User:SilkTork/Good articles


 * Good article nominations
 * Link checker
 * Reviewing good articles

Pass: Replace on the article's talk page with

Fail: Replace on the article's talk page with


 * copyvio tool

Nominate: Use template: Instructions: Good article nominations/Instructions

Topics: Agriculture, food and drink · Art and architecture  · Computing and engineering  · Transport  · Geography  · Places  · World history  · Royalty, nobility and heraldry  · Language and literature  · Mathematics and mathematicians  · Film  · Television  · Media and drama  · Albums  · Songs  · Music  · Biology and medicine  · Chemistry and materials science  · Earth sciences  · Physics and astronomy  · Philosophy and religion  · Culture, sociology and psychology  · Education  · Economics and business  · Law  · Magazines and print journalism  · Politics and government  · Sports and recreation  · Video games  · Warfare

Reviews
No or trivial involvement - from no edits at all, to making a few trivial edits - from edits which were more than trivial, some minor copy-editing and/or adding sources up to adding a very small amount of useful content - from helpful copy-editing and adding useful content, up to possibly one of the main contributors - one of the main contributors, up to possibly responsible for 90%+ of content at time of GA




 * Reviews
 * 1) ❌ Penny (British decimal coin) - May 2006 - Nom: User:Computerjoe - Fail (S)
 * 2) ✅ Johann Sebastian Bach - May 2006 - Nom: User:Moreschi - Pass (B) delisted Dec 2006
 * 3) ❌ The King's School, Ely - Oct 2008 - Nom: User:2XVISION - Fail (B)
 * 4) ❌ William Bedle - Oct 2008 - Nom: User talk:BlackJack - Fail (B) *Failed two further GA reviews
 * 5) ✅ - Dec 2008 - Nom: User:Alientraveller - Pass (GA)
 * 6) ❌ On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) - Dec 2008 - Nom: User:SpecialWindler - Fail (GA Aug 2011)
 * 7) ❌ (under title of "School head lice policy") - Dec 2008 - Nom: User:Noca2plus - Fail (C)
 * 8) ❌ Sewri Fort - Jan 2009 - Nom: Nom Fail (C)
 * 9) ❌ Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 - Jan 2009 - User:Sims2aholic8 - Fail (C) *Failed two further GA reviews
 * 10) ❌ William Blake - Jan 2009 - User:Jacjohncoles - Fail  (B)
 * 11) ❌ Good Doctor (advertisement) - Jan 2009 - User:GeeJo - Fail (C)
 * 12) ✅ - Jan 2009 - User:JD554 -  Pass (GA)
 * 13) ✅ - Jan 2009 - User:YellowMonkey - Pass (FA March 2009)
 * 14) ✅ - Jan 2009 - User:Editorofthewiki - Pass (GA)
 * 15) ✅ Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - Jan 2009 - User:YellowMonkey -Pass (FA Jan 2010)
 * 16) ✅ - Feb 2009 - User:Warchef - Pass (GA)
 * 17) ✅ - Feb 2009 - User:First Light - Pass (GA)
 * 18) ✅ 2008 Spanish Grand Prix - May 2009 - User:Apterygial - Pass (GA)
 * 19) ✅ 2008 Turkish Grand Prix - May 2009 - User:Darth Newdar - Pass (GA)
 * 20) ❌ Downing Street mortar attack - May 2009 - User:One Night In Hackney - Fail (B)
 * 21) ❌ Kraków - May 2009 - User:Piotrus - Fail
 * 22) ✅ The Beatles in Hamburg - May 2009 - User:Andreasegde - Pass (GA)
 * 23) ❌ 1995 European Grand Prix - May 2009 - User:D.M.N. - Fail (B)
 * 24) Gilbert and Sullivan -  - May 2009 - Sweep - Keep (GA)
 * 25) ❌ New York City ethnic enclaves - May 2009 - User:mynameinc - Fail (B)
 * 26) ❌ Ælfhelm of York - July 2009 - User:Deacon of Pndapetzim - Fail (GA - next day)
 * 27) ❌ James Brown - Aug 2009 - User:Nergaal - Fail (C)
 * 28) ✅ - Aug 2009 - User:IxK85 - Pass (GA)
 * 29) ✅ - Aug 2009 - User:Tbo 157 - Pass (GA)
 * 30) ❌ - Sept 2009 - User:Figureskatingfan - Fail (FA March 2011)
 * 31) ✅ - Oct 2009 - User:IxK85 - Pass (GA)
 * 32) ✅ - Nov 2009 - User:Elcobbola - Pass (FA Nov 2009)
 * 33) ✅ - Nov 2009 - User:Kohoutek1138 - Pass (GA)
 * 34) ✅ - Nov 2009 - User:Rodw - Pass (GA)
 * 35) ❌ Cyprus - Nov 2009 - User:Vizjim - Fail (B)
 * 36) ✅ Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962 - Nov 2009 - User:Mainstream Nerd - Pass (GA)
 * 37) ✅ - Nov 2009 - User:Tavatar - Pass (GA)
 * 38) ✅ - Dec 2009 - User:Parrot of Doom - Pass (FA Oct 2012)
 * 39) ✅ - Dec 2009 - User:IxK85 - Pass (A Class Sept 2011)
 * 40) ❌ The Kinks - Jan 2010 - User:I.M.S. - Fail (FA March 2010)
 * 41) ✅ - Jan 2010 - User:I.M.S. - Pass (FA March 2010)
 * 42) ✅ - Feb 2010 - User:SuperMarioMan - Pass (FA July 2010)
 * 43) ✅ - Feb 2010 - User:Alvear24 - Pass (GA)
 * 44) ❌ - Feb 2010 - User:Abie the Fish Peddler - Fail (GA Nov 2013 - FA Jan 2014)
 * 45) ❌ Semi-periphery countries - Feb 2010 - User:D.j.weingart - Fail (C)
 * 46) ❌ - Feb 2010 - User:Nergaal - Fail (FA Feb 2012)
