When possible, convert lists to prose (paragraph form).

• For example, this list should be converted to prose.
• Lists are often disruptive to the flow of the text.
• Having lots of lists in the main text is looked down on in WP:FAC, because it disrupts the flow of the text.
• However, "See also", "References", and "External links" should be lists.

Watch out for typos; nobody is infallible when it comes to typing. Double-check for grammatical and spelling errors. Check thoroughly for redundancies (you may wish to try these exercises), spelling errors (for example, use spell check in Word or Firefox to double-check all spellings), and other grammatical problems. Sentences should not be run-ons like this sentence because run-ons are too long, are grammatically incorrect, and are disruptive by trailing and on and on, so make sure that sentences avoid using repeatedly repetitive words and break up all run-ons into shorter sentences to patch up the article. No fragments. Consider using well-placed commas to make longish sentences easier to read. Check for errors on the use of prepositions (e.g., here, "on" should be "in"), parallelism, subject–verb agreement, and punctuation.

It may be helpful to ask somebody else to copy-edit an article after you have done so—it is often difficult to copyedit an article when you are already accustomed to it.

To satisfy criterion 1(a) of WP:WIAFA, you may wish to take a look at suggestions at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Comprehensive lists of grammatical problems may also be found online [1] [2].

Some ways to fix this include asking another Wikipedian to read over your article and add suggestions to improve its flow (as it is often difficult for a writer to fix this), combining/merging short, stubby paragraphs, "prosifying" lists, and so on. Networking among like-minded contributors will usually result in a better product; besides, it adds to the social element of being a Wikipedian.

Short paragraphs and short sections usually disrupt the flow of an article (occasionally they can be judiciously used to emphasize an important point). Either merge them into another paragraph/section, expand the section with important information, or simply remove the paragraph/section, taking care that you are not deleting an important fact.

Paragraphs of one or two sentences often appear short to our readers.

Trivia by definition are trivial, and thus unencyclopedic; we need to keep Wikipedia focused on important information. Trivia sections should be removed, and any important facts should be added to the rest of the article. Other names for "Trivia" sections include:

• Other facts
• Miscellaneous [facts]
• In popular culture

An article should cover all important aspects of the topic in a balanced way. All articles should contain much relevant information to be comprehensive. This does not mean adding trivia or other miscellaneous unimportant facts about a character. (Incorporate any important “trivia” facts into the rest of the article and remove the ==Trivia== or ==Other facts== or ==Miscellaneous== sections) They should discuss the notability and importance of a subject, and when applicable, its legacy. Articles in such areas as literature and music should usually include sections on reception and criticism.

References are a list of sources used for the creation of a work. They are found in bullet form underneath a ==References== section.

We strongly suggested that you consult several references in the creation of an article, to avoid bias and encourage accuracy.

As of now, the most common method of inline citations is the cite.php footnote system. With this WP:FOOTNOTE system, footnotes are enclosed within <ref> tags. Simply insert into the text (directly after a punctuation mark, without a space following the punctuation mark) <ref>the footnote information.</ref>, which will appear like this.^[1] At the bottom of the page, put: <div class="references-small"><references/></div>, underneath a "References" or "Notes" section.^[2] To make more than one footnote point to the same source, use <ref name="NAME">the rest of the footnote</ref>; only the first footnote labeled with a name needs the actual footnote content.^[2]

All references and footnotes need WP:CITE information. For examples of citation styles, see WP:CITE/ES. Useful templates include: {{Cite book}}, {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, {{Harvard citation}}, and {{Harvard reference}}. This includes date of access, authors, and date of publication.

The {{Cite (something)}} are fairly easy to use; go to the talk pages of the individual templates to view the parameters that are associated with the template. For the Harvard citations, insert the Harvard citation into the text, and add the Harvard reference template at the bottom in a "References" section.

