User:Thebiguglyalien/Good article reviewing guide

Reviewing a good article (GA) means reading it carefully to make sure it meets the good article criteria. It's a great way to help out with an article and to improve your own editing skills in the process. If you have an account, then you can review any good article nomination as long as you haven't significantly contributed to the article. You don't even need to be knowledgeable about the subject. Try to find one that isn't already being reviewed by someone.

Starting the review
First, make sure you read the good article criteria. Keep them in mind while you're reviewing the article. Then go to Good article nominations and pick an article to review. Once you've picked the nomination you want to review, click where it says start review and save the page. If you'd like, you can insert a GA template to decide on a format your review. Check that the nominator is actually a major contributor to the article and that they didn't nominate an article written by someone else.

Once you save the page, you are that article's reviewer. Make sure you complete the review in a timely manner, because the nominator will be looking forward to hearing your feedback. Reviewers usually finish their reviews in a few days to a week. If you expect it to take longer, try to let the nominator know ahead of time.

Reviewing the article
Read the whole article carefully. Check to see if it meets the good article criteria. Whenever you find an issue, make a note of it and explain what needs to be fixed. Use these guides to check the article:

While reading the article, check to make sure that it's readable and that it makes sense. Make a list of every issue you find so the nominator can fix them. Be specific about where the issue is and what needs to be fixed.
 * Clear and concise
 * Is it clear what each sentence is trying to say? Are any sentences vague or confusing?
 * Is it concise? Do any sentences meander on or use too many words to say something simple?
 * Is it understandable?
 * Are there any parts that would be confusing to someone that isn't an expert in the subject?
 * If someone has never heard of this thing before, would they understand what it is after reading this article?
 * Does it use any acronyms or highly technical terms that can be replaced with normal words?
 * Does it have good spelling and grammar?

Also check to make sure that it follows these five Manual of Style pages. Make a list of each phrase or sentence that needs improvement:
 * Manual of Style
 * Lead section
 * The lead should provide a basic overview that summarizes each section of the article.
 * The first sentence should define what the article is about in simple terms.
 * The lead should be an appropriate size. It's usually one to two paragraphs for shorter articles, three to four for longer articles.
 * Layout
 * Everything should be in the correct order.
 * Each section should start with a == Level 2 Heading == with smaller headings dividing them when appropriate.
 * The paragraphs should be an appropriate size. Avoid huge blocks of text or individual sentences on their own line.
 * Images should be a reasonable size without obstructing or squishing the text.
 * See also sections should only have relevant links that aren't found elsewhere in the article.
 * Words to watch
 * Make sure the article doesn't inappropriately use types of words that introduce bias:
 * puffery ("the best", "renowned", "respected", etc.)
 * contentious labels ("cult", "racist", "controversial", etc.)
 * unsupported attributions ("some people say", "it's believed that", "scientists claim", etc.)
 * expressions of doubt ("supposed", "purported", "so-called", etc.)
 * editorializing ("it should be noted", "clearly", "tragically", etc.)
 * inappropriate synonyms for said ("exposed", "noted", "claimed", etc.)
 * Make sure the article doesn't inappropriately use types of words that are imprecise:
 * euphemisms ("passed away", "made love", "survived by", etc.)
 * cliches and idioms ("lion's share", "tip of the iceberg", "at the end of the day", etc.)
 * relative time references ("recently", "currently", "last year", etc.)
 * unspecified places or events ("this country", "here", "occasionally", etc.)
 * Make sure the article doesn't use "scare quotes".
 * Writing about fiction
 * If the subject is fictional, this should be made clear in the first sentence of the article.
 * If it's about a work of fiction, it must avoid in-universe perspective (acting like the events of the story actually happened).
 * When describing what happens in a fictional work, the article should use present tense.
 * Plot summaries should be brief (usually under 400 words for TV episodes, under 700 words for other works). They should not give undue weight to any one event in the story.
 * The plot summary must not interpret or analyze the story and its meaning. It should just describe the sequence of events as they appear to the audience.
 * List incorporation
 * Lists should be avoided whenever prose would be clear and understandable.
 * There should be no trivia lists or "in popular culture" lists.

