User:DoubleBlue/Tools

Writing tips

To get an article to featured article status, make sure to follow these steps to ensure all articles we submit to Featured article candidates meet the FA criteria. All of these apply to almost any good article, so keep them in mind when editing even outside of Saskatchewan articles. The suggestions are:

I.	Write a good lead. Be sure to write a lead that concisely summarizes the entire article into one or two paragraphs which make sense to someone who may know nothing about the subject.
II.	Use good spelling and grammar. This is a very important aspect of an article. Many browsers support spell checking.
III.	Use footnotes. Take advantage of the footnote ability Wikipedia has, instead of including html links inside the context include them as footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to use them.
IV.	Use images if possible. Images enhance articles greatly, but only use them when they are necessary, and ensure that their copyright status has been specified and we are allowed to use it on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Images for more information.
V.	Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include a ==References== section listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you used to write the article. An article will not get accepted as a featured article candidate if it is missing references. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:References.
VI.	Stay on topic. Many articles are criticized for length; sticking to the subject matter helps eliminate this.
VI.	Keep it simple. Remember that the average reader should be able to comprehend the erudition. Although you should use a broad vocabulary of regular, non-technical terms, do not provide such a quantity of locutions as to impel those who aspire to derive serviceable information from the article to consult a dictionary.
VII.	Use common sense. You should know what perfect articles look like. They cover everything they should without going on forever. Common sense could have told you almost all of the items mentioned above. Ultimately, assume good faith, be bold, and go out there and write some good Saskatchewan articles.

WP:Reviewing good articles

If you decide to conduct a full review, read the entire article and check for the following, with reference to the Good article criteria. The article should be:
1. Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar. Also look for proper formatting and general organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks and sections as described in those parts of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria.
2. Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references. Ideally, a reviewer should have access to the sources cited, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources. At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources), that they support the statements, and that the article contains no plagiarism: any text copied from sources should be contained within quotation marks, or a quotation template.
  Without original research.
3. Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions.
4. Written from a neutral point of view.
5. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars (constructive routine editing is fine).
6. Compliant with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. If images are used, they should have free licenses, or have appropriate fair use rationales.
Decide if the article meets the Good article criteria as spelled out above.
1. If it does, pass the article by removing it from the nominations page, adding it to the Good article list, and changing the appropriate tag on the article's talk page. A brief note of congratulations or tips for further improvement on the review page is also appreciated.
2. If it does not, decide if a hold is appropriate:
  1. Holds should be applied if the changes needed are minor, and can be reasonably expected to be completed within a week or so.
  2. If a hold is appropriate, change the status in the templates on both the article talk page and the nominations page to "on hold".
3. If the article's problems lead you to believe that the changes are not likely to be met within a week fail the article by removing it from the nominations page and changing the tag on the article talk page.
Whether you fail an article or put it on hold, always clearly explain on the review page, for the nominator. You can use the Good article criteria as a guide for how to organize your critique; however, the criteria should not be used merely as checklists. Your review should be extensive enough to allow the article to be improved and renominated, so that it will pass in the future.

Guide for nominating good articles