Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of templates that you might find useful when reviewing Good articles. They are for convenience only, a review is perfectly valid without the use of any template as long as it addresses the criteria.

Reviewer templates[edit]

{{FGAN}}
{{subst:FGAN}} - For failed Good article reviews
Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 1, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Article stability?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Pass


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

{{subst:FGAN
|well written =
|accuracy =
|thorough =
|NPOV = 
|stable = 
|images =
|closing comments = <!-- OPTIONAL -->
}}~~~~
{{GAList}}
{{subst:GAList}} - The original reviewer list
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
{{subst:GAList
|overcom=
|1a=
|1b=
|1com=
|2a=
|2b=
|2c=
|2d=
|2com=
|3a=
|3b=
|3com=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6b=
|6com=
|7=
|7com=
}}
{{GAList2}}
{{subst:GAList2}} - A slight variation on GAList

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


{{subst:GAList2
|overcom=
|1a=
|1acom=
|1b=
|1bcom=
|2a=
|2acom=
|2b=
|2bcom=
|2c=
|2ccom=
|2d=
|2dcom=
|3a=
|3acom=
|3b=
|3bcom=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6acom=
|6b=
|6bcom=
|7=
|7com=
}}
{{GABox}}
{{subst:GABox}} - for those that like boxes
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg
{{subst:GABox
|1a=
|1b=
|2a=
|2b=
|2c=
|2d=
|3a=
|3b=
|4=
|5=
|6a=
|6b=
|7=
}}
{{GATable}}
{{subst:GATable}} - the criteria in table form
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
{{GAHybrid}}
{{subst:GAHybrid}} - Table and lists combine
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
    3. it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review:

  1. Well-written:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
Result
Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ 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.
{{GAProgress}}
{{subst:GAProgress}} - This template can only assesses each criteria with pass/fail/neutral etc. Should not be used without further comments.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment 2.png are unassessed
{{subst:GAProgress | prose = | mos = | reflayout = | reliablesources = | originalresearch =
| copyvio =  | broadness = | focus = | neutral = | stable = | freeortaggedpics =
| picsrelevant = }}

Notification templates[edit]

{{subst:GANotice}} – To notify a nominator that you have passed, failed, held or started a review
Your GA nomination of Article

The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Article for comments about the article. Well done!

Your GA nomination of Article

The article Article you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Article for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.

Your GA nomination of Article

The article Article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold.Symbol wait.svg The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Article for issues.

Your GA nomination of Article

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Article you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Time2wait.svg Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

{{subst:GANotice
|result=<!--Pass, fail or hold. A blank field defaults to an introduction-->
|article=
}} ~~~~
{{subst:GANotice2}} – A template to notify contributors or the nominator that you will be reviewing the article
GA Notice
GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article [[Talk:{{{article}}}/GA{{{page}}}|{{{article}}}]] in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to [[User_talk:{{{user}}}|contact me]] with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

{{{sign}}}
Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg
{{subst:GANotice2
|article=
|sign=~~~~
|page=
|user=
|type=
}}
https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/templates
wiki.alquds.edu
CC-MAIN-2023-23
143564
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:C3IVJU3E3B3NEMPCKPMW4ZHG6GEMXTF2
<urn:uuid:957a51ae-83de-48df-a472-d56ed1fc13ad>
2023-05-30T08:58:42Z
195.114.29.189
text/html
sha1:YPFABW5SC6LAULNQZYTPSQB6NNVKDJ3J
<urn:uuid:fdcf4965-b74d-483c-95e2-5a1031ec8d20>
https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/templates
response
<urn:uuid:e3233610-b1b6-4406-aeb8-fc0584653fef>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-23
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-34
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/