Wikipedia:Good article reviewing guide

Clear and concise

While reading the article, check to make sure that it's readable and that it makes sense. List each way that the article is not clear, is not concise, is not readable, or does not make sense. Be specific about what issues need to be fixed, but do not demand that the nominator do a full copyedit beyond what is listed below:

• Is it clear what each sentence is trying to say? Or, are sentences vague or confusing?
• Is it concise? Or, do sentences meander on or use too many words to say something simple?
• Is it understandable?
  • Is all prose clear to someone that isn't an expert in the subject?
  • If someone has never heard of this thing before, would they understand what it is after reading this article?
  • Does it avoid acronyms or technical terms that can be replaced with normal words?
• Does it have good spelling and grammar?

Manual of Style

Also check to make sure that it follows these five Manual of Style pages. Make a list of each phrase or sentence that needs improvement:

• Lead section
  • The lead should provide a basic overview that summarizes each section of the article.
  • The first sentence should define what the article is about in simple terms.
  • The lead should be an appropriate size. It's usually one to two paragraphs for shorter articles, three to four for longer articles.
• Layout
  • Everything should be in the correct order.
  • Each section should start with a == Level 2 Heading == with smaller headings dividing them when appropriate.
  • The paragraphs should be an appropriate size. Avoid huge blocks of text or individual sentences on their own line.
  • Images should be a reasonable size without obstructing or squishing the text.
  • See also sections should only have relevant links that aren't found elsewhere in the article.
• Words to watch
  • Make sure the article doesn't inappropriately use types of words that introduce bias:
    • puffery ("the best", "renowned", "respected", etc.)
    • contentious labels ("cult", "racist", "controversial", etc.)
    • unsupported attributions ("some people say", "it's believed that", "scientists claim", etc.)
    • expressions of doubt ("supposed", "purported", "so-called", etc.)
    • editorializing ("it should be noted", "clearly", "tragically", etc.)
    • inappropriate synonyms for said ("exposed", "noted", "claimed", etc.)
  • Make sure the article doesn't inappropriately use types of words that are imprecise:
    • euphemisms ("passed away", "made love", "survived by", etc.)
    • cliches and idioms ("lion's share", "tip of the iceberg", "at the end of the day", etc.)
    • relative time references ("recently", "currently", "last year", etc.)
    • unspecified places or events ("this country", "here", "occasionally", etc.)
  • Make sure the article doesn't use "scare quotes".
• Writing about fiction
  • If the subject is fictional, this should be made clear in the first sentence of the article.
  • If it's about a work of fiction, it must avoid in-universe perspective (acting like the events of the story actually happened).
  • When describing what happens in a fictional work, the article should use present tense.
  • Plot summaries should be brief (usually under 400 words for TV episodes, under 700 words for other works). They should not give undue weight to any one event in the story.
  • The plot summary must not interpret or analyze the story and its meaning. It should just describe the sequence of events as they appear to the audience.
• List incorporation
  • Lists should be avoided whenever prose would be clear and understandable.
  • There should be no trivia lists or "in popular culture" lists.

If you find simple mistakes like misspelled words, missing punctuation, or things that should be linked, you should be bold and fix them yourself. For anything more complicated, just mention it in your review and the nominator will fix it.

Check for verifiability, in other words, attributable to reliable, published sources. Do each check below, and make a note that you checked each one in the review. Make a list of each sourcing or citation issue that you find.

• Check to make sure that all of the article's references are listed correctly in a section labeled "references", "works cited", etc. Any reference formatting is fine; your only concern is whether you can tell what the source is. There should not be any bare URLs; the reference needs to say what it is and where the link leads.
• Look at the references and make sure that they are all reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial can help you with the most common sources, but you may have to use your judgement. Check to see if the sources are written by authors who are experts in that subject and if they're published by reputable organizations. The best sources are up-to-date secondary sources that reflect the mainstream consensus about a topic. The worst sources are blogs, user-generated content, and self-published sources; these are almost never acceptable.
• Check that the article uses inline citations. Not every sentence needs to be cited, but most claims should have a citation that supports it. Leads, plot summaries, and image captions don't usually need citations. Quotations, statistics, opinions, controversial claims, and contentious material about living people must have an inline citation no later than the end of the sentence, no matter where they are.
• Check that there aren't too many quotes in the article. A few quotes are fine when they're relevant in context, but too many quotes is a type of plagiarism. If there are too many quotes, mention in the review that some of them need to be paraphrased.

