User:WanderBot/GAProcess

The following lovely summary of the "simple" GA process provided by Geometry guy
 * 1) Nominator adds the article at the bottom of the relevant section of WP:GAN using the syntax: " #  ~ " with an edit summary of "Nominating ArticleName".
 * 2) Nominator adds GAnominee with the date to the top of the article's talk page.
 * 3) At some point, a editor previously uninvolved with the article may come along and offer to review the article, but there are about 200 articles listed on the GAN page, so this may take a while.
 * 4) Reviewer adds " #:GAReview ~ " under the article listing at WP:GAN.
 * 5) Reviewer may "quick-fail" the article if it clearly doesn't meet the criteria, for one of several reasons listed at Reviewing_good_articles, a guideline consisting of 13KB of text (about the same length as WP:V).
 * 6) Reviewer checks the article against the criteria. (Only 5KB, but still longer than the featured article criteria.)
 * 7) If the article meets the criteria, the reviewer will pass the article.
 * 8) * Reviewer removes the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Passed ArticleName".
 * 9) * Reviewer replaces the GAnominee template on the article's talk page and either adds a GA template including an oldid and a topic, or updates the ArticleHistory template, with a GAN action, date, oldid, result and topic.
 * 10) * Reviewer and/or nominator updates WikiProject ratings where appropriate.
 * 11) * Reviewer adds the article in alphabetical order to the appropriate place on the list at WP:GA, updating the number of articles in that section.
 * 12) * Reviewer adds the article to "recently listed good articles".
 * 13) * Reviewer updates the GA count (actually this is essentially pointless, because the count is maintained by a bot).
 * 14) * Reviewer leaves a review on the talk page, possibly using a template such as GAList, explaining why the article passes and making suggestions for improvements.
 * 15) If the article does not meet the criteria, but might do with a bit of work, the reviewer puts the article "on hold"
 * 16) * Reviewer adds " #: ~ " under the article listing at WP:GAN.
 * 17) * Reviewer replaces the GAnominee template with GAonhold (note the cunningly different capitalization) and the date.
 * 18) * Reviewer leaves a review on the talk page, possibly using a template such as GAList, explaining what needs to be done to meet the criteria.
 * 19) If the article does not meet the criteria, and will not in the near future, even with the reviewer's help, or has been left on hold for more than a week without sufficient improvement, the reviewer may fail the article.
 * 20) * Reviewer removes the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Failed Article Name".
 * 21) * Reviewer replaces GAnominee from the article's talk page and either adds FailedGA with the date, or updates the ArticleHistory template, with a GAN action, date, oldid, result and topic.
 * 22) * Reviewer leaves a review on the talk page, possibly using a template such as GAList, explaining why the article does not meet the criteria.
 * 23) * If the article is simply lacking in references, the reviewer adds the article to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list.
 * 24) If the reviewer is not sure whether the article meets the criteria, a second opinion may be sought.
 * 25) * Reviewer adds " ~ " under the article listing at WP:GAN.
 * 26) * Reviewer replaces GAnominee with GA2ndoptalk (no capitalization trick here) and the date on the article talk page.
 * 27) * Reviewer leaves a review on the talk page, possibly using a template such as GAList, detailing how the article compares to the criteria.
 * 28) * With luck another reviewer comes along and starts doing most of the things listed above.
 * 29) If an article is on GAReview or GAOnHold for too long, this status may be reversed.
 * 30) * The template at WP:GAN is removed.
 * 31) * The template on the article talk page is replaced by GAnominee again.
 * 32) * The process starts over.
 * 33) Notice that the poor reviewer does most of the work. To compensate, nominators are asked to consider choosing another article from the WP:GAN list to review. For some reason, not many nominators take up this kind invitation.
 * 34) If the nominator disagrees with a GAN fail, and has not yet lost the will the live, the article can be taken to WP:GAR.
 * 35) * Ex-nominator substitutes the template GAR to the top of the list at WP:GAR, with the article name and the reason for the listing, e.g., "User:ToughReviewer failed my lovely article and it's not fair".
 * 36) * Ex-nominator adds a link to the discussion from the article talk page.
 * 37) * Loads of nice people ;-) comment on the article to try to find a consensus about whether it should be listed or not.
 * 38) * Eventually, the discussion gets closed, which involves another tedious list of chores:
 * 39) ** Removing the discussion from the WP:GAR page.
 * 40) ** Adding the discussion to the latest archive.
 * 41) ** Updating the GAR backlog if necessary.
 * 42) ** Updating the articles GA status if necessary, including WikiProject ratings where appropriate.
 * 43) ** Adding the GAR event to the article history, starting the article history if there isn't one, searching the edit history for previous events, listing all events with actions, oldids, results, dates, links, topic. For some reason, many editors omit this step.
 * 44) ** Adding a link to the GAR archived discussion on the article talk page.
 * 45) ** Updating the GA page if necessary, including the counts.
 * 46) * GAR regulars (well, I know at least one ;-) ) have been known to hold off closing a discussion which needs to be closed because they just can't face doing it.
 * (I was, of course, referring to myself. I hate archiving GAR discussions! Geometry guy 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC))
 * 1) Okay, all done, and we have a GA, so are we in the clear? No, because any previously uninvolved editor can also delist an article at any time.
 * 2) * Delister leaves a message on the talk page explaining why the article doesn't meet the criteria anymore (which may be simply because the criteria have changed).
 * 3) * Delister attempts to fix some of the problems.
 * 4) * If nothing happens in a week or so, the delister delists the article.
 * 5) ** Delister replaces GA with DelistedGA and the date; or
 * 6) ** Delister updates the article history with a GAR action (if they realise that delisting is a GAR even though the GAR page was not used, and if they can bear filling in the oldid, date, etc.).
 * 7) ** Delister updates WikiProject ratings where appropriate.
 * 8) ** Delister removes the article from WP:GA, updating the counts.
 * 9) * If you disagree with a delisting, you can either renominate the article, or take it to GAR. Please bear in mind that the latter action will mean that at some point in the future someone will have to close a GAR discussion, which may spoil their day.
 * 10) Are we done now? Well, almost. There is also a task force that combs through the current GA's checking if they meet the criteria, a task force that handles those Unreferenced GA Nominations. Oh yes, and if a GA is promoted to FA, then it gets removed from the GA list, updating the counts etc. etc.