Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | July Backlog Drive | Mentorship | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
These are the instructions explaining, step-by-step, exactly how to nominate and review a good article nomination (GAN) according to the good article criteria so that it may become a good article (GA). A guideline on best practice when reviewing can be found at the guide for nominating good articles.
Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should leave a message on the article talk page prior to nominating. Prepare the article by comparing it to the good article criteria and make sure you will be available to respond to any questions the reviewer may have.
((subst:GAN|subtopic=))
to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template.|subtopic=
parameter, add one of the following 30 subtopic sections headers that best defines the article:
Depending on the size of the backlog, there may be a delay of many months before someone picks up the review. 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.
You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions in a timely manner. Other editors are also welcome to comment, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer.
If a review appears to be abandoned by the reviewer first try to contact the reviewer through pings or on their talk page. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. Post a request to the nominations talk page and someone will take it over or put it back in the queue.
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 nominations talk page.
If the article has been promoted to good article status, consider submitting an interesting fact from the article to be featured on the Did You Know...? section on the main page.
Before starting a review, you should familiarize yourself with the good article criteria. It is also suggested that you read the guide for reviewing good articles and an essay on what the good article criteria are not. Good article mentors are available to help you during your review or you can post a question at the GA nominations talk page.
Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner.
If you are in a situation where you 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 talk page.
A guideline on best practice when reviewing can be found at the guide for nominating good articles. There is flexibility on how you conduct the review. While you base whether the article passes or fails on the good article criteria, other comments to improve the article are usually welcome. Most articles require some work before they can be passed.
Allow time for the nominator to respond to concerns. You may decide to put the review "on hold" to allow time for issues to be fixed. You may also ask for a second opinion on any question or disputes over whether part or all of the article meets the criteria.
If you determine that the article meets the good article criteria, you may pass it by doing the following:
((GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=))
or ((GA|~~~~~|subtopic=|page=))
|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.)|class=
parameter value to "GA", as in ((WikiProject|...|class=GA))
If you determine that the article does not meet the good article criteria, you may fail it by doing the following:
((FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=))
|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.)You have the option to put the article on hold if a few issues remain and you wish to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected by doing the following:
|status=
parameter to "onhold", as in((GA nominee|...|status=onhold))
If you are unsure if 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:
|status=
parameter to "2ndopinion", as in((GA nominee|...|status=2ndopinion))
Your call for a second opinion may be answered by doing the following:
|status=
parameter to "onreview", as in((GA nominee|...|status=onreview))
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.