[edit] Good article nominations

Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles considered to be of good standard but which are not featured article quality. This page provides a list of articles which have been nominated for consideration for good article status and instructions for nominators and reviewers. Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. There are currently 297 nominations waiting to be reviewed.

[edit] How to nominate an article

If you believe an article meets the good article criteria, you may nominate it below. Before nominating your first article, you should read the guide for nominating good articles for extra advice.

The nomination process has three steps:

1. Find the most appropriate subsection from those listed on the right. If you are not sure which section is best, use "Miscellaneous". Also choose the most appropriate subsection.
2. Add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection on this page where the article is listed}} to the top of the nominated article's talk page. The subtopic parameter is optional, but provides a convenient link from the article talk page to the subsection on this page where the article is listed.
3. List the article at the bottom of that subsection:
   • Copy this for the syntax: # {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~
   • Copy this for the edit summary: Nominating [[ArticleName]]

If you've completed all three steps, then you have successfuly put your article up for Good article nomination.

It may take several weeks for your nomination to be reviewed, as this page often has a large backlog. If you are a registered user, you can help by reviewing other articles.

[edit] Nomination categories

Arts

Language and literature

Philosophy and religion

Everyday life

Social sciences and society

Geography and places

History

Engineering and technology

Mathematics

Natural sciences

Miscellaneous (if unsure what section to use)

[edit] How to review an article

1. Choose an article to review, noting:
   • only registered users may review articles—make sure you are logged in;
   • you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, nor can you review an article if you are the nominator;
   • you should not pass an article that was put on hold by another editor without assessing the problem;
   • nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority.
2. Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry; this avoids multiple reviews of the same article. Then on the article talk page, follow the link in the GA nominee template to start a review subpage. Leave an initial comment, save the subpage, and transclude that comment onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window.
3. Check the "quick-fail criteria" before reading the article in detail: if a quick fail is appropriate, add your reason to the review page and go to the fail process; otherwise continue with the next step.
4. Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the criteria listed here. You can also put the article "On Hold" or ask for a second opinion. If you wish, you can inform the nominator of your actions (e.g., using {{subst:GANotice}}). The template {{subst:FGAN}} may help you organize the critique. You can also use {{subst:GAList}} or {{subst:GAList2}} to generate a checklist.
5. Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review.

Review carefully — see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for more suggestions. You may also ask for the advice of a mentor.

[edit] Pass

If you feel the article meets the Good article criteria:

1. Ensure you have provided a detailed review of the article, giving an overview of how you believe it fulfills the Good article criteria, with suggestions to improve it if you can. Please also encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.
2. Remove the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Passed [[''ArticleName'']]".
3. Replace {{GA nominee|...|subtopic=|page=}} on the article's talk page by {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}.^[1] Please include "GA" in your edit summary. Also, update the class parameters to "GA" for project templates on the talk page.
4. List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section, and consider updating the "recently listed good articles".

[edit] Fail

If you feel the article does not meet the Good article criteria:

1. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself. Otherwise state which criteria were not met on the article's talk page. Please detail the article's flaws to help other editors improve the article for another GA nomination.
2. Remove the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Failed [[Article Name]]".
3. Replace {{GA nominee|...|subtopic=|page=}} on the article's talk page by {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}.^[1] Please include "GA" in your edit summary.

[edit] On Hold

You may put an article "On Hold" for a period of time. To put an article on hold:

1. Copy and paste the following below the nomination entry:
   #: {{GAReview|status=onhold}} ~~~~
2. On the talk page of the article set the GAN status parameter to "on hold", as in {{GA nominee|...|status=on hold}}
3. Don't forget to specify on the review page what needs to be done.

[edit] Second opinion

If you are unsure whether an article meets the Good article criteria, you may ask another reviewer or subject expert for a second opinion. To make such a request:

1. Copy and paste the following below the nomination entry:
   #: {{GAReview|status=2nd opinion}} ~~~~
2. On the talk page of the article set the GAN status parameter to "2nd opinion" as in {{GA nominee|...|status=2nd opinion}}
3. Don't forget to review the article yourself, stating what needs to be done on the article's review page.