Nominators should be familiar with the article's subject and cited sources, and must have contributed significantly to the article: they are either the author of at least 10% of the article, or are ranked in the top five in authorship. Reviewers should be impartial, registered users willing to help the Wikipedia community, and must not have contributed significantly to the article.
Check that you are a significant contributor to the article. Make sure that the article is verifiable, written from a neutral point of view, and does not contain any original research. Then check the article against the good article criteria and make any further improvements that you think are necessary. More information may be found at the guide for nominating good articles. When ready, you are welcome to use the one-click GAN-helper or continue to follow these instructions; either method is quite easy.
Remember: The reviewer will be making suggestions to improve the article to GA quality during the review process. Therefore, you will need to stay involved during the review. Before nominating an article, make sure that you can respond to these comments in a timely manner.
Paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}} to the top of the article talk page.
For the |subtopic= parameter, add one of the following 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·Football·Sports·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.
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.
(Optional): Consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate, pledging a review, or joining a review circle. This does not imply quid pro quo. Helping to review articles helps the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to help pay it forward.
Depending on the size of the backlog, there may be a delay of many months before someone picks up the review. Sometimes, it only takes a few days. If you are willing to do a review yourself, you can add your nomination to the review circles page. Do not start the review page yourself, because this can make potential reviewers believe that your nomination is already being reviewed.
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; the reviewer will then fail the nomination.
You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner. If you absolutely cannot, make sure another editor can. Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer. Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to give you time to fix any possible issues; reviewers can change the time limit if they wish.
If a review stalls or there is disagreement over the interpretation of the good article criteria, you may ask the reviewer to ask for a second opinion. Alternatively, you may ask the reviewer to fail the review, then renominate the article to get a different reviewer. Otherwise, you may ask for assistance at the GAN discussion page.
A reviewer who starts your review has committed to complete it in a timely manner, but in rare occasions a reviewer withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page as follows: Increment the |page= parameter (e.g. from "page=1" to "page=2"), and change the |status= parameter from "status=onreview" or "status=onhold" to the blank setting "status=". You may also remove the transclusion of the former GA review from the article talk page if you wish, but this is not essential. Save the page. A bot will reset the nomination in its same position in the queue on the GA nominations page.
At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. 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 the GAN discussion page.
If your nomination passed: congratulations! The article will be listed as a good article. Consider submitting an interesting fact from the article within seven days to be featured on the Did You Know...? section of the main page.
Interested editors regularly check good articles to ensure that they still meet the GA criteria. This is especially important for biographies of living people, recurring events, and any active subject, as these articles can become outdated if new sources are not incorporated. Interested editors should also regularly check that all article text remains cited to reliable sources, especially text added after the article's GA promotion. If an article no longer meets the GA criteria, it may be nominated for good article reassessment.
Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review.
Remember: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. Consider reviewing only one or two articles at a time and plan to wrap up your review in about seven days.
You may add comments to a review page started by another reviewer. These reviews will be closed by the first reviewer. Add comments to a review by following the discuss review link appearing on the GA nominations page or near the top of the article talk page.
Choose an article that you would like to review. 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 is created. You may add opening remarks, an initial review, or one of these templates to the bottom of this review page.
Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is being reviewed, and will let the nominator know that the article is being reviewed.
Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on the good article criteria, determine whether the article should be quick failed. An in-depth review is provided in all other cases. This must include a spot check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source.
If you consider the article fully compliant with the good article criteria, provide a review on the review page justifying that decision and "pass" the nomination.
If you consider the article only partially compliant with the good article criteria, provide a review on the review page detailing what criteria it does not meet and suggest what is needed to bring the article up to standard.
If the problems are easy to resolve, you should be bold and fix them yourself. This includes correcting typos, making minor copyedits, and repairing formatting.
Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review. If so, note this on the review page and close the review as a "pass". If not, close it as a "fail". You may also make suggestions for further improvements, if appropriate.
Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. You may decide to put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow time for issues to be fixed. You may also ask for a second opinion. See below for how to pass, fail, hold, or ask for a second opinion.
Step 4: Finishing the review
You are welcome to use the one-click GANReviewTool or continue to follow these instructions; either method is quite easy.
If you determine that the article meets the good article criteria, you may pass it by doing the following:
Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=|oldid=}}
The five tildes supply the date of the review. 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 GA topic values found here; the template automatically converts GAN 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.) Fill the |oldid= parameter with the revision number for the current revision at the time of promotion.
Update the assessment of the article in the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template on the article talk page by changing the |class= value to "GA", as in {{WikiProject banner shell|...|class=GA}}.
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 let the nominator know that the article has passed.
Be sure the review page justifies how the article meets the good article criteria. Your review may also include a personal note of congratulations for the nominator.
If you determine that the article does not meet the good article criteria, you may fail it by doing the following:
Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page with {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=|oldid=}}
The five tildes supply the date of the review. 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 GA topic values found here; the template automatically converts GAN 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.) Fill the |oldid= parameter with the article revision number for the current revision at the time of failure.
Save the page. A bot will remove the nomination from the GA nominations page and will let the nominator know that the article has failed.
Be sure the review page specifies what needed to be done to the article for it to meet the good article criteria. Your review may also include a personal note of encouragement for the nominator, urging them to renominate the article once the problems have been addressed.
If you determine that the article could meet the good article criteria if a few issues are fixed and you wish to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected (generally seven days), you may put the article on hold by doing the following:
Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "onhold", as in {{GA nominee|...|status=onhold}}
Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is on hold, and will let the nominator know that the article is on hold.
Be sure the review page specifies what needs to be done to the article for it to meet the good article criteria.
If you are unsure whether 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:
Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "2ndopinion", as in {{GA nominee|...|status=2ndopinion}}
Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that a second opinion is requested.
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:
Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "onreview", as in {{GA nominee|...|status=onreview}}
Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to remove the request for a second opinion.
Be sure the review page provides the requested second opinion and any other assistance.
Notes
↑View history > Page statistics. If you are not a significant contributor to the article, get consent from the significant contributors before nominating.
↑If the nominator is neither the author of more than 10% of the article nor ranked in the top five by authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, a reviewer may uncontroversially consider the GAN a drive-by nomination. A reviewer may notify the nominator on their talk page. Reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across.
↑If this is your first review, it is beneficial to ask one of the good article mentors to look at your review.
↑Opening your own review is not allowed and will delay the article's review.
↑Using a review template is not a requirement; it is simply a way to help keep the review organized.
↑To install the review tool, follow the one-step script-installer then the one-step installation instructions at GANReviewTool. (Installation instructions for the nomination tool: GAN-helper).
↑View history. Mouseover the timestamp of the most recent revision. View the browser preview of that URL (e.g. lower-left corner), noting the 10-digit oldid value.
↑It should not be necessary to also update any {{WikiProject}} templates "class" value, unless the WikiProject opts out of WP:PIQA, in which case then do so (WikiProject Military history is the main example).
Questions?
If you have any questions regarding anything on this page or good articles in general, please check the frequently asked questions page and leave a message at the GAN discussion page.
