick fail should normally not be used.
  3. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
  4. ^ Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
  5. ^ Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
  6. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
  7. ^ The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  8. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
  9. ^ Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion.
  10. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then such images should be provided.