Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQBacklog drivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

These are theinstructionsexplaining, step-by-step, exactly how tonominateandreviewagood article nomination(GAN) according to thegood article criteriaso that it may become agood article(GA). Instructions for both the nominator and the reviewer of the article are provided below.

Nominators are familiar with the article's subject and cited sources; nominators must havecontributed significantly to the article.Reviewers are impartial, registered users willing to help the Wikipedia community; reviewers must not have contributed significantly to the article.

Nominating

Step 1: Prepare the article

Ensure that the article meetsWikipedia policies and guidelinesas expected of any article, includingneutral point of view,verifiability,no original research,andnotability.Then check the article against thegood article criteriaand make any improvements that you think are necessary. More information may be found at theguide 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.

Step 2: Nominating the article

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 theMiscellaneoussection.

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): Considerreviewingtwo nominations for each one that you nominate or joining areview circle.This does not implyquid pro quo.Helping to review articles will help the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to helppay it forward.

The user scriptGAN-helpercan perform most of these steps automatically.

Step 3: Waiting

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 tothe 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.

Step 4: What to do during a review

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 toask for a second opinion.Otherwise, you may ask for assistance at theGA nominations discussionpage.

Step 4a: If a review seems abandoned

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 aG6deletion of the review page and start over.

Step 5: After the review

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 theGA 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 theDid You Know...?section on the main page.

Reviewing

Step 1: Familiarize yourself with the criteria

Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. Before starting a review, you should familiarize yourself with thegood 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 theguide for reviewing good articlesand an essay onwhat the good article criteria are not.Ensure all articles meetWikipedia policies and guidelinesas expected of any article, includingneutral point of view,verifiability,andno original research.Good article mentorsare available to help you during your review.If you need further clarification, post a question at theGA nominations discussionpage.

Step 2: Starting a review

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 thediscuss reviewlink appearing on theGA nominationspage or near the top of the article talk page.
3. Choose an article that you would like to review. Start the review by following thestart reviewlink 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 ofthese templatesto 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.

Step 3: Reviewing the article

1. Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on thegood article criteria,determine whether the article should bequick failed.An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases. Thismust includea 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 usethese templatesto 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 maybe boldand 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.

Step 4: Finishing the review

Passing

If you determine that the article meets thegood 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 thetopic 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, thenin{{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 atWikipedia:Good articlesin the appropriate section.

The user scriptGANReviewToolcan perform most of these steps automatically.

Failing

If you determine that the article does not meet thegood 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 thetopic 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, thenin{{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 scriptGANReviewToolcan perform most of these steps automatically.

Putting the article on hold

If you determine that the article could meet thegood article criteriaif 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 scriptGANReviewToolcan perform most of these steps automatically.

Asking for a second opinion

If you are unsure whether an article meets thegood 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 scriptGANReviewToolcan perform most of these steps automatically.

Answering a second opinion

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 scriptGANReviewToolcan perform most of these steps automatically.

Questions?

If you have any questions regarding anything on this page or good articles in general, please check thefrequently asked questionspage and leave a message at theGA nominations discussionpage.