User:Green-eyed girl/GAR boilerplate


 * Quick-fail assessment


 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. -
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags. -
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. -
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. -


 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MOS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Reviewing rationale
I believe that most editors who list an article at WP:GAN are aware of the GA criteria. I believe that the reviewer, while not needing to err on the side of passing, has an obligation to help with the last little fixes that may be necessary before an article is listed as a GA. This need not, however, involve the reviewer editing the article personally. Only articles that are patently terrible should be failed without a process to improve them, and given that I believe most editors listing things at GAN know what they're doing, failures should be very rare. This is not to say that editors should nominate articles before they believe them to be ready, meaning to use the intervening time between nomination and review to "get the article there," only that if an article is, to pick a somewhat random number, 85% of the way there, that the reviewer should point out its faults so that it makes it to 100% and not just fail it.