Check for all of these things, and make a note that you checked each one in the review. Make a list of each sourcing or citation issue that you find.
 * Check to make sure that all of the article's references are listed correctly in a section labeled "notes", "references", "works cited", etc. Any reference formatting is fine; your only concern is whether you can tell what the source is. There should not be any bare URLs; the reference needs to say what it is and where the link leads.
 * Look at the references and make sure that they are all reliable. Reliable sources/Perennial can help you with the most common sources, but you may have to use your judgement. Check to see if the sources are written by authors who are experts in that subject and if they're published by reputable organizations. The best sources are up-to-date secondary sources that reflect the mainstream consensus about a topic. The worst sources are blogs, user-generated content, and self-published sources; these are almost never acceptable.
 * Check that the article uses inline citations. Not every sentence needs to be cited, but most claims should have a citation that supports it. Leads, plot summaries, and image captions don't usually need citations. Quotations, statistics, opinions, controversial claims, and contentious material about living people must have an inline citation no later than the end of the sentence, no matter where they are.
 * Check that there aren't too many quotes in the article. A few quotes are fine when they're relevant in context, but too many quotes is a type of plagiarism. If there are too many quotes, mention in the review that some of them need to be paraphrased.

Spot checks

To review an article, you need to access its sources and compare them to what it says in the article. This step is really important, because it checks whether the information in the article is true and that the wording is not stolen from somewhere else. Pick a few sources from the references list to check. 10% of them is a good rule of thumb, but try to check at least five of them. The sources will usually have links where you can access them. If you're finding it difficult to access most or all of the sources, ask the nominator if there's a way to access them or if they can provide you with the relevant excerpt.

Each time you access a new source, follow these steps:


 * 1) Make sure the source actually says what it's supposed to.
 * 2) Check to make sure the source wasn't just copied-and-pasted into the article. If the Wikipedia article is identical or nearly identical to the source, it's a copyright violation.
 * 3) Check for close paraphrasing. This is when an article isn't directly copied from the source, but when it presents information in a very similar way as its sources, using similar wording or describing things in a similar way. If you can match sentences from the Wikipedia article to the source one-to-one, that's evidence of close paraphrasing and you should note it in your review.
 * 4) List the source that you checked, and note whether you were able to confirm the information and whether you found any copyright or plagiarism issues.

If some of your source checks turn up problems, check a few more to see if it's a significant problem throughout the article. Again, note each source you check and list any issues you find.

If you find that a significant proportion of the sources don't say what they're supposed to, make a note of this and fail the review. If there are large sections of text copied-and-pasted from other places, then immediately fail the review and tag the article as a copyright violation (if you don't know how to do this, reach out to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations or Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems).

Make sure the article address each major aspect of the topic. It doesn't need to be totally comprehensive, but all of the most important aspects should be covered. For a biography, this would mean that every period of the person's life should be given at least some coverage. For a film, this would mean coverage of the plot, cast, production, release, reception, and themes. If you're not sure what aspects should be covered, research the subject to see what reliable sources say about it, or look at other articles about similar topics to see what's covered there. If sources don't cover a certain aspect, then the article probably doesn't need to either.

Also make sure that the article doesn't go into excessive detail. Any unhelpful trivia should be removed. Anything that is not part of the article's scope should also be removed.

The article should be neutral in its tone. This means:


 * Opinions or controversial statements should not be presented as facts. Any time an opinion is described, an article should make it clear whose opinion it is.
 * Agreed upon facts should not be presented as opinions.
 * Language in the article should not suggest or imply that something is good or bad.
 * Wikipedia articles should describe arguments, not participate in them. If you can figure out the author's opinions just by reading the article, then it needs to be rewritten.
 * Contentious labels must be cited to high quality sources, especially if they're about living people.

The article should also be neutral in its structure. This means:


 * Fringe views and other views in the minority should not be given the same weight as major views. If most reliable sources accept one position, then alternatives should not be presented as if they are prominent.
 * Minor aspects of a topic should not be given undue importance. Even if they're not controversial, it's still a neutrality issue.
 * If there are competing views of similar prominence in reliable sources, then one should not be given additional weight over the others.
 * No individual source should have outsized influence on the article, nor should the ideas of one specific writer, expert, critic, or school of thought.
 * The article's purpose should not be to take a specific stance on a topic. This is a POV fork, which are not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * The article should not be divided by point of view. It should not look like it is arguing with itself or like certain ideas were segregated from the rest of the article. Criticism and controversy sections should be avoided when possible.