 * 47) ❌ Top Gear Race to the North - Feb 2010 - User:Guy0307 - Fail (B)
 * 48) ✅ - Feb 2010 - User:Cavie78 - Pass (GA)
 * 49) ❌ - Feb 2010 - User:JJARichardson - Fail (B)
 * 50) ✅ - March 2010 - User:Daviessimo - Pass (GA)
 * 51) Catholic Church - March 2010 - Delist (B)
 * 52) ✅ - March 2010 - User:Ohconfucius - Pass (GA)
 * 53) ❌ - Aug 2010 - User:Dr.K. - Fail (C)
 * 54) ❌ - Aug 2010 - User:Jaguar - Fail (C)
 * 55) ✅ Joseph Merrick - Aug 2010 - User:Belovedfreak - Pass (GA)
 * 56) ✅ Ray Harvey - Aug 2010 - User:YellowMonkey - Pass (GA)
 * 57) ✅ - Aug 2010 - User:Hassocks5489 - Pass (GA)
 * 58) ✅ - Aug 2010 - User:Zoeperkoe - Pass (GA)
 * 59) ❌ Toilet paper orientation - Aug 2010 - User:Melchoir - Fail (B)
 * 60) ❌ - Sept 2010 - User:M.O.X - Fail (GA June 2011)
 * 61) ❌ - Sept 2010 - User:Jaan - Fail (B)
 * 62) ❌ - Oct 2010 - User:Johnbod - Fail (B)
 * 63) ✅ Wisbech Grammar School - Nov 2010 - User:Rob - Pass (GA)
 * 64) ✅ Attack on Cloudbase - Dec 2010 - User:SuperMarioMan - Pass (GA)
 * 65) ❌ Pavement (band) - Dec 2010 - User:Patriot8790 - Fail (C)
 * 66) ✅ Malaysia - Dec 2010 - User:Chipmunkdavis - Pass (GA)
 * 67) ❌ Three Laws of Robotics - Dec 2010 - User:Chaosdruid -  Fail (C)
 * 68) ✅ - Jan 2011 - User:Alzarian16 - Pass (GA)
 * 69) ❌ Douglas Bader - Jan 2011 - User:Dapi89 - Fail (C)
 * 70) ✅ Roman Dacia - Jan 2011 - User:Nergaal -  Pass (B delisted Nov 2011)
 * 71) ✅ - Jan 2011 - User:GDuwen - Pass (GA)
 * 72) ❌ - Jan 2011 - User:Ktlynch - Fail (B)
 * 73) ❌ - Feb 2011 - User:Aeonx - Fail (GA Dec 2011)
 * 74) ✅ - Feb 2011 - User:Bencherlite - Pass (GA)
 * 75) ✅ - Feb 2011 - User:Bencherlite - Pass (GA)
 * 76) ✅ St Mary's Church, Pentraeth - Feb 2011 - User:Bencherlite - Pass (GA)
 * 77) ✅ - March 2011 - User:Glanis - Pass (GA)
 * 78) ✅ - March 2011 - User:Ironholds - Pass (GA)
 * 79) ✅ Round Hill, Brighton - March 2011 - User:Hassocks5489 - Pass (GA)
 * 80) ❌ Closing Time (album) - May 2011 - User:Tbhotch - Fail (GA Aug 2012)
 * 81) ❌ Pulp Fiction - May 2011 - User:Taro James - Fail (B) *Failed 3 further GA reviews
 * 82) ❌ Steve Davis - June 2011 - User:Armbrust - Fail (B)
 * 83) ✅ The Beatles in India - June 2011 - User:Andreasegde - Pass (GA)
 * 84) ✅ 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix - June 2011 - User:Midgrid - Pass (GA)
 * 85) ❌ - July 2011 - User:Roscelese  - Fail (C)
 * 86) ✅ - July 2011 - User:GDuwen - Pass (GA)
 * 87)  - July 2011 - Keep (GA)
 * 88) A1 road in London - Sept 2011 - Delist
 * 89) ✅ Xavier Mertz - Sept 2011 - User:Apterygial - Pass (GA)
 * 90) ✅ - Sept 2011 - User:EchetusXe - Pass (GA)
 * 91) ✅ George Villiers (1759–1827)- Oct 2011 - User:Choess - Pass (GA)
 * 92) ✅ Live and Let Die (novel) - Oct 2011 - User:SchroCat - Pass (FA April 2015)
 * 93) ✅ Bastille - Oct 2011 - Pass (A class Jan 2012)
 * 94) ✅ - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
 * 95) ❌ Myth of Skanderbeg - Oct 2011 - Fail (C)
 * 96) ✅ The Ash Garden - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
 * 97) ❌ Mervyn King (darts player) - Oct 2011 - Fail (B)
 * 98) ❌ Augustów Canal - Oct 2011 - Fail (B)
 * 99) ✅ Margaret Sanger - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
 * 100) ✅ - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
 * 101) ✅ - Oct 2011 - Pass (GA)
 * 102) ✅ Synthpop - Nov 2011 - Pass (GA)
 * 103) ✅ - Nov 2011 - Pass (GA)
 * 104) ❌ - Nov 2011 - Fail (B)
 * 105) ❌ - Nov 2011 - Fail (GA July 2012)
 * 106) ✅ - Nov 2011 Pass -  (GA)
 * 107) ✅ Goldfinger (novel) - Nov 2011 - Pass (GA)
 * 108) ❌ Arrested Development - Dec 2011 - Fail (GA Oct 2012)
 * 109) ✅ - Jan 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 110) ✅ - Jan 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 111) ✅ - Jan 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 112) ✅ - Jan 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 113) ✅ - Feb 2012 - Pass {GA)
 * 114) ❌ - May 2012 - Fail (C)
 * 115) ❌ - May 2012 - Fail (GA June 2012)
 * 116) ✅ - May 2012 - Pass (FAC)
 * 117) ❌ - May 2012 - Fail (C)
 * 118) ❌ - June 2012 - Fail (C)
 * 119) ✅ The Concert in Central Park - June 2012 - Pass (FA Sept 2012)
 * 120) ✅ - June 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 121) ✅ Jailhouse Rock (film) - June 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 122) ✅ - Aug 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 123) ✅ - Aug 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 124) ✅ - Aug 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 125) ✅ Dylan Thomas - Aug 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 126) Straight Outta Compton - Sept 2012 - Delist (B)
