Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions

 

Ensure that the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability. Then check the article against the good article criteria and make any improvements that you think are necessary. More information may be found at the guide for nominating good articles. If you are not a significant contributor to the article, secure the consent of the significant contributors before nominating. The reviewer will be making suggestions to improve the article to GA quality during the review process; therefore, the review will require your involvement as a nominator. Before nominating an article, ensure that you will be able to respond to these comments in a timely manner.

1. Paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template.
2. For the |subtopic= parameter, add one of the following 30 subtopic sections headers that best defines the article:

   Agriculture, food and drink  · Art and architecture  · Computing and engineering  · Transport  · Geography  · Places  · World history  · Royalty, nobility and heraldry  · Language and literature  · Mathematics and mathematicians  · Film  · Television  · Media and drama  · Albums  · Songs  · Music  · Biology and medicine  · Chemistry and materials science  · Earth sciences  · Physics and astronomy  · Philosophy and religion  · Culture, sociology and psychology  · Education  · Economics and business  · Law  · Magazines and print journalism  · Politics and government  · Football  · Sports  · Recreation  · Video games  · Warfare

   If it fits under more than one category, choose the one that best fits. If it doesn't fit under any of the above categories, leave the field blank. The nomination will then be placed in the Miscellaneous section.

3. Save the page. A bot will add the nomination to the GA nominations page under the chosen subtopic heading to indicate that the article is ready to be reviewed.
4. (Optional): Consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate or joining a review circle. This does not imply quid pro quo. Helping to review articles will help the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to help pay it forward.

The user script GAN-helper can perform most of these steps automatically.

Depending on the size of the backlog, there may be a delay of many months before someone picks up the review. Conversely, it may only take a few days. If you are willing to do a review yourself, you can add your nomination to the review circles page. Do not start the review page yourself, as this may lead other reviewers to believe that your nomination is already under review.

Leaving a note for the reviewer: To leave a note related to the review, edit the |note= parameter of {{GA nominee}} on the article talk page. For example: {{GA nominee|...|note=I might not be able to respond to the review until next week. ~~~~}}. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to display the note.

Withdrawing: To withdraw a nomination before the review has begun, remove the {{GA nominee}} template from the article talk page. To withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, let the reviewer know; the reviewer will then fail the nomination.

You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner (if you absolutely cannot, make sure another editor can). Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer. Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow you time to fix any issues that may arise (reviewers may shorten/extend the time limit if they wish). If a review stalls or there is disagreement over interpretation of the good article criteria, you may want to consider allowing the review to fail, then renominating the article (to get a different reviewer). Or, you may try asking the nominator to ask for a second opinion. Otherwise, you may ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page.

A reviewer who starts a review has committed to complete it in a timely manner, but in rare occasions a reviewer withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page as follows: Increment the |page= parameter (e.g. from "page=1" to "page=2"), and change the |status= parameter from "status=onreview" or "status=onhold" to the blank setting "status=". You may also remove the transclusion of the former GA review from the article talk page if you wish, but this is not essential. Save the page. A bot will reset the nomination in its same position in the queue on the GA nominations page. If the reviewer has not made any comments other than opening the review, it may be better to request a G6 deletion of the review page and start over.

At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may ask for additional input on the GA nominations discussion page.

If the article has been promoted to good article status, consider submitting an interesting fact from the article within seven days to be featured on the Did You Know...? section on the main page.

Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. Before starting a review, you should familiarize yourself with the good article criteria. These are the standards an article must meet in order to be granted good article status. It is also suggested that you read the guide for reviewing good articles and an essay on what the good article criteria are not. Ensure all articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Good article mentors are available to help you during your review. If you need further clarification, post a question at the GA nominations discussion page.

To review an article you must:

• Be a registered user—make sure you are logged in.
• Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review—opening your own review is not allowed and will delay the article's review.

1. Remember: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. Consider reviewing only one or two articles at a time and plan to wrap up your review in about seven days.
2. You may add comments to a review page started by another reviewer. These reviews will be closed by the first reviewer. Add comments to a review by following the discuss review link appearing on the GA nominations page or near the top of the article talk page.
3. Choose an article that you would like to review. Start the review by following the start review link appearing on the GA nominations page or near the top of the article talk page. A new GA review page will be created. You may add opening remarks, an initial review, or one of these templates to the bottom of this review page.
4. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is being reviewed, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article is being reviewed.

If you are in a situation where you absolutely cannot continue to review the article, please contact the nominator. Consider helping them find a new reviewer. If necessary, leave a note on the GA nominations discussion page.

1. Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on the good article criteria, determine whether the article should be quick failed. An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases. This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source.
2. If the article is considered fully compliant with the good article criteria, provide a review on the review page justifying that decision and "pass" the nomination. You may use these templates to help organize your review if you wish.
3. If the article is considered only partially compliant or non-compliant with the good article criteria, provide a review on the review page detailing what criteria it does not meet and state what is needed to bring the article up to standard.
4. If the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself.
5. Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review. If so, note this on the review page and close the review as a "pass". If not, close it as a "fail". You may also make suggestions for further improvements, if appropriate.
6. Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. Depending on the responsiveness of the nominator, you may decide to put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow time for issues to be fixed. You may also ask for a second opinion. See below for how to pass, fail, hold, or ask for a second opinion.

Using a review template is not a requirement; it is simply a way to help keep the review organized. If this is your first review, it is beneficial to ask one of the good article mentors to look at your review.

 

If you determine that the article meets the good article criteria, you may pass it by doing the following:

1. Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=|oldid=}}
2. The five tildes supply the date of the review. Fill in the |topic= and |page= number of the review by copying both parameter values from the replaced template. (The topic parameter refers to the topic values found here; the template automatically converts GA nominee subtopics into GA topics. The page parameter should be the number of the review subpage; that is, the n in {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} – a number only; no letters.) Fill the |oldid= parameter with the revision number for the current revision at the time of promotion.
3. Update any {{WikiProject}} templates on the article talk page by changing the |class= parameter value to "GA", as in {{WikiProject|...|class=GA}}. If they are grouped inside {{WikiProject banner shell}} add the parameter described only to that template.
4. Save the page. A bot will add the good article icon to the article, will remove the nomination from the GA nominations page, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article has passed. Do not add the icon manually unless the bot fails to function properly.
5. Be sure the review page justifies how the article meets the good article criteria. Your review may also include a personal note of congratulations for the nominator.
6. List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles in the appropriate section.

The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically.

 

If you determine that the article does not meet the good article criteria, you may fail it by doing the following:

1. Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page with {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=|oldid=}}
2. The five tildes supply the date of the review. Fill in the |topic= and |page= number of the review by copying both parameter values from the replaced template. (The topic parameter refers to the topic values found here; the template automatically converts GA nominee subtopics into GA topics. The page parameter should be the number of the review subpage; that is, the n in {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} – a number only; no letters.) Fill the |oldid= parameter with the revision number for the current revision at the time of failure.
3. Save the page. A bot will remove the nomination from the GA nominations page and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article has failed.
4. Be sure the review page specifies what needed to be done to the article for it to meet the good article criteria. Your review may also include a personal note of encouragement for the nominator, urging them to renominate the article once the problems have been addressed.

The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically.

 

If you determine that the article could meet the good article criteria if a few issues are fixed and you wish to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected (generally seven days), you may put the article on hold by doing the following:

1. Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "onhold", as in
   {{GA nominee|...|status=onhold}}
2. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is on hold, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article is on hold.
3. Be sure the review page specifies what needs to be done to the article for it to meet the good article criteria.

The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically.

 

If you are unsure whether an article meets the good article criteria, you may call for another reviewer or subject expert to provide a second opinion by doing the following:

1. Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "2ndopinion", as in
   {{GA nominee|...|status=2ndopinion}}
2. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that a second opinion is requested.
3. Be sure the review page specifies in what way you are looking for a second opinion.

The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically.

Your call for a second opinion may be answered by doing the following:

1. Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "onreview", as in
   {{GA nominee|...|status=onreview}}
2. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to remove the request for a second opinion.
3. Be sure the review page provides the requested second opinion and any other assistance.

The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically.

Do not close a review started by another reviewer without first attempting to contact the first reviewer. While there is no deadline, keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.

If you have any questions regarding anything on this page or good articles in general, please check the frequently asked questions page or leave a message at the GA nominations discussion page.