Check to make sure the article is stable. Check the article's history and its talk page to make sure there aren't any ongoing disputes surrounding the article. Constructive editing and collaboration do not count against an article's stability. Nor does vandalism. If there is a dispute, hold or fail the article so there's time for the dispute to end.

If the article has media files, such as images, video, or audio:


 * Check the page for each file to see if they have valid copyright tags. If the file is non-free content, it must have a non-free use rationale explaining why it can be used on that specific article.
 * Make sure the media is relevant to the article. Decorative or irrelevant images should be removed.
 * Make sure images have appropriate captions.

Next steps
Once you've gone through all six criteria, you should have a list of everything you've checked and every issue that needs to be addressed. Post this list to the review page. Based on how close the article is to the good article criteria, there are a few things you can do:


 * Pass – If the article already meets all six of the good article criteria, you can pass it immediately after completing your review. This is very rare, as nobody is perfect and nearly all articles will have at least one thing to fix.
 * Fail – If you've discovered serious problems with the article while reviewing it and you anticipate it will take a long time to fix it, then you can fail the article.
 * Hold – In most cases, you will hold the article. This means that you're giving the nominator time to look at your review and fix all of the issues that you found.
 * Second opinion – If you need another reviewer to join the review for a second opinion, you can request this. This is usually only necessary if there's an unusual circumstance or if there's a disagreement between the reviewer and the nominator. Other opinions can also be sought more informally by posting at the good article discussion page.

If you need help with these actions, the GANReviewTool can do them automatically.

Assuming you put the article on hold, the nominator will be notified and they should begin addressing any issues with the article. Keep an eye on the review during this time, as the nominator may ask for clarification or give input on certain issues. Once the nominator says that they've fixed all of the issues, check to see if the fixes are sufficient. If all of the issues are fixed, then you can pass the article and the review is complete. Otherwise, note any issues that still exist.

Nominators will typically respond to all requests within a reasonable timeframe. How long this takes may vary, but seven days is a common estimate. If the nominator does not address the issues and you are unable to get a response from them on their user talk page after a reasonable amount of time, then you should fail the article.

Common mistakes

 * Checklist reviewing – Don't just mark the criteria as pass or fail without providing feedback. If the article passes a criterion, why? What did you check for? If it fails a criterion, what needs to be improved? Unless you're quickfailing the article, you should provide a list of each item that needs improvement. If you are quickfailing the article, you should still provide a summary of what the major issues are and what needs to be fixed.
 * Excessive standards – An article doesn't have to be perfect to pass, it just needs to meet the good article criteria. Don't count it against an article if it's not written the way you would have written it, if it doesn't follow a certain format, if it's still short after covering the important information, or if it has any other imperfections that are not addressed by the good article criteria. Offering additional suggestions for improvement is always acceptable, but make it clear to the nominator that they are just suggestions and they are not part of the good article criteria. Don't demand that nominators remove red links, mimic the structure of similar articles, use a certain date format, etc.
 * Formatting sources – Don't confuse the aesthetics of the sources with their content. All that matters is that it's verifiable. If you can tell what the source is, then there is no reason to ask the nominator to alter its formatting. When evaluating sources, you should be checking what is in the book/website/newspaper/etc, not what the footnotes look like.
 * Passing bad articles – Even if you like the article or the nominator, you're doing them both a disservice if you pass the article too quickly, and it might result in reassessment. Make sure the article meets all of the good article criteria before passing. If you're not sure, request a second opinion.

Resources
Most issues can be solved by speaking with the nominator. If you need help with your review or there's a dispute that can't be resolved, consider requesting a second opinion. If you have a another issue that needs to be resolved, there are many places on Wikipedia where other editors are willing to help out:


 * General questions:
 * Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations – For questions about the good article criteria and the reviewing process. If you're not sure where to go, go here.
 * Good article mentorship – If you need more detailed help, you can request a mentor here. A mentor can help you with any issues you might have when reviewing.
 * Help desk – For general questions about using Wikipedia.
 * Specific issues:
 * WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors – For advice and assistance on writing, grammar, and tone.
 * No original research/Noticeboard – If it's unclear whether something is original research.
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard – If there's disagreement over whether a source is reliable.
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard – If there's disagreement about how much weight a certain idea should be given in the article or about any other neutrality issues.
 * Media copyright questions – If it's unclear whether an image can be used.