User:Razr Nation/GLC

This is a draft of a possible good list criteria. It is aimed to stand below the featured list criteria, on par with the good article process in level of assessment.

Good list criteria
A good list is—  Well-written:  the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. it has a lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch and fiction.  Factually accurate and verifiable:  it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.</li> <li>it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for any controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.</li> <li>it contains no original research.</li> </ol> <li>Broad in its coverage:</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>it addresses the main aspects of the defined scope; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. <li>it meets most of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline.</li> </ol> <li>Structured: it is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.</li> <li>Stable: it is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the good list process.</li> <li>Visually appealing: it makes appropriate use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour.</li> <li>Illustrated, if possible, by images, which are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions and tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.</li> </ol>