Wikipedia:Good article criteria: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
rv lack of irrelevant Chuck Norris references already covered by 1(b)... ;-) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]; |
::(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]; |
||
::(d) it contains no elements of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. |
::(d) it contains no elements of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. |
||
::(e) it contains no references to [[chuck norris]] unless it is on a realted topic. |
|||
3. It is '''broad in its coverage'''. In this respect : |
3. It is '''broad in its coverage'''. In this respect : |
||
::(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|WP:FAC]], and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed); |
::(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|WP:FAC]], and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed); |
Revision as of 23:53, 7 November 2006
What is a good article?
A good article has the following attributes.
1. It is well written. In this respect:
- (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
- (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
- (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;
- (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
- (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
- (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page);
- (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
- (d) it contains no elements of original research.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
- (a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
- (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
- (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
- (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
Length
For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here.
Articles dealing with fiction
Articles dealing with fiction should follow the guidelines for writing about fiction. In short, articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, or locations, must establish and discuss significance outside the "fictional universe", together with the process of authorship. The focus of the article should remain on discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, not on establishing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe; otherwise, the article may be better placed in one of the many fictional-universe specific wikis.
Lists
Lists are not reviewed by the GA system so editors should consider nominating them for Wikipedia:Featured lists instead.