This help page is a
how-to guide. It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of
consensus and
vetting. |
If you need help while reviewing, you can create a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. |
Reviewing a good article (GA) means reading it carefully to make sure it meets the good article criteria. It's a great way to help out with an article and to improve your own editing skills in the process. If you have an account, then you can review any good article nomination as long as you haven't significantly contributed to the article. You don't even need to be knowledgeable about the subject. Try to find one that isn't already being reviewed by someone.
First, make sure you read the good article criteria. Keep them in mind while you're reviewing the article. Then go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations and pick an article to review. Once you've picked the nomination you want to review, click where it says start review and save the page. If you'd like, you can insert a GA template to decide on a format your review. Check that the nominator is actually a major contributor to the article and that they didn't nominate an article written by someone else.
Once you save the page, you are that article's reviewer. Make sure you complete the review in a timely manner, because the nominator will be looking forward to hearing your feedback. Reviewers usually finish their reviews in a few days to a week. If you expect it to take longer, try to let the nominator know ahead of time.
You can immediately end the review as a fail if:
|
Read the whole article carefully. Check to see if it meets the good article criteria. Whenever you find an issue, make a note of it and explain what needs to be fixed. Use these guides to check the article:
1. Well-written
| ||
---|---|---|
While reading the article, check to make sure that it's readable and that it makes sense. Make a list of every issue you find so the nominator can fix them. Be specific about where the issue is and what needs to be fixed.
Also check to make sure that it follows these five Manual of Style pages. Make a list of each phrase or sentence that needs improvement:
|
2. Verifiable with no original research
| ||
---|---|---|
Check for all of these things, and make a note that you checked each one in the review. Make a list of each sourcing or citation issue that you find.
Spot checks To review an article, you need to access its sources and compare them to what it says in the article. This step is really important, because it checks whether the information in the article is true and that the wording is not stolen from somewhere else. Pick a few sources from the references list to check. 10% of them is a good rule of thumb, but try to check at least five of them. The sources will usually have links where you can access them. If you're finding it difficult to access most or all of the sources, ask the nominator if there's a way to access them or if they can provide you with the relevant excerpt. Each time you access a new source, follow these steps:
If some of your source checks turn up problems, check a few more to see if it's a significant problem throughout the article. Again, note each source you check and list any issues you find. If you find that a significant proportion of the sources don't say what they're supposed to, make a note of this and fail the review. If there are large sections of text copied-and-pasted from other places, then immediately fail the review and tag the article as a copyright violation (if you don't know how to do this, reach out to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations or Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems).
|
3. Broad in its coverage
|
---|
Make sure the article address each major aspect of the topic. It doesn't need to be totally comprehensive, but all of the most important aspects should be covered. For a biography, this would mean that every period of the person's life should be given at least some coverage. For a film, this would mean coverage of the plot, cast, production, release, reception, and themes. If you're not sure what aspects should be covered, research the subject to see what reliable sources say about it, or look at other articles about similar topics to see what's covered there. If sources don't cover a certain aspect, then the article probably doesn't need to either. Also make sure that the article doesn't go into excessive detail. Any unhelpful trivia should be removed. Anything that is not part of the article's scope should also be removed. |
4. Neutral
| ||
---|---|---|
The article should be neutral in its tone. This means:
The article should also be neutral in its structure. This means:
|
5. Stable
|
---|
Check to make sure the article is stable. Check the article's history and its talk page to make sure there aren't any ongoing disputes surrounding the article. Constructive editing and collaboration do not count against an article's stability. Nor does vandalism. If there is a dispute, hold or fail the article so there's time for the dispute to end. |
6. Illustrated
|
---|
If the article has media files, such as images, video, or audio:
|
Once you've gone through all six criteria, you should have a list of everything you've checked and every issue that needs to be addressed. Post this list to the review page. Based on how close the article is to the good article criteria, there are a few things you can do:
If you need help with these actions, the GANReviewTool can do them automatically.
Assuming you put the article on hold, the nominator will be notified and they should begin addressing any issues with the article. Keep an eye on the review during this time, as the nominator may ask for clarification or give input on certain issues. Once the nominator says that they've fixed all of the issues, check to see if the fixes are sufficient. If all of the issues are fixed, then you can pass the article and the review is complete. Otherwise, note any issues that still exist.
Nominators will typically respond to all requests within a reasonable timeframe. How long this takes may vary, but seven days is a common estimate. If the nominator does not address the issues and you are unable to get a response from them on their user talk page after a reasonable amount of time, then you should fail the article.
