Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles considered to be of good quality but which are unlikely to be suitable featured article candidates. The system is unbureaucratic: everyone can nominate good articles. Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as they are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed. Reviewers should understand the differences between the criteria for a good article and those for a featured article (a comparison is available). This list is for proposing possible promotion of articles to the community for consideration.
If you are interested in reviewing good article nominations regularly, please add yourself to the list of participants, listing your special interests if you wish to do so.
How to nominate a page
Before nominating, ensure that you are a registered user and have the time to implement changes or clarifications requested by a reviewer.
List the article at the bottom of the relevant section below using the syntax: # ((la|ArticleName)) ~~~~ with an edit summary of "Nominating [[ArticleName]]"
If the article is longer than 32 kB, add '''LONG''' to its listing: # '''LONG''' ((la|ArticleName)) ~~~~
Add ((GAnominee|2024-05-16)) to the nominated article's talk page.
When you nominate an article, please consider also choosing another article from the list to review.
How to identify long articles
Length relates to the main article prose, and articles whose body (excluding tables, lists and footnotes) is over about 32 KBytes (typically 6,000 - 9,000 words) may be considered long. A more detailed explanation of how length is measured and when it matters, can be found at Wikipedia:Article size.
Check that you have logged in; anons may not review articles.
Choose an article to review, noting:
You cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it.
You cannot pass an article if it was put on hold by another editor without assessing the problem.
Nominations near the top of the lists are oldest, and should be given higher priority.
Paste #:((GAReview)) ~~~~ below the entry to avoid multiple reviews on the same article.
Check "Quick-failed criteria" before reading the whole article and then go to next step if it passes. If not just write your reason in the talk page and go to fail process.
Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the criteria listed here.
Optionally inform the nominator about the decision (see ((GANotice)) for a placeholder)
Remove it from the list using the edit summary "Passed [[Article Name]]"
Replace ((GAnominee)) with ((GA|oldid=|topic=)) (or preferably, use the ArticleHistory template) on the article's talk page. To indicate the reviewed version of a Good Article, you will need an id number of the reviewed version. This number may be found by clicking the "Permanent link" in the toolbox on the left side navigation bar of the page. The id number is to be found in the url of this page mentioned as 'oldid'. The new template allows other editors to follow the article's milestones such as peer review and FAC in addition to GAC. Be sure to follow the syntax properly to allow the template to display correctly. Also categorize the article using the appropriate topic parameter (see full list of topic parameters).
Leave a review of the article, giving an overview of how you believe the article fulfills the 'Good Article' criteria (with suggestions to improve the article, if you can). ((PGAN)) may help you organise the critique. You can also use ((GAList)) to generate a checklist.
List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section and update the article count. Increase the count at the end of the appropriate section. Consider listing it in the infobox at the top of the page under "Recently listed good articles."
If you would like to pass the article but do not feel capable of an opinion on the accuracy of the article, you can put in on hold (see #On Hold below) and consult the relevant WikiProject. Please note, however, that most of the requirements of the Good Article criteria are formal, not substantive.
If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
Remove it from the list using the edit summary "Failed [[Article Name]]"
Replace ((GAnominee)) with ((FailedGA|2024-05-16)) (or preferably, use the ArticleHistory template) on the article's talk page.
State which criteria it failed to meet on the article's talk page. The template ((FGAN)) may help you organize the critique. You can also use ((GAList)) to generate a checklist. Please be fairly specific as to the article's flaws, so that the editors are better able to correct and improve the article for another potential GA nomination.
If your sole criterion for rejecting the article was a lack of appropriate references, please add the article to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list.
On Hold
You may put an article On Hold for a period of time. To put an article on hold:
Copy and paste the following below the nomination entry: #:((GAOnHold|Article)) ~~~~
On the talk page of the article, replace ((GAnominee)) with: ((GAonhold|2024-05-16))
Don't forget to specify on the talkpage what needs to be done, using ((GAList)) to generate a list, ((GANOH)) for greater explanation, or plain text - according to your choosing.
Request a second opinion
If you are uncertain whether an article fully meets the Good Article criteria, you may request that either a more experienced reviewer, or a reviewer with more knowledge on the subject, offer a second opinion on the article in question. To request a second opinion:
Copy and paste the following below the nomination entry: #:((GA2ndopinion|Article)) ~~~~
On the talk page of the article, replace ((GAnominee)) with: ((GA2ndoptalk|2024-05-16))
Don't forget to review the article yourself, stating what needs to be done on the article's talk page, using ((GAList)) to generate a list, ((GANOH)) for greater explanation, or plain text - according to your choosing.
More than one second opinion may be provided, and the article will be promoted or delisted based on the consensus of all reviewers providing opinions on the article.
