Criteria edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Review edit
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The reviewer has left no comments here |  Undetermined
|
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Comment | Result |
|---|---|
| Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing |  Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
Result edit
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Undetermined |
The reviewer has left no comments here |
Discussion edit
Usage edit
This is an alternate template for Template:GAList.
Substitute this template with the code: {{subst:GAHybrid}} into a review of a good article nomination, or an individual reassessment, to provide a review table which displays the current good article criteria and allows you to comment on whether the article meets them or not.
{{subst:GAHybrid}} includes several {{GAHybrid/item}} templates.
{{GAHybrid/item}} has one parameter and produces an image and text depending on the parameter value:
- "pass", "good", "yes" "ok", "k", "+", "y", "aye" all produce a pass symbol and text:
Pass - "fail", "bad", "no", "n", "-", "nk", "nay" all produce a fail symbol and text:
Fail - "dunno", "?", "??", "???" all produce a question symbol and text:
Don't know - "wtf" produces the Wikipedia's infamous "I am out of my comfort zone" symbol and text:
WTF!? - "hold" and "on hold" produce the on hold symbol and text:
On hold - "neu" and "und" produce the neutral symbol and text:
Neutral - If no parameter is passed in this symbol and text is produced: Undetermined