Most issues can be solved by speaking with the nominator. If you need help with your review or there's a dispute that can't be resolved, consider requesting a second opinion. If you have a another issue that needs to be resolved, there are many places on Wikipedia where other editors are willing to help out:
This help page is a
how-to guide. It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of
consensus and
vetting. |
If you need help while reviewing, you can create a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. |
Reviewing a good article (GA) means reading it carefully to make sure it meets the good article criteria. It's a great way to help out with an article and to improve your own editing skills in the process. If you have an account, then you can review any good article nomination as long as you haven't significantly contributed to the article. You don't even need to be knowledgeable about the subject. Try to find one that isn't already being reviewed by someone.
First, make sure you read the good article criteria. Keep them in mind while you're reviewing the article. Then go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations and pick an article to review. Once you've picked the nomination you want to review, click where it says start review and save the page. If you'd like, you can insert a GA template to decide on a format your review. Check that the nominator is actually a major contributor to the article and that they didn't nominate an article written by someone else.
Once you save the page, you are that article's reviewer. Make sure you complete the review in a timely manner, because the nominator will be looking forward to hearing your feedback. Reviewers usually finish their reviews in a few days to a week. If you expect it to take longer, try to let the nominator know ahead of time.
You can immediately end the review as a fail if:
|
Read the whole article carefully. Check to see if it meets the good article criteria. Whenever you find an issue, make a note of it and explain what needs to be fixed. Use these guides to check the article:
1. Well-written
| ||
---|---|---|
While reading the article, check to make sure that it's readable and that it makes sense. Make a list of every issue you find so the nominator can fix them. Be specific about where the issue is and what needs to be fixed.
Also check to make sure that it follows these five Manual of Style pages. Make a list of each phrase or sentence that needs improvement:
|
2. Verifiable with no original research
| ||
---|---|---|
Check for all of these things, and make a note that you checked each one in the review. Make a list of each sourcing or citation issue that you find.
Spot checks To review an article, you need to access its sources and compare them to what it says in the article. This step is really important, because it checks whether the information in the article is true and that the wording is not stolen from somewhere else. Pick a few sources from the references list to check. 10% of them is a good rule of thumb, but try to check at least five of them. The sources will usually have links where you can access them. If you're finding it difficult to access most or all of the sources, ask the nominator if there's a way to access them or if they can provide you with the relevant excerpt. Each time you access a new source, follow these steps:
If some of your source checks turn up problems, check a few more to see if it's a significant problem throughout the article. Again, note each source you check and list any issues you find. If you find that a significant proportion of the sources don't say what they're supposed to, make a note of this and fail the review. If there are large sections of text copied-and-pasted from other places, then immediately fail the review and tag the article as a copyright violation (if you don't know how to do this, reach out to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations or Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems).
|
3. Broad in its coverage
|
---|
Make sure the article address each major aspect of the topic. It doesn't need to be totally comprehensive, but all of the most important aspects should be covered. For a biography, this would mean that every period of the person's life should be given at least some coverage. For a film, this would mean coverage of the plot, cast, production, release, reception, and themes. If you're not sure what aspects should be covered, research the subject to see what reliable sources say about it, or look at other articles about similar topics to see what's covered there. If sources don't cover a certain aspect, then the article probably doesn't need to either. Also make sure that the article doesn't go into excessive detail. Any unhelpful trivia should be removed. Anything that is not part of the article's scope should also be removed. |
4. Neutral
| ||
---|---|---|
The article should be neutral in its tone. This means:
The article should also be neutral in its structure. This means:
|
5. Stable
|
---|
Check to make sure the article is stable. Check the article's history and its talk page to make sure there aren't any ongoing disputes surrounding the article. Constructive editing and collaboration do not count against an article's stability. Nor does vandalism. If there is a dispute, hold or fail the article so there's time for the dispute to end. |
6. Illustrated
|
---|
If the article has media files, such as images, video, or audio:
|
Once you've gone through all six criteria, you should have a list of everything you've checked and every issue that needs to be addressed. Post this list to the review page. Based on how close the article is to the good article criteria, there are a few things you can do:
If you need help with these actions, the GANReviewTool can do them automatically.
Assuming you put the article on hold, the nominator will be notified and they should begin addressing any issues with the article. Keep an eye on the review during this time, as the nominator may ask for clarification or give input on certain issues. Once the nominator says that they've fixed all of the issues, check to see if the fixes are sufficient. If all of the issues are fixed, then you can pass the article and the review is complete. Otherwise, note any issues that still exist.
Nominators will typically respond to all requests within a reasonable timeframe. How long this takes may vary, but seven days is a common estimate. If the nominator does not address the issues and you are unable to get a response from them on their user talk page after a reasonable amount of time, then you should fail the article.
Most issues can be solved by speaking with the nominator. If you need help with your review or there's a dispute that can't be resolved, consider requesting a second opinion. If you have a another issue that needs to be resolved, there are many places on Wikipedia where other editors are willing to help out: