Wikipedia:Good article criteria: Difference between revisions

A good article is a satisfactory article that has met the good article criteria but may not have met the criteria for featured articles.^[1] The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.

Criteria

Immediate failures

An article can be failed without further review (known as quickfailing or quick failing) if, prior to the review:

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.
It contains copyright infringements.
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}).

In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer. For most reviews, the nominator is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed.

The six good article criteria

Shortcut

WP:GACR

A good article is—

Well-written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
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:

^[3]

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;^[4]
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);^[5] and
it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[6] and
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.

^[7]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[8]

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[9]

What cannot be a good article?

Stand-alone lists, portals, sounds, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, featured sounds, and featured picture status, respectively.
Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria.
Featured articles: a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality.

Notes

^ Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria; at the time of assessment, they may or may not meet featured article criteria.
^ 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.
^ Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
^ Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ 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 non-constructive 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.

[1] Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria; at the time of assessment, they may or may not meet featured article criteria.

[2] 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.

[3] Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."

[4] Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.

[5] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[6] 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.

[7] 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 non-constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[8] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[9] 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ===Immediate failures===
 An article can be failed without further review (known as quickfailing or quick failing) if, prior to the review:
-# It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners. These include {{tl|cleanup}}, {{tl|POV}}, {{tl|unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{tl|citation needed}}, {{tl|clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{tl|QF-tags}}).
 # It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.
 # It contains copyright infringements.
+# It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{tl|cleanup}}, {{tl|POV}}, {{tl|unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{tl|citation needed}}, {{tl|clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{tl|QF-tags}}).
-In all other cases, a full review against the six criteria is to be conducted and the nominator given a chance to address any issues.
+In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer. For most reviews, the nominator is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed.
 ===The six good article criteria===

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft