Wikipedia:Good article criteria: Difference between revisions

Good article nominations

The good article criteria are the six standards or tests by which a good article nomination may be compared and judged to be a good article. A good article that has met the good article criteria may not have met the criteria for featured articles.^[1]

Criteria

Immediate failures

An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)^[2] 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}}).
The article is not stable due to edit warring on the page.

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

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.^[3]

Verifiable with no original research:

^[4]

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;^[5]
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);^[6]
it contains no original research; and
it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[7] 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.

^[8]

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

^[9]

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.^[10]

What cannot be a good article?

Stand-alone lists, portals, sounds, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, featured sound, 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, which determine our best articles.
^ Quick fail was added to the process solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination, since anyone can nominate to GA (see WP:SNOW). Unless the reviewer is dealing with a "drive-by" nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review, quick fail should normally not be used.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages 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 preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
^ The "broad in its coverage" criterion 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 to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" 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 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, which determine our best articles.

[2] Quick fail was added to the process solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination, since anyone can nominate to GA (see WP:SNOW). Unless the reviewer is dealing with a "drive-by" nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review, quick fail should normally not be used.

[3] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.

[4] 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)."

[5] 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.

[6] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.

[7] The "broad in its coverage" criterion 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.

[8] 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 to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.

[9] Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion.

[10] 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 such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 <!--{{redirect|WP:GAC|"good article candidates"|Wikipedia:Good article nominations}}-->
 [[Image:GA candidate.svg|40px|left|Good article nominations]]
-The '''good article criteria''' are the six standards or tests by which a [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article nomination]] may be compared and judged to be a [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]]. A good article that has met the good article criteria may not have met the criteria for [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured articles]].<noinclude><ref>Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria. At the time of assessment, they may or may not meet [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|featured article criteria]], which determine our ''best'' articles.</ref></noinclude>
+The '''good article criteria''' are the six standards or tests by which a [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article nomination]] may be compared and judged to be a [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]]. A good article that has met the good article criteria may not have met the criteria for [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured articles]].<ref>Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria. At the time of assessment, they may or may not meet [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|featured article criteria]], which determine our ''best'' articles.</ref>
-<noinclude>
 ==Criteria==
 ===Immediate failures===
-An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)<noinclude><ref>Quick fail was added to the process solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination, since anyone can nominate to GA (see [[WP:SNOW]]). Unless the reviewer is dealing with a "drive-by" nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review, quick fail should normally not be used.</ref></noinclude> if, prior to the review:
+An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)<ref>Quick fail was added to the process solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination, since anyone can nominate to GA (see [[WP:SNOW]]). Unless the reviewer is dealing with a "drive-by" nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review, quick fail should normally not be used.</ref> if, prior to the review:
 # It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.
 # It contains copyright infringements.
@@ Line 18: / Line 17: @@
 ===The six good article criteria===
 [[File:GA candidate.svg|75px|right]]
+</noinclude>A [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] is—
-</noinclude>
-A [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] is—
 <ol>
 <li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:</li>
@@ Line 64: / Line 62: @@
 [[Category:WikiProject Good articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
+[[be:Вікіпедыя:Крытэрыі добрых артыкулаў]]
 </noinclude>
-[[be:Вікіпедыя:Крытэрыі добрых артыкулаў]]

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft