![]() | This user has helped promote [1] good articles on Wikipedia. |
Note: This essay has not been updated per the revision to the GA criteria in April 2007. Its content will remain mostly the same, however, some sections will need to be combined. Thanks for your patience. 10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Following is how I usually weigh the Good article criteria with my reviews, these explanations are subject to my whims. The criteria is listed first, followed by my explanations.
Note: I only review an article once. If I fail it and you resubmit it another user will have to review it. The more eyes that look at an article the better it will be.
It is well written. In this respect:
Well written is one of the most important aspects of GA. If an article reads poorly, no matter how well referenced it is, I will never pass it. Good articles must represent some of the best work on Wikipedia and that means the prose should be compelling and comprehensible. First and foremost a usuable encyclopedia must be easily readable.
It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
Factually accurate, along with well written and NPOV, is one of my big three. I am big on inline citations and still don't understand why they are not mandatory for good articles, they damn well should be. After all, how can one possibly know if something is factually accurate if the sources remain ambiguous and, often times, not immediately accesible.
It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
Broad in coverage, as said not as strict as FA. Should cover all major aspects of a topic. For example, that means a bio shouldn't exclude the first 30 years of someone's life or an article about a building shouldn't consist of only information about architecture.
It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
How I apply Criteria #4
Being a semi working journalist NPOV is one of the most important GA criteria. I apply it relentlessly. Weasel words, some, many, numerous, etc. and other weasely words, such as 'however' and 'although' register on my radar almost instantaneously and raise all kinds of red flags for the rest of the review. I search out, especially harshly, subtle POV, that many editors don't notice.
It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
Stability: Easy here. If the article is subject of ongoing edit warring, resolve the issues first and then submit the article. Edit warring is an automatic fail. See WP:EW, WP:EQ, WP:3RR.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
Images: Pretty lax here. [2] If you have images, don't steal them, make sure they are appropriately tagged. Especially fair use images. See WP:FU and WP:IMAGE. When in doubt check out Wikimedia Commons for free use images that are easily utilized in Wikipedia, (i.e. you do nothing different to use them).
I will quick fail an article, without a full review, if it contains negative tags (OR, NPOV, etc.), which obviously affect the article. If there is a neutrality tag and the talk page makes the article look disputed, yeah, that's a fail. I'll try to give some leeway, depending on the circumstances. If an article has more than five {{ fact}} tags , that is generally a good sign that the 'Factually Accurate' criterion is not being adhered to, most likely a quick fail is in order. Sometimes I check images in my first run through of an article, assessing for quick fail, but would be more likely to hold an article (which I don't like to do) for image tags.
If I have put your article on Hold and the concerns that caused the hold are not addressed within seven days I will have to fail it if someone else doesn't, which does happen.
As of 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I have been feeling pretty nice and have been using holds liberally. A Wikismile!
IvoShandor has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() | This user has helped promote [1] good articles on Wikipedia. |
Note: This essay has not been updated per the revision to the GA criteria in April 2007. Its content will remain mostly the same, however, some sections will need to be combined. Thanks for your patience. 10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Following is how I usually weigh the Good article criteria with my reviews, these explanations are subject to my whims. The criteria is listed first, followed by my explanations.
Note: I only review an article once. If I fail it and you resubmit it another user will have to review it. The more eyes that look at an article the better it will be.
It is well written. In this respect:
Well written is one of the most important aspects of GA. If an article reads poorly, no matter how well referenced it is, I will never pass it. Good articles must represent some of the best work on Wikipedia and that means the prose should be compelling and comprehensible. First and foremost a usuable encyclopedia must be easily readable.
It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
Factually accurate, along with well written and NPOV, is one of my big three. I am big on inline citations and still don't understand why they are not mandatory for good articles, they damn well should be. After all, how can one possibly know if something is factually accurate if the sources remain ambiguous and, often times, not immediately accesible.
It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
Broad in coverage, as said not as strict as FA. Should cover all major aspects of a topic. For example, that means a bio shouldn't exclude the first 30 years of someone's life or an article about a building shouldn't consist of only information about architecture.
It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
How I apply Criteria #4
Being a semi working journalist NPOV is one of the most important GA criteria. I apply it relentlessly. Weasel words, some, many, numerous, etc. and other weasely words, such as 'however' and 'although' register on my radar almost instantaneously and raise all kinds of red flags for the rest of the review. I search out, especially harshly, subtle POV, that many editors don't notice.
It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
Stability: Easy here. If the article is subject of ongoing edit warring, resolve the issues first and then submit the article. Edit warring is an automatic fail. See WP:EW, WP:EQ, WP:3RR.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
Images: Pretty lax here. [2] If you have images, don't steal them, make sure they are appropriately tagged. Especially fair use images. See WP:FU and WP:IMAGE. When in doubt check out Wikimedia Commons for free use images that are easily utilized in Wikipedia, (i.e. you do nothing different to use them).
I will quick fail an article, without a full review, if it contains negative tags (OR, NPOV, etc.), which obviously affect the article. If there is a neutrality tag and the talk page makes the article look disputed, yeah, that's a fail. I'll try to give some leeway, depending on the circumstances. If an article has more than five {{ fact}} tags , that is generally a good sign that the 'Factually Accurate' criterion is not being adhered to, most likely a quick fail is in order. Sometimes I check images in my first run through of an article, assessing for quick fail, but would be more likely to hold an article (which I don't like to do) for image tags.
If I have put your article on Hold and the concerns that caused the hold are not addressed within seven days I will have to fail it if someone else doesn't, which does happen.
As of 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I have been feeling pretty nice and have been using holds liberally. A Wikismile!
IvoShandor has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.