Tools like WP:EARWIG and WP:CITEUNSEEN are helpful when analyzing an article's use of sources, but they only catch the most obvious problems. You'll need to check the sources individually to confirm that they're acceptable.

Spot checks

To review an article, you need to access its sources and compare them to what it says in the article. This step, called spot checks, is really important, because it checks whether the information in the article is true and that the wording is not stolen from somewhere else. Pick a few sources from the references list to check. 10% of them is a good rule of thumb, but try to check at least five of them. The sources will usually have links where you can access them. If you're finding it difficult to access most or all of the sources, ask the nominator if there's a way to access them or if they can provide you with the relevant excerpt.

Each time you access a new source, follow these steps:

1. Read the source, compare it to what is stated in the article, and make sure the article actually says what it's supposed to.
2. Check to make sure the source wasn't just copied-and-pasted into the article. If the Wikipedia article is identical or nearly identical to the source, it's a copyright violation.
3. Check for close paraphrasing. This is when an article isn't directly copied from the source, but when it presents information in a very similar way as its sources, using similar wording or describing things in a similar way. If you can match sentences from the Wikipedia article to the source one-to-one, that's evidence of close paraphrasing and you should note it in your review.
4. Check if the article is claiming something that is not stated in the referenced source. That would be a sign of original research.
5. List the source that you checked, and note whether you were able to confirm the information and whether you found any of these issues.

If some of your source checks turn up problems, check a few more to see if it's a significant problem throughout the article. Again, note each source you check and list any issues you find.

If you find that a significant proportion of the article is copied-and-pasted from other places, then quick fail the review and list the article as a copyright violation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Remember that sometimes other websites might copy from Wikipedia. Check to see if that's what happened before saying something is a copyright violation.

Make sure the article addresses each major aspect of the topic. It doesn't need to be totally comprehensive, but all of the most important aspects should be covered. For a biography, this would mean that every period of the person's life should be given some coverage. For a film, this would mean some coverage of the plot, cast, production, release, reception, and themes. An important section should not be missing. If you're not sure what aspects should be covered, research the subject to see what reliable sources say about it, or look at other articles about similar topics to see what's covered there. If sources don't cover a certain aspect, then the article probably doesn't need to either.

Also make sure that the article doesn't go into excessive detail. Any unhelpful trivia should be removed. Anything that is not part of the article's scope should also be removed.

The article should be neutral in its tone. This means:

• Opinions or controversial statements should not be presented as facts. Any time an opinion is described, an article should make it clear whose opinion it is.
• Agreed upon facts should not be presented as opinions.
• Language in the article should not suggest or imply that something is good or bad.
• Wikipedia articles should describe arguments, not participate in them. If you can figure out the author's opinions just by reading the article, then it needs to be rewritten.
• Contentious labels must be cited to high quality sources, especially if they're about living people.

The article should also be neutral in its structure. This means:

• Fringe views and other views in the minority should not be given the same weight as major views. If most reliable sources accept one position, then alternatives should not be presented as if they are prominent.
• Minor aspects of a topic should not be given undue importance. Even if they're not controversial, it's still a neutrality issue.
• If there are competing views of similar prominence in reliable sources, then one should not be given additional weight over the others.
• No individual source should have outsized influence on the article, nor should the ideas of one specific writer, expert, critic, or school of thought.
• The article's purpose should not be to take a specific stance on a topic. This would be a POV fork, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
• The article should not be divided by point of view. It should not look like it is arguing with itself or look like certain ideas were segregated from the rest of the article. Criticism and controversy sections should be avoided when possible.

Neutral point of view is most often a problem with politics and other contentious topics, but it can happen anywhere. Always check to make sure the ideas in the article reflect the general consensus in reliable sources.

Check to make sure the article is stable. Check the article's history and its talk page to make sure there aren't any ongoing disputes surrounding the article. Constructive editing and collaboration do not count against an article's stability. Nor does vandalism. If there is a dispute, hold or fail the article so there's time for the dispute to end.

A good article should have media files, such as images, video, or audio, although it is understandable if this is not possible.

• Check the page for each file to see if they have valid copyright tags. If the file is non-free content, it must have a non-free use rationale explaining why it can be used on that specific article.
• Make sure the media is relevant to the article. Decorative or irrelevant images should be removed.
• Make sure images have appropriate captions.