 * 127) ❌ Love Me Do - Oct 2012 - Withdrawn (C)
 * 128) ✅ - Oct 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 129) ✅ - Nov 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 130) ✅ - Nov 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 131) ✅ Late Registration - Nov 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 132) ❌ - Jan 2012 - Fail (GA - March 2014)
 * 133) Incense Route - Feb 2013 - Delist (Start)
 * 134) ✅ All Things Must Pass - March 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 135) Yeast - April 2013 - Delist (C)
 * 136) ✅ River Welland - May 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 137) ❌ - June 2013 -  Fail  (B)
 * 138) ✅ - Nov 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 139) ✅ Guinness Foreign Extra Stout - Nov 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 140) ❌ Hawker Sea Fury - Nov 2013 - Fail (B) (second opinion)
 * 141) ❌ British National Party - Nov 2013 - Fail (B) (second opinion)
 * 142) ✅ - Nov 2013 - Pass (GA}
 * 143) ❌ - Nov 2013 - Fail (B)
 * 144) ✅ - Nov 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 145) ❌ - Dec 2013 - Fail (B)
 * 146) ✅ - Dec 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 147) ✅ - Dec 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 148) ✅ Blink-182 - Dec 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 149) ❌ Moby - Dec 2013 - Fail (C)
 * 150) ❌ Full Throttle (roller coaster) - Dec 2013 - Fail (S)
 * 151) ✅ - March 2014 - Pass (GA)
 * 152) ✅ - March 2014  - Pass (GA)
 * 153) Ben (album) - April 2014 - Delist (C)
 * 154) ✅ - May 2014 - Nom - Pass (2nd reviewer) (GA)
 * 155) ✅ - May 2014 - Nom - Pass (2nd reviewer) (GA)
 * 156)  - May 2014 - Delist (C)
 * 157)  -  - May 2014 - Keep (GA)
 * 158)   - May 2014 - Delist (C)
 * 159) ✅ - May 2014 - Nom - Pass (GA)
 * 160)   - May 2014 - Delist (C)
 * 161)   - May 2014 - Keep (GA)
 * 162)  - May 2014 - Kept (GA)
 * 163) ✅ Wookey Hole Caves - June 2014 - User:Rodw - Pass (GA)
 * 164)  - June 2014 - Delist (C)
 * 165)  - June 2014 - Keep (GA)
 * 166)  - June 2014 - Keep (GA)
 * 167) ❌ Istanbul Metro - Oct 2014 - User:KazekageTR - Fail (C)
 * 168) ❌ - Nov 2014 - User:Smkolins  - Fail (B)
 * 169) ✅ - April 2015 - User:Saginaw-hitchhiker - Pass (GA)
 * 170) ✅ - June 2015 - User:Sotakeit - Pass (GA)
 * 171) ✅ Sleaford - June 2015 - User:Noswall59 - Pass (GA)
 * 172) ✅ - July 2015 - User:Noswall59 - Pass (GA)
 * 173) ✅ Hello, Goodbye - July 2015 - Nom/User:Beatleswhobeachboys - Pass (GA)
 * 174) ✅ - July 2015 - User:Ritchie333 - Pass (GA)
 * 175) ✅ Westholme House - July 2015 - User:Noswall59 - Pass (GA)
 * 176) ❌ Snoop Dogg - July 2015 - User:Musa Raza - Fail (C)
 * 177) ✅ The Allman Brothers Band - August 2015 - User:Saginaw-hitchhiker - Pass (GA)
 * 178) ❌ Bulgars - August 2015 - User:Crovata - Fail (C)
 * 179) ❌ Gene Roddenberry - August 2015 - User:Miyagawa - Fail (B)
 * 180) ❌ - Sept 2015 - User:GDuwen  - Fail (C)
 * 181)  - Oct 2015 - Keep (GA)
 * 182) ✅ - Oct 2015 - User:Tonystewart14  - Pass (GA)
 * 183) ✅ - Dec 2015 - User:Wikicology  - Pass (GA)
 * 184) ❌ Billy the Kid - December 2015 - User talk:Aerospeed - Quick Fail (C)
 * 185) ❌ M62 motorway - December 2015 - User:Rcsprinter123 - Quick Fail (B)
 * 186) ❌ Jaipur - December 2015 - User:Magentic Manifestations - Fail (S)
 * 187) ✅ North Circular Road - Jan 2016 - User:Ritchie333 - Pass (GA)
 * 188) Industrial Revolution - May 2016 - Delist (C)
 * 189) Brunei - June 2016 - Delist (C)
 * 190) ❌ Aubrey House - December 2016 - User:No Swan So Fine - Fail (C)
 * 191)   - Dec 2017 - Delist (C)
 * 192) ✅ Vagina - May 2018 - User:Flyer22 Reborn - Pass (GA)
 * 193) ✅ - Sep 2019 - User:Epicgenius - Pass (GA)
 * 194) ✅  - Nov 2019 - User:?uest -  Pass (GA)
 * 195) ❌ Singapore - Nov 2019 - User:Feinoa - Fail (B)
 * 196) ✅ - Nov 2019 - User talk:Yeepsi - Pass (GA)
 * 197) ✅  - Nov 2019 - User talk:SpicyMilkBoy -  Pass (GA)
 * 198) ❌ Them (band) - Nov 2019 - User:Amirhosein Izadi - Fail (B)
 * 199) ❌ Lacrosse - Nov 2019 - User:Mnnlaxer - Fail (C)
 * 200) The Killers - Dec 2019 - Delist (B)
 * 201) ✅ DeFord Bailey - Dec 2020 - User:Shearonink -  Pass (GA)
 * 202) ❌ Energy in Turkey - Dec 2020 - User:Chidgk1 - Fail (C)
 * 203) ✅ Beowulf - Jan 2021 - User:Chiswick Chap - Pass (GA)
 * 204) ✅ Eurovision Song Contest - March 2021 - User:Sims2aholic8  -  Pass (GA)
 * 205) ✅ - April 2022 - Nom: User:MusicforthePeople - Pass (GA)

