Wikipedia:Good article review circles/doc

Welcome! This page is for people who want their Good Article Nomination (GAN) reviewed and are also willing to review someone else's GAN. It replaces a quid pro quo or horse trading arrangement. The problem with horse trading is that it can lead to low-quality reviews, quick approvals, and a culture of complacency. The review circles model aims to involve around four users who list their GANs and form a circle. In this setup, no one reviews the GAN of someone reviewing their own work, reducing pressure to pass the work and ensuring more thorough reviews.

Step 1: Include your article
Include your article in the nomination pool below using the GARC-list-item template: *

Parameters
 * topic you would like to review: A topic or area of interest you would prefer to review. Eg. US politics, Geography, Sport, no preference, etc.
 * article: The name of the article you want reviewed.
 * GAN-subpage: The GAN subpage number. Eg. 1
 * nominator: The user nominating the article up for GAN (typically you).

Step 2: Wait to be paired
Wait for a coordinator to match you with an article to review, and for a user to review your article.

Current coordinators:, 

Step 3: 24-hour cooling-off period
Once paired with another user you will receive a message on your talk page notifying you. Once you receive the message you will have 24 hours to either accept the invitation to start the review. If you feel the article is out of your depth or is beyond your current editing abilities, you will also have the option to decline and your article will re-enter the pool. Once all users have accepted the invitation, or 24 hours has elapsed, you may begin reviewing.

If a user declines a review or another user starts reviewing an article prior to the 24-hour cooling-off period, the process will become a circle of three.

Step 4: Review the article
Try to complete the review within a timely manner (reviews should take no longer than seven days). Also ensure you that you are responsive to the user reviewing your article. It is also encouraged to contribute where you can to other reviews taking place within your review circle, thus strengthening the quality of the GAs outputted by this process.