Articles should preferably contain more than just web references; we strongly encourage you to include paper resources (books, magazines, newspapers) as references. Web references can (and should) be used, but please be sure to check that the sources contain reliable information. Include the date on which you accessed the site. Fan sites are often not reliable and may be biased towards a certain POV.

Be aware of the convention of using quote marks where you copy a source word-for-word, at least for more than a phrase or two. Even where you paraphrase another text, consider citing the source, although quote marks will be unnecessary.

Try not to rely heavily on a single source, unless no other sources are available. The astute reader can usually tell that the information-base is narrow.

Even if the source of a quotation is spelled out in the text, it should still have an inline citation. This should be put immediately after the end of the quote, without an intervening space.

An article should always be expressed in a neutral point of view. Points of view may be presented, as long as you specify who advocates such views, or at least delineate the source of the view; e.g., "... is widely regarded as ...", "many scientists in the 19th century believed that ...", or "authorities in pro-whaling nations advocate ...".

The following are common weasel terms:

• "consider"
• "believe"
• "many people"
• "it has been"
• "allegedly"

A larger list can be found at WP:AWT#Examples. Sentences with weasel terms should be either reworded to remove the weasel term or should include proper inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs), and/or be specified as to exactly who advocates such a view.

An article is stable if it does not undergo many changes each day. Note that vandalism does not have to do with the stability of an article.

Often, current events will be unstable. There is not much to do about this except to wait for the event to pass so that the article can stabilize naturally.

Do not start an edit war over the content of an article. Please discuss any drastic and controversial changes on the talk page of the article. Mediation is available for intractable disputes; however, it is much better to resolve differences at an early stage through patient negotiation.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates. Piped chronological links are sometimes useful if they focus on the topic.

This to allow readers' date preferences to work. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day

When it is possible to give a date/year for a recent or future event, use that date/year instead of using vague terms such as "recently", "a few days ago", "this year", "last month", and "soon". Remember that Wikipedia will be read in the future.

Be consistent in this respect throughout an article. For example, an article should either have January 22, 1985, or January 22 1985.

After a single year, there should consistently be a comma or never be one. Either use "In 2015, this happened" (American) or "In 2015 this happened" (British).

The format for a unit of measure is as follows- 159 inches (404 cm).
Please note the following (which are covered in the next points):

• There is a nobreak space between the value and the unit of measure-  to prevent the unit of measure from appearing alone on the next line.
• The original unit of measure is spelled out fully (inches), and the conversion in parentheses is abbreviated (cm).
• Numbers should keep to the same accuracy; instead of 800 miles (1,287.48 km), use 800 miles (1,300 km), unless a case such as 1 mile (1.6 km).

Category:Conversion templates has many useful templates that may be applicable.

The code for such would be: 58 pounds. It appears as: 58 pounds. This nobreak space prevents the number from being separated from the unit of measure.

Instead of 5 in (13 centimeters), use 5 inches (13 cm). Note that there are no periods or "s" in the standard abbreviation.

It may be helpful to convert currencies to others they may help out readers. This should be done in parentheses along with the year to which the conversion is referring. An example is: "one thousand Swiss francs (approx. US$763, c. 2005)".

The dollar sign ($) as well as other currency symbols can be ambiguous, as many countries use the same symbol to represent their currencies. For an article specific to a certain country, the $ alone can be used. For a general article, it should be indicated as to which currency a symbol is used; examples include:

• US$100 million
• CA$100,000
• 2000 Chinese renminbi
• CNR 2000

The dollar sign should always go before the money value (do not do 100$). However, it should go after the country abbreviation (do not do $US100).

Bolding too many terms may be distracting, like this. Generally, bolding should only be done in the lead, where the title of the article re-appears in the first sentence, along with any other alternate spellings/variations. In other cases, limit bolding.

Linking too many terms is not good. See WP:CONTEXT for a guideline for wikilinking.

^ This is done in WP:FOOTNOTE.