Pass:112 Fail:69 Quick Fail:2 Delist:14  Keep:8


 * Nominations
 * 1) Necktie - May 2006 - Pass - Delisted June 2008 (C)
 * 2) Beer pong - May 2006 - Pass - Delisted Aug 2007  (B)
 * 3) American and British English spelling differences - July 2006 - Fail (C)
 * 4) - Sep 2008 - Pass (GA)
 * 5) - Dec 2008 - Pass (FA}
 * 6) - May 2009 - Pass (GA)
 * 7) - Aug 2009 - Pass (GA)
 * 8) - May 2010 - Pass (GA)
 * 9) - Feb 2010 - Pass (GA)
 * 10) - Sept 2010 - Pass (Delisted Jan 2011) (B)
 * 11) - Sept 2010 - Pass (FA)
 * 12) - Oct 2012 - Pass  (GA)
 * 13) - Dec 2012 - Pass (GA)
 * 14) - April 2013 - Fail (GA)
 * 15) - May 2013 - Pass (GA)
 * 16) - Dec 2013 - Fail (B)
 * 17) - Oct 2014 - Pass (GA)

Pass:14   Fail:3


 * Involved
 * 1) - Feb 2008 - Pass (GA)

Pass:1


 * Totals

Pass:127 Fail:72  Quick Fail:2  Delist:14  Keep:8

All: 223

Templates for use in reviews
* Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.
 * Lead


 * Start

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. ~

Comments on GA criteria

 * Pass


 * Query


 * Fail

General comments

 * Vandals


 * There is a fair amount of reverting of edits by IP accounts. It is not uncommon for high profile articles to get a lot of attention by casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do regular contributors feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable?

== GA check ==
 * GAR


 * It's worth being aware that for many (I think it's actually most) readers the lead is all that they read. The modern editions (post 1972) of Encyclopedia Britannica split the encyclopedia into the Micropædia (short articles) and the Macropædia (detailed articles) - most topics would be covered in both, but at different levels of detail. The Micropædia is our equivalent of the lead. The lead does serve as an introduction to the topic, and invites people to read the sections that interest them for greater detail, but the lead should also be able to stand alone - provide the reader with a summary of the main points of the topic. Generally, if an aspect of a topic is deemed important enough to justify a section of two or more paragraphs, then that aspect should be summarised in the lead; if the topic is not important enough to be mentioned in the lead, then perhaps it shouldn't have so much attention paid to it in the main body. Keeping a balance between the lead and the main body is tricky, but does help to keep the mind focussed on what are the important points.


 * Sometimes editors simply place in an article the information they find on a topic with insufficient judgement of selection and organisation of the material; then, when the article looks big enough the assumption is it it will become a Good Article as long as the prose is OK. Some other editors, on the other hand, are able to assess the wide range of material available on the topic, and to judge which points are important and should be mentioned.

