User:Aircorn/sandbox

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

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.

Nominating

Step 1: Preparation

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.

Step 2: Nomination

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  · Sports and 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 the Miscellaneous section.

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.

Step 3: Waiting

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.

Step 4: Review

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.

Step 5: After

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.

Reviewing

Step 1: Know the criteria

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.

Step 2: Starting a review

• You must be a registered user—make sure you are logged in.
• You must not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review.

1. Choose an article from the GA nominations page that you would like to review.
2. Start the review by following the start review link 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 of these templates to the bottom of this review page.
3. 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.

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.

Step 3: Reviewing the article

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.

1. Article meets the GA criteria: You can pass the article without asking for feedback from the nominator. On the review page note how the article meets the criteria, not just that it does.
2. Article needs some work to meet the GA criteria: Provide a review detailing how it fails and what needs to be done to meet the criteria. You can be bold and fix minor issues yourself (spelling, punctuation, formatting etc). If the article is brought up to standard during the review note that and pass it. If not close it as a fail.
3. Article needs a lot of work to meet the GA criteria: If the article meets the conditions of an immediate fail you can fail the article without asking for feedback from the nominator, explaining how it meets the immediate fail criteria. Otherwise you need to provide a review and give the nominator a chance to fix any issues.

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.

Step 4: Finishing the review

Passing

If you determine that the article meets the good 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=}} or {{GA|~~~~~|subtopic=|page=}}
2. Fill in the |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.)
3. Update any {{WikiProject}} templates on the article talk page by changing the |class= parameter value to "GA", as in {{WikiProject|...|class=GA}}
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.
5. List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles in the appropriate section.

Failing

If you determine that the article does not meet the good 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=}}
2. Fill in the |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.)
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.

Putting the article on hold

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:

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.

Asking for a second opinion

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:

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.

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. Provide a second opinion. If another opinion is required repeat the steps for requesting a second opinion.

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.