These links usually appear at the end of the page. Category links resemble: [[Category:The category]], while interwiki/interlanguage links look like: [[es:Hola]]. These should be alphabetized. (Note that in many articles, the [[fi:]] link is misplaced at Finnish, while the link is "Suomi".)

The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, discussing the major aspects of the subject in question. It should not discuss at length any points that do not appear later in the article. However, the lead should establish some form of notability of an article.

Some articles should include relevant infoboxes that can help a reader by listing important information. Some examples include {{Infobox Biography}} and {{Infobox City}}.

For example, in United States, ===[[Science]] and [[technology]]=== should be changed to ===Science and technology===.

For example, in United States, ===Science And Technology=== should be changed to ===Science and technology===.

For example, in United States, ===United States military=== should be changed to ===Military===.

For example, in United States, ===The largest cities=== should be changed to ===Largest cities===.

For example, in United States, ===Military, including the land, air, and marine forces=== should be changed to ===Military===.

Many WikiProjects put forth article templates that should be followed. For examples of these, see WikiProject Countries, Cities, States, Albums, Rivers, etc.

All headings should be presented in a proper hierarchical system. Appropriate subheadings should appear under the correct and relevant headings.

Guide to layout suggests that the order for the last few sections be the following:

1. See also
2. Notes
3. References
4. Bibliography/Further reading
5. External links

(note the capitalization and wording of the sections)

A table of contents should not be too short. This is consistent with the need to be comprehensive (Criterion 2(b)).

A ToC (table of contents) should be hierarchical in structure and should not be too long. There is no exact definition for "too long", but generally articles with many headings and subheadings are considered by readers to be overly complex. For an example of an article with a ToC that is far too long, see User:AndyZ/World War I.

Alternatively, you can claim fair use for an image. However, if there is a free use image available (free use meaning that it has been released into public domain, according to the image copyright tags), that should be used instead.

Articles do not need images. However, many articles are significantly enhanced by the judicious use of images.

Preferably, use a free use image.

Note that {{PD}} tags are now obsolete, and that tags with {{Noncommercial}} should be replaced with proper image tags as soon as possible.

A fair-use rationale should claim that an image can be used because there is no free-use image replacement and that it meets the four criteria on WP:FU#General.

See the entire list of fair use templates at WP:FU#Tagging fair use image files.

While images are strongly recommended for articles, do not cause an article to overflow with too many, which can be disruptive and repetitive; select the best, most relevant, most important, and most informative/educational images.

Avoid using galleries, as Wikipedia is not a collection of pictures. Images can be moved into a category in the Wikimedia commons (note that fair-use images are not allowed in the commons), and that category can be linked from by the article.

Do not squeeze text between images or make images too large, as they can be disruptive to the text.

The format for a caption would be: [[Image:Imagename.jpg|200px|THE CAPTION]]. See WP:CAPTION for guidelines. Basic guidelines include that it:

1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
2. is succinct.
3. establishes the relevance relevance of the image to the article.
4. provides context for the image.
5. draws the reader into the article.
6. is either a title, such as the title of a book, or consists of one or more complete sentences. A full-stop at the end is not required if the caption is not a real sentence, e.g., "The love scene from the first act".

The level of detail in an article should be controlled so that it is of a comfortable length; i.e., it should not be so short as to appear "stubby". Length is different from comprehensiveness; a long article covering a broad subject may not be comprehensive; a short article covering a narrow subject may be fully comprehensive.

An article should not be too long. It should be concise and comprehensive. Making an article too long can make it uninteresting; other reasons for concision can be found at WP:SIZE. Articles that are larger than around 40 kilobytes in size may benefit from trimming on the basis of WP:SS.

To contain the size of an article, create subpages—"daughter" articles for more detailed information. For example, for United States, subpages include History of the United States and Education in the United States. The part of the article that concerns a subpage should summarize the content of the more detailed subpage. United States#History is not nearly as long as History of the United States, but summarizes the larger points. At the top of the section that is related to a daughter article, add {{main article|NAME OF SUBPAGE}} underneath the related subsection.