GA check
/GA check

Philosophy
I am a supporter of the Good Article project as I feel it motivates editors to improve articles, and it gives readers a sense of confidence that an article has reached an acceptable standard that has been verified by an experienced user. Unfortunately, not all topics are equal, and some articles that are well written, scholarly, comprehensive, huge, informative and educational may not be listed as a Good Article because the scope of the topic makes it difficult to satisfactorily meet all the GA criteria; while some rather short, plain, simple articles on minor or trivial subjects do meet the criteria because the topic is discrete, limited, and uncontroversial. However, while the GA stamp does not always guarantee a scholarly and interesting article, it does generally mean the article meets some minimal standards. And if another reader feels an article does not meet those minimum standards the article can be easily delisted. One of the pleasing aspects of the system is this ease of involvement so people are not put off by bureaucracy or any sense of elitism or ownership - it is fully in the collaborative community spirit of Wikipedia as a whole.

I both write and review Good Articles. Reviewing is generally a pleasant experience - most articles are a pleasure to read because people have put some unified or concentrated work into them; and it's often possible, with the detachment of an uninvolved person and fresh eyes, to see where the article can be improved, and then to help the editors move the article forward. This is a collaborative experience and is enhancing for everyone involved - especially when at the end of it the article does get listed. Sometimes the experience can be less pleasant if the involved editor(s) are not helpful, or hassle to get the process done quickly with more regard for the GA status than with improving the article - thankfully these incidents are not common. The work involved is variable - with some reviews it can simply be a case of making a couple of suggestions here and there, and when those are done, passing the article, such as with Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948; with others there may be a period of working with an editor to get the article to GA status, such as with Finnegans Wake and Imperial War Museum.


 * My aims while doing a GA review:
 * The first aim is to check that an article meets GA criteria
 * The second aim is to improve the article - for it to reach GA level, and to be improved in general, even if not being listed
 * The third aim is for the GA review to be a beneficial experience for those involved - if nominators and significant contributors are not distressed by the process they are more likely to improve other articles to GA status, and if they can see what needs to be done to bring an article to GA status, it makes the next GA review easier for all concerned.
 * The fourth aim is to be reasonable with expectations; while I am prepared to offer people an opportunity to clean and improve an article that is significantly below GA criteria, this should be done with a clear notice that the work may not result in a GA listing; and while I am prepared to extend time limits if development is positive, if there comes a point at which the ratio of effort to improvement is disproportionate I will close the review.

Each review is different and brings its own problems to overcome. Some reviews can be fairly quick, others take a long time. Small, discrete topics like albums, especially the less important albums, are easier to do than articles on the band that made the album. The more important the topic, and the more complex and sprawling it is, the more difficult it is to get a well balanced and satisfying article.

Typical stages of a review:


 * Initial look. I feel encouraged if the article looks organised and tidy, without a mass of images and infoboxes, and with a decent amount of readable and correct text in appropriate sections. There shouldn't be any maintenance tags or sections which are mainly lists. It should be a reasonably attractive page that both invites and reassures the reader. It should look like an encyclopedia page. There should be a decent amount of citations (more is better than less), and if there are paragraphs, and especially sections, which are unsourced, this may be cause for concern. A glance at the reference list should show some reliable sources. Size is relative, though if the article is very short a reader might wonder if there is enough material to satisfy their curiosity, and if the article is very short, yet complete, a reader might wonder why the material is not kept in context in a parent article. If the article can satisfy a reader's curiosity for that topic, and justify its existence as a self-contained unit, then it is appropriate for consideration as a Good Article.
 * A quick read through to identify if there are areas that the nominator/main contributors can work on, to see if there are aspects that clearly pass GA criteria, and to get a general feel for the amount of work involved. As this is a first read, unless the topic is very straightforward, short, self-contained and simple, it is highly unlikely that all the work that needs doing will be obvious. Some topics need considerable background reading and research to discover how well the Wikipedia article meets up to the available knowledge.
 * Start a list of how the article matches the GA criteria.
 * Do some background reading and research. If the article is well researched, has broad, balanced coverage, and is well written, this shouldn't take too long - if I'm reading the same sort of information in other encyclopedias and reference works as appears in the Wikipedia article, and the sources I'm reading are not mirroring Wikipedia, then I feel reassured. If the article is poorly researched / structured / written / has an idiosyncratic approach and/or has too much of the contributors' opinions, then this will be revealed during the background reading - though it can take time with some poor articles, and may not be apparent at first.
 * Read some sections with care. As many articles nominated for GA take approx 20 minutes just to read through with a 70% comprehension, it makes sense to focus on individual sections for detailed analysis. I will usually edit as I'm reading, correcting spellings, grammar, etc, checking and adding references, restructuring for clarity, removing poor quality or unnecessary material, etc. Trends I identify while doing this I will report on the Review for the nominators/main contributors to pay attention to ("check spellings", "go through and add sources", "put cites after punctuation", etc). I will link to appropriate guidelines for areas of concern that need attention (WP:Captions, WP:Lead, etc), and open discussions on areas that I'm not sure about. I will also raise general comments on improving the article that are outside the GA criteria, making it clear that the improvements are not needed for GA listing, but are for advice only.
 * Check sources to see that they support what has been said in the article. I don't read all the sources, but I will check enough to be satisfied. If I read, say, 10% of the sources at random and they all hold up, I'm happy. If I find one mistake, then I will read more sources, if I find two mistakes I will be inclined to fail the article - though that depends on the nature of the error and other circumstances.
 * If the review is becoming drawn out with lots of comments, I draw a line and start a second list so it is clear what now still needs to be done.
 * My intention is to help get the article to GA status, so I am reluctant to give up if we have got this far, and may get more involved in the editing. Most reviews it's a case of saying, I feel X, Y, Z needs doing, putting on hold, coming back and passing. But with others there is a bit more work involved!

