Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly, and they should focus on determining whether the article meets the Good article criteria. The review should not be influenced by beliefs about how the article could be made "perfect" , by how the reviewer would have written the article, or by personal feelings about the ...
Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles—guidelines for reviewing an article for GA status; Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control/Reviewing Cheatsheet—useful suggestions for GA review; Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not—GA reviews should be concluded only in accordance with the GA criteria, not personal preferences
Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review).
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 will be created. You may add opening remarks, an initial review, or one of these templates to the bottom of this review page. [g] Save the page.
If an article has even one citation with significant coverage in a potentially reliable source, or if you doubt your ability to effectvely search for sources for the subject due to a lack of familiarity, PROD should not be used. AfD – the standard deletion process for all other articles that fail notability guidelines. Disputes over whether ...
Read the guidelines on reviewing Good articles and the Good article criteria, and check that if you were reviewing your own article, you would pass it. Do not think of your goal purely in terms of getting the article listed as a Good article: your goal is to get good feedback on the article, and hopefully, perhaps after some improvements, get ...
Where a nomination offers more than one new or expanded article, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required for each nominated article. As soon as a new nominator's hook includes articles beyond their fifth nomination of an article for DYK, each of those requires a separate QPQ review.
Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline , the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style ) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore ...