This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: These are some answered queries regarding the Featured article and Good article review process. This essay is under construction as of 14:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC).

This essay tries to answer some queries regarding the Featured article and Good article review process. There are very few pages documenting the FA review process, what is required of the reviewers etc., in addition to the need for willing GA reviewers due to its large respective backlog. This is intended for new editors or interested reviewers; most of these answers are summarised responses from editors experienced in the respective area. General questions concerning both are in the FA section.

1. How is criteria 1c ("is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") verified?

   Due to doing this being largely impractical, often this isn't verified unless the concerned subject matter expert points it out. ^[1]

2. How are factual inaccuracies and hidden copyright violations found out? Are citations just accepted in good faith?

   "Spot checks" for FACs are done, especially for online citations. The number of sources checked can be dependent on the "trust"-level of the nominator, sometimes the reviewer even verifies offline sources in a library. An article ridden with such problems would be opposed until a neutral third party checked all the sources for errors. Sometimes random Google searches are done and various online tools ^[2] are available for detecting copyright violations. ^[1]

3. How does question 1 and 2 apply to hard and obscure topics which require expert attention (or simply, topics which may have only a specific target audience)?

   For question 2, that usually did not get more difficult for obscure topics. One can check that a statement is backed by a source, even if the subject is obscure. For question 1, it's much more difficult. Occasionally, with (for example) mathematical topics, one editor would seek out comment from a subject matter expert. In practice, articles in these obscure topics would often fail for lack of support, because few people were willing to assert that they were factually accurate and complete. ^[1]

4. How is each source's reliability confirmed? There are some cases where the given source, on further investigation and scrutiny, is found to be unreliable.

   Not easy to answer. For controversial topics, reviews make sure all relevant points are represented per NPOV; sometimes a source can be questionable on its own. ^[1]

5. To a layperson, a FA review seems like a formal process where any editor can voice their views and check an article based on the FACR and only if complete consensus is found, the review is successful, else it fails. Is this true?

   Not quite. A year ago, ^[1] FACs usually needed three supporting statements without outstanding objections, and many nominations died from lack of support, even when there was no objection. (It was possible but rare to see an excellent article get two supporting statements, and then fail for lack of support) On the other hand, there were some cases where one reviewer objected that (for instance) the article did not adequately balance disparate views on the topic, but other reviewers thought that it did so just fine, and that the objecting reviewer simply wanted his own preferred theory to be given stronger weight. In these cases, if there were several supporters who offered (seemingly) balanced views, and a nominator who convinced most reviewers that he tried to fix the objecting reviewer's objections, the nomination would often pass anyway. ^[1]

6. Observed that some participants do a "source review", "image review" during FARs; what do those involve and are those compulsory? are there any other types?

1. Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer avoid an article where they have not much access to any of the sources given? or fail it if the nominator has partial access themselves?

   This varies from editor to editor. Hard-to-access sources sometimes have to be accepted in good faith, for example, asking for cite quotations or telling the nominator to re-check a specific page of a citation to see whether it supports the content. ^[3] Access to everything is not needed, only a check whether they exist and are reliable. ^[4] For example, Worldcat can be used to check if a book exists. ^[5] One editor feels that an article full of such sources should be avoided. ^[6] Depending on one's personal preferences, a certain number of references can be checked to confirm what is being said there matches with the article or to root out plagiarism. Other sources can be used for content which is cited to those hard to access references or they can post at the WP:RX. If the said content cannot be found elsewhere, then its relevance can be questioned and source quotations can be demanded. ^[6] No one expects a reviewer to verify even the sources that require a payment. ^[4]

2. Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it?

   Not required but it helps. ^{[3] [7]} This depends on the reviewer's judgement. One editor says that broadness per the GA criteria means it should cover the aspects that a general reader would require, not what an expert would, unlike the FA criteria. ^[6] Reviewers can do a background research on the topic to confirm whether the major aspects are covered; other encyclopaedias can be useful. ^[6] Another says that it is required so that the reviewer can point out what's missing in an article. ^[5] It is recommended that the reviewer initially take on articles they are well-versed in, as they get experience, they can review topics that they have no prior background knowledge. ^[4]