Guide
To be able to review an article you must:
 * Eligible
 * Be a registered user
 * Not be the nominator
 * Not be a significant contributor

To prevent mistakes and frustration for all users it is strongly advised that a reviewer has some understanding of the review process, the Good Article criteria, and related policies and guidelines.

It is also of benefit if the reviewer is patient, helpful and has a collaborative nature. Autocratic reviewers who make demands, and refuse to negotiate create stress and ill-will. At the same time, the reviewer must apply the criteria firmly and fairly, and not be persuaded or bullied into overlooking weaknesses in the article, so confidence and a sense of what is fair and right is important.

A GA reviewer carries no authority at all, and is simply a fellow Wikipedia editor who is willing to independently check an article against the GA criteria.

Before starting a review, glance at the article itself to assess the nature and amount of the material and potential difficulty, and note who nominated the article and the significant contributors (check history) to see if there are editors with whom you've had significant previous disputes or have had problems working with - it is better to decide before a review starts that the work is too challenging than part way through a review.
 * Before

If you haven't already done so, read guides and essays such as Good article criteria, Reviewing good articles, What the Good article criteria are not, Guide for nominating good articles, User:Joopercoopers/Zen and the art of good reviewing, User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet

It also helps to look at recently completed reviews at Good articles/recent.

A review may be started by browsing through the list on Good article nominations and then clicking on the (start review) link near the end of the article listing, just before the name of the nominator. Or, on the article's talk page, click on "follow this link" in the GA nominee template
 * Set up

Leave a comment and/or checklist, such as or  -

An easy way is to cut and paste the following:

When saved, the list presents like this:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

and will make available a series of tick boxes on editing, such as

#:A. Prose quality:

In the check box you place ' for pass, ' if unsure, or  for fail

like so: #:A. Prose quality:

Below each check box is an optional comment box:

#::

#::

Some editors like to use these for making comments, others will make comments outside of the checklist, and some may use both. There is no prescribed way of setting out a GA review - though a number of reviewers like to make bullet points that the nominator and other editors can comment on individually, others will make subsections using level 3 (===) headers.

An example:

=== ===





=== ===

Having set up the review, you now move on to reading the article and checking it against the GA criteria.

There are as many ways of reviewing as there are reviewers, and you will find a procedure and process that you are comfortable with as you do more reviews. You may decide to follow the GA criteria in the order it is given, or deal with points as you notice them. Some methods you may use are as follows:
 * Reviewing

=== Quick glance ===

A Good Article is presentable and readable, and a number of the criteria deal with this aspect. You may decide to take a quick glance at the article to see how presentable it is. There may be potential issues regarding lead sections, layout, and list incorporation, as well as suitable captions which tend to be easy to spot on a quick glance.


 * Does the lead look either rather long or short compared to the rest of the article? This may not be an issue if the lead is a comprehensive summary of the article's main points, though sometimes the lead has developed separately from the main body of the article, and it has either not been kept up to date with the article's development, or has been expanded with additional information not contained in the main body. A five paragraph lead in an article with three one paragraph sections, or a one paragraph lead in an article with 15 sections is likely to indicate the lead will not meet WP:Lead.


 * Are there WP:Layout issues such as WP:Lines, sections too long or short, or too many, or too cluttered images.


 * Are there lists of links that might be better presented in prose? Not all lists need to be converted to prose; school alumni, for example, might be better arranged in list format; though if a list is quite long it is appropriate to suggest breaking out such a list into a stand alone list. Guidelines to help decide when a list is better as a standalone are Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Manual of Style (lists). While these guidelines are not part of the GA criteria, they help inform the opinion of when to split out the list, which is part of the criteria.


 * Do the images have captions which are long - potentially containing superfluous wording, or too short - potentially unclear. If the caption is not a sentence, then it doesn't need a full stop. Are all images relevant to the topic? Sometimes there may be images which are purely decorative, or multiple examples of the same sort of image.

While observing some of the points above, you may wish to make an initial comment on the review that, for example, you feel the lead may need closer attention. This has the benefit of alerting the nominator to check the lead, and they may wish to start work on that while you are getting on with the rest of the review. If the nominator has previously checked the lead, they can leave a comment explaining why they feel the lead meets WP:Lead, and you can keep their comments in mind when you do your own check. Some reviewers, however, prefer to do all or a significant amount of the work involved in assessing the article, and then post detailed and organised comments.

=== Quick easy checks ===

Three of the easiest criteria to check are Stability, Images, and Reference section.


 * Criteria 5 - Stable : it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Look at the recent article history and talkpage to check for edit wars and disputes. If there are no signs of an editor or editors reverting edits (angry or insulting edit summaries may alert to this), and no material being removed and then replaced, then you can pass that criteria.

