Jump to content
 







Main menu
    


Navigation  


●Main page
 ●Contents
 ●Current events
 ●Random article
 ●About Wikipedia
 ●Contact us
 ●Donate
  



Contribute  


●Help
 ●Learn to edit
 ●Community portal
 ●Recent changes
 ●Upload file
  







Search  

































●Create account

●Log in
 









●Create account
 ● Log in
  



Pages for logged out editors learn more  


●Contributions
 ●Talk
  


















Contents

   



(Top)
  


1 Reviewer templates  


1.1  GA review  


1.1.1  Comments:  








2 Notification templates  













Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates






●বাংলা
 ●Türkçe
  
Edit links
  








●Project page
 ●Talk
  
















●Read
 ●Edit
 ●View history
  







Tools
    


Actions  


●Read
 ●Edit
 ●View history
  



General  


●What links here
 ●Related changes
 ●Upload file
 ●Special pages
 ●Permanent link
 ●Page information
 ●Get shortened URL
 ●Download QR code
 ●Wikidata item
  



Print/export  


●Download as PDF
 ●Printable version
  















Appearance
    

 





From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
< Wikipedia:Good article nominations

This is a list of templates that you might find useful when reviewing Good articles. They are for convenience only, a review is perfectly valid without the use of any template as long as it addresses the criteria.

Reviewer templates[edit]

{{FGAN}}

{{subst:FGAN}} - For failed Good article reviews

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 1, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Article stability?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Pass


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. 

{{subst:FGAN
|well written =
|accuracy =
|thorough =
|NPOV = 
|stable = 
|images =
|closing comments = <!-- OPTIONAL -->
}}— ~~~~
{{GAList}}

{{subst:GAList}} - The original reviewer list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a(prose, spelling, and grammar): b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a(reference section): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR): d(copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a(major aspects): b(focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: 
{{subst:GAList
|overcom=
|1a=
|1b=
|1com=
|2a=
|2b=
|2c=
|2d=
|2com=
|3a=
|3b=
|3com=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6b=
|6com=
|7=
|7com=
}}
{{GAList2}}

{{subst:GAList2}} - A slight variation on GAList

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: 


{{subst:GAList2
|overcom=
|1a=
|1acom=
|1b=
|1bcom=
|2a=
|2acom=
|2b=
|2bcom=
|2c=
|2ccom=
|2d=
|2dcom=
|3a=
|3acom=
|3b=
|3bcom=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6acom=
|6b=
|6bcom=
|7=
|7com=
}}
{{GABox}}

{{subst:GABox}} - for those that like boxes

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a(prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
    b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a(references):
    b(citations to reliable sources):
    c(OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a(major aspects):
    b(focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a(images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · · 
{{subst:GABox
|1a=
|1b=
|2a=
|2b=
|2c=
|2d=
|3a=
|3b=
|4=
|5=
|6a=
|6b=
|7=
}}
{{GATable}}

{{subst:GATable}} - the criteria in table form

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
{{GAHybrid}}

{{subst:GAHybrid}} - Table and lists combined

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Agood article is—

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    3. it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review:

  1. Well-written:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
Result
Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  • ^ Either parenthetical referencesorfootnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  • ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  • ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  • ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
    • {{GAProgress}}

    {{subst:GAProgress}} - This template can only assess each criteria with pass/fail/neutral etc. Should not be used without further comments.

    Good Article review progress box
    Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. noWP:OR () 2d. noWP:CV ()
    3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
    Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed 
    {{subst:GAProgress | prose = | mos = | reflayout = | reliablesources = | originalresearch =
| copyvio =  | broadness = | focus = | neutral = | stable = | freeortaggedpics =
| picsrelevant = }}
    {{GAIconList}}

    {{subst:GAIconList}} – Icon based list with additional icons

    Template

    GA review[edit]

    Last updated: 08:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) by Argenti Aertheri

    See what the criteria are and what they are not

    1) Well-written

    1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
    1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

    2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check

    2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
    2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
    2c) it contains no original research
    2d) it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism

    3) Broad in its coverage

    3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
    3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

    4) Neutral:

    4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

    5) Stable:

    5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

    6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

    6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
    6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

    Overall:

    Comments:[edit]

    Icons

    Icons for use with {{GAIconList}}, there are three new ones here, highlighted in italics

    • y, yes, pass, good, ok, k, +, aye all produce a pass symbol:
  • n, no, fail, bad, nk, -, nay all produce a fail symbol:
  • ?, ??, ???, dunno, question, huh all produce a question symbol:
  • wtf produces Wikipedia's "I am out of my comfort zone" symbol:
  • hold and on hold produce the on hold symbol:
  • neu, neutral and und produce the neutral symbol:
  • pos, likely, prob, p and probably produce the probably symbol:
  • unlikely, u and un produce the unlikely symbol:
  • irrelevant, i and irr produce the unlikely symbol:
  • Anything else, including no input produces the unassessed symbol

    • Features

    • Icons are all parallel down the left side, allowing you to easily check if you missed anything.
    • Three additional icons: probably, unlikely, and irrelevant. I got annoyed that there wasn't a decent way to mark your progress with a review, so I added icons for when the article is probably going to pass that criteria, and for when it's unlikely to pass. I also added an icon for when the criterion just doesn't apply, for example media licensing is irrelevant if there's no media.
    • The default icon is the unassessed symbol, because if it’s anything else it complicates tracking what you haven't assessed.
    • Separate section at the bottom for comments, because they're easier to write, and easier to read, if they aren't scattered around the template.
    • The comments section is just a plain text field, you can use whatever wikitext you want without worrying about breaking anything.
    • Includes the actual text of the GA criteria as it exists when you start the review, including links.
    • Includes links to what the criteria are, and what they are not.
    • Automatically includes user name and time of last edit, which can be removed by removing '''Last updated:''' {{{last-update|{{#time:H:i, j F Y|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}} (UTC)}}} by {{REVISIONUSER}} from the top of the substituted template.
    {{subst:GAIconList
| 1a = 
| 1b = 
| 2a = 
| 2b = 
| 2c = 
| 2d = 
| 3a = 
| 3b = 
| 4 = 
| 5 = 
| 6a = 
| 6b = 
| overall = 
}}

    Notification templates[edit]

    {{subst:GANotice}} – To notify a nominator that you have passed, failed, held or started a review

    Your GA nomination of Article

    The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Article for comments about the article. Well done!

    Your GA nomination of Article

    The article Article you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Article for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.

    Your GA nomination of Article

    The article Article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Article for issues.

    Your GA nomination of Article

    Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Article you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. 

    {{subst:GANotice
|result=<!--Pass, fail or hold. A blank field defaults to an introduction-->
|article=
}} ~~~~

    {{subst:GANotice2}} – A template to notify contributors or the nominator that you will be reviewing the article

    GA Notice
    GA Notice
    Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article [[Talk:{{{article}}}/GA{{{page}}}|{{{article}}}]] in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to [[User_talk:{{{user}}}|contact me]] with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

    {{{sign}}}
    · · · 
    {{subst:GANotice2
|article=
|sign=~~~~
|page=
|user=
|type=
}}

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/templates&oldid=1172148962"




    ●This page was last edited on 25 August 2023, at 08:03 (UTC).
    ●Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.


    ●Privacy policy
    ●About Wikipedia
    ●Disclaimers
    ●Contact Wikipedia
    ●Code of Conduct
    ●Developers
    ●Statistics
    ●Cookie statement
    ●Mobile view


    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki