This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles considered to be of good standard but which are not featured article quality. This page provides a list of articles which have been nominated for consideration for good article status and instructions for nominators and reviewers. Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article.
Find the most appropriate section from those listed on the right. If you are not sure which one section is best, use "Miscellaneous". Also choose the most appropriate subsection.
Add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection on this page where the article is listed}} to the top of the nominated article's talk page. The subtopic parameter is optional, but provides a convenient link from the article talk page to the subsection on this page where the article is listed.
List the article at the bottom of that subsection:
Copy this for the syntax: # {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~
Copy this for the edit summary: "Nominating [[ArticleName]]"
Note that it may take more than a few weeks for your nomination to be reviewed, as this page tends to have a large backlog. If you are are a registered user, you can help by reviewing other articles.
The Good Articles review process is an open and collaborative process that takes place over a minimum time period of three (3) days, to allow as many editors as possible to comment on it.
Choose an article to review, noting:
only registered users may review articles—make sure you are logged in;
you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, nor can you review an article if you are the nominator;
you should not pass an article where the review was initiated by another editor without assessing the problem;
if you are a new reviewer and still somewhat unfamiliar with the criteria, you should contribute to existing open reviews first, instead of initiating reviews on your own;
nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority.
Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry; this opens the article for review. Then on the article talk page, follow the link in the GA nominee template to start a review subpage. Leave an initial comment and an initial recommendation (pass or fail based on the criteria listed here), save the subpage, and transclude it onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window. If you wish, you may also inform the nominator of your actions (e.g., using {{subst:GANotice}}).
Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review.
The review should stay open for a minimum time period of three (3) days, unless a minimum of three (3) reviewers agree with your assessment to pass or fail the article.
Once at least three (3) days has elapsed, or three (3) reviewers agree that the article meets the Good article criteria:
Remove the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Passed [[''ArticleName'']]".
Replace {{GA nominee|...|subtopic=x|page=n}} on the article's talk page by {{GA|~~~~~|topic=x|page=n}}.[1] Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section. Consider listing it at the top of the good articles page under "Recently listed good articles".
Once at least three (3) days has elapsed, or three (3) reviewers agree that the article does not meet the Good article criteria:
If the article has some obvious and major issues, it can be failed immediately. Otherwise, if the problems may be able to be fixed relatively easy and quickly (within five to seven days), the review may stay open ("on hold") for a longer period of time. In this case, you may opt to be bold and fix the problems(s) yourself. Otherwise state which criteria were not met on the article's talk page. The template {{subst:FGAN}} may help you organize the critique. You can also use {{subst:GAList}} or {{subst:GAList2}} to generate a checklist. After five to seven days, re-evaluate the article in accordance with the Good Article criteria, and make the final decision to pass or fail it.
If the final decision is to fail it, please detail the article's flaws to help other editors improve the article for another GA nomination. Then remove the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Failed [[Article Name]]".
Replace {{GA nominee|...|subtopic=x|page=n}} on the article's talk page by {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=x|page=n}}.[1] Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
If your sole criterion for rejecting the article was a lack of appropriate references, please add the article to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list.
^ ab The five tildes supply the date of the review. The topic parameter refers to the topic abbreviations used on the GA page, but the template automatically converts GAN subtopics into GA topics, so reviewers can simply copy the parameter value (denoted x above) from one template to the other.