While checking the talkpage for disputes, it is worth noting that it is acceptable for people to debate the content of an article as long as the dispute doesn't carry over into the article itself. The nature and depth of the dispute may, however, indicate problems, such as with NPOV, that may make reviewing difficult. The GA process is not for resolving disputes, and if there is a strong dispute in place it may be worth getting everyone's agreement to work toward a common goal; if you cannot get that agreement within a reasonable time - say, seven days - then give serious consideration to how and if you should proceed. If it seems likely that an editor or editors may attempt to destabilise the article or the review, it would be better to withdraw now, and suggest that the dispute is resolved before the article is nominated again.


 * Criteria 6 (a) & (b) - Illustrated, if possible, by images

Click on each image to ensure it has the appropriate wording. Generally, if the image is on Commons, it will be OK to use. If the image is not on Commons, then it may be a non-free image, and you need to check that it has an appropriate non-free rationale to be used in the article you are reviewing. Guideline: Non-free content. If you are unsure, questions can be asked at Media copyright questions.

While checking the image, also check the captions to see if they meet WP:Captions. Also, check that the image is appropriate for the article. Blurry, poor quality images, images which are mainly of people unrelated to the topic (such as an image of a group of scouts in front of the Taj Mahal, in which the Taj Mahal is barely seen), or an image which has a tenuous or dubious link (such as a picture of a robin in an article on Robin Hood) should be queried with the nominator/main contributors.

If there are no images, that is acceptable, provided there are no suitable images available that could be used. It's worth asking if a search has been done, and you may conduct a search yourself on Flickr or geograph.org.uk or other image hosting site that contains free images.

If images are crowding texts, that is a WP:Layout issue, and while it needs to be noted as it affects 1 (b), it will not prevent a pass in the Image criteria.


 * Criteria 2 (a) - it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

Check if there is a reference section or sections, and these are laid out according to WP:FOOTERS. This is not a check on reliable sources or if challengeable statements are sourced (that's 2 (b)), this is a check to ensure there is a reference section and it is laid out appropriately. This is almost always a simple pass, though sometimes the reference section layout does not conform to WP:FOOTERS (wrong order or inappropriate section names), and this can be quickly adjusted yourself, leaving a note linking to WP:FOOTERS. Bear in mind, though, not to impose your own personal preferences in naming such sections either Notes or References; while References is the most used name, if Notes is used appropriately (and has not recently been changed from References to Notes), then it should remain at Notes.


 * Initial checks

Some reviewers like to leave the prose and MoS issues to last, as those areas are likely to change as the review develops and editors add or alter material. However, as that first section, "Is it reasonably well written?", tends to be about the presentation and readability of the article, it's worth casting an eye over how the article looks to see if there are potential issues regarding lead sections, layout, and list incorporation, as well as suitable captions as those will tend to be easy to spot on a quick read through.

As you notice problems you have the option of leaving a comment directing attention to it, or of fixing the problem yourself. You are not expected to fix problems, but you are encouraged; and if the problems are minor and obvious, such as spelling mistakes, it makes more sense to make the edit yourself, as you would for any other article, rather than listing them on the review page. Creating a list of spelling and grammar errors can give the impression of a detailed and thorough review and keeps the nominator busy doing something very easy, so it is popular, but be aware that it is not a substitute for a critical examination of the article and its sources, so don't be mislead into thinking that a GA review simply consists of making a copy edit list. If there are a number of copy editing issues, and you don't wish to do them yourself, it is acceptable to say that the article needs copy editing, and to give a couple of examples; if the nominator is not able to deal with all the copy edit problems themselves, you can suggest they make a request of the Guild of Copy Editors. If you enjoy listing spelling and grammar errors, but are not comfortable analysing the content, researching sources, and doing background reading, then perhaps copy-editing or peer reviewing may be more your thing.

While glancing through the article you may notice clean up tags. That the article has tags is not a reason to fail. The tags may have been added after the article was nominated; they may not be appropriate; or the problem may be minor. The tags are helpful as they are drawing your attention to potential problems. You use that information as part of your review in the same way as if you had found the problems yourself.

You may also notice that some paragraphs or sections don't have inline cites. While not every statement in an article needs inline citing, that a paragraph and especially an entire section, has no cites may indicate a problem. Either the section is doing an appropriate encyclopaedic job of presenting material and opinion which would be new to the general reader and therefore open to be challenged so needs citing; or the section is uninformative and needs to be tightened under the focus criteria. By convention, plot summaries are uncited because it is viewed that the film or book provides an appropriate source; however, if you feel that the plot is complex and there may be a question of original research in interpretation, it may be appropriate to raise the issue of possible interpretation or suitable sourcing, so it can be discussed.


 * Stability check
 * Check the history for signs of recent edit warring or sudden and unexpected content changes. Disputes that are contained on the talkpage are acceptable, but if the dispute is being carried out on the article itself, and there is a contentious edit under discussion, then the article is not stable. Instability at the start of a review is not reason to fail the article. You need to give a warning that the article must remain stable for a reasonable length of time. If the dispute has been long running and severe, it would be acceptable to state that it should remain stable for at least a month. If the article is receiving persistent attacks of vandalism then that is not a fail, but should be dealt with. If the attacks are by IP accounts, then request semi-protection, or do it yourself if you're an admin. If the attacks are by a registered account then report the matter here or here.

Usually this is a quick and easy criteria pass, and can be done in the early stages of a review. If disruption occurs later in the review, you can change from a pass to a fail.

The standard article for review will take about 25 minutes to read through, and you will have approx 70% comprehension of the content. If you are making notes about potential GA problems as you read through then your comprehension may be somewhat less, and the time taken may be somewhat more.
 * First read through

A full read though in the early stages of a review is of value as it gives a feel for the topic, and how it has been dealt with. The article may be good enough to give you a good grasp of the topic, be written in a lively and compelling manner, and be well presented with useful and stimulating images. You may be inclined to want to pass it as you enjoyed it so much, and you were impressed at what you learned, but it's important that all the criteria are weighed and appropriately ticked off. Sources do need checking, and cannot be taken on good faith, as we all make mistakes.

Informing nominator and significant contributors.
 * Communication


 * Other stuff

My aims
My aims while doing a GA review:


 * The first aim is to check that an article meets GA criteria
 * The second aim is to improve the article - for it to reach GA level, and to be improved in general
 * The third aim is for the GA review to be a beneficial experience for those involved - if nominators and significant contributors are motivated by the process they are more likely to improve other articles to GA status, and if they can see what needs to be done to bring an article to GA status, it makes the next GA review easier for all concerned.

Each review is different and brings its own problems to overcome. Some reviews can be fairly quick, others take a long time. Small, discrete topics like albums, especially the less important albums, are easier to do than articles on the band that made the album. The more important the topic, and the more complex and sprawling it is, the more difficult it is to get a well balanced and satisfying article.

Typical stages of a review:
 * Initial look. The article should look organised and tidy, without a distracting and noisy mass of images and infoboxes squeezing text, and spilling into neighbouring sections; there should be a decent amount of readable and correct text in appropriate sections. There shouldn't be any maintenance tags or sections which are mainly lists. It should be a reasonably attractive page that both invites and reassures the reader. It should look like an encyclopaedia page. There should be an appropriate amount of citations (neither too many as to clutter the page, nor too few as to cause concerns, though more is better than less), and if there are paragraphs, worse still whole sections, which are unsourced, that generally gives rise to concerns. A glance at the reference list should show some reliable sources - books from academic publishers tend to be more reassuring than websites, though it can depend on circumstances. Size is relative, though if the article is very short questions on broad coverage arise, and if the article is very long questions regarding focus arise.
 * A quick read through to identify if there are areas that the nominator/main contributors can work on, to see if there are aspects that clearly pass GA criteria, and to get a general feel for the amount of work involved. As this is a first read, unless the topic is very straightforward, short, self-contained and simple, it is highly unlikely that all the work that needs doing will be obvious. Some topics need considerable background reading and research to discover how well the Wikipedia article meets up to the available knowledge.
 * Start a list of how the article matches the GA criteria.
 * Do some background reading and research. If the article is well researched, has broad, balanced coverage, and is well written, this shouldn't take too long - if I'm reading information in other encyclopedias and reference works that also appears in the Wikipedia article, and the sources I'm reading are not mirroring Wikipedia, then I feel reassured. If the article is poorly researched / structured / written / has an idiosyncratic approach and/or has too much of the contributors' opinions, then this will be revealed during the background reading - though it can take time with some complex or messy articles, and may not be apparent at first.
 * Read some sections with care. As many articles nominated for GA take approx 20 minutes just to read through with a 70% comprehension, it makes sense to focus on individual sections for detailed analysis. I will usually edit as I'm reading, correcting spellings, grammar, etc, checking and adding references, restructuring for clarity, removing poor quality or unnecessary material, etc. Trends I identify while doing this I will report on the Review for the nominators/main contributors to pay attention to ("check spellings", "go through and add sources", "put cites after punctuation", etc). I will link to appropriate guidelines for areas of concern that need attention (WP:Captions, WP:Lead, etc), and open discussions on areas that I'm not sure about. I will also raise general comments on improving the article that are outside the GA criteria, making it clear that the improvements are not needed for GA listing, but are for advice only.
 * Check sources to see that they support what has been said in the article. I don't read all the sources, but I will check enough to be satisfied. If I read, say, 20% of the sources at random and they all hold up, I'm happy. If I find one mistake, then I will read more sources, if I find two mistakes I will be inclined to fail the article - though that depends on the nature of the error and other circumstances.
 * If the review is becoming drawn out with lots of comments, I draw a line and start a second list so it is clear what now still needs to be done.
 * My intention is to help get the article to GA status, so I am reluctant to give up if we have got this far, and may get more involved in the editing. Most reviews it's a case of saying, I feel X, Y, Z needs doing, putting on hold, coming back and passing. But with others there is a bit more work involved!

Possible

 * Amsterdam
 * Bloomsbury
 * Brewing
 * Cask ale
 * Carole King
 * Elton John
 * Etta James
 * Gluten-free beer
 * Guinness Brewery
 * Guinness
 * Guinness Draft
 * It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back
 * Kilgour-Matas report
 * Library
 * Mayfair
 * Newark-on-Trent
 * Normandy
 * Notting Hill
 * Pale ale
 * Pub
 * Rochester, Kent
 * Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
 * Soho
 * Stephen Downing case
 * Stepney
 * Stevie Wonder
 * Tapestry (Carole King album)
 * Train station
 * Tree shaping
 * Wimbledon, London