Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates

This is a list of templates that you might find useful when reviewing Good articles. They are for convenience only, a review is perfectly valid without the use of any template as long as it addresses the criteria.

Reviewer templates[edit]

{{FGAN}}

{{subst:FGAN}} - For failed Good article reviews

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 1, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Pass

2. Factually accurate?:

Pass

3. Broad in coverage?:

Pass

4. Neutral point of view?:

Pass

5. Article stability?:

Pass

6. Images?:

Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

{{subst:FGAN
|well written =
|accuracy =
|thorough =
|NPOV = 
|stable = 
|images =
|closing comments = <!-- OPTIONAL -->
}}— ~~~~

{{GAList}}

{{subst:GAList}} - The original reviewer list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

{{subst:GAList
|overcom=
|1a=
|1b=
|1com=
|2a=
|2b=
|2c=
|2d=
|2com=
|3a=
|3b=
|3com=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6b=
|6com=
|7=
|7com=
}}

{{GAList2}}

{{subst:GAList2}} - A slight variation on GAList

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

{{subst:GAList2
|overcom=
|1a=
|1acom=
|1b=
|1bcom=
|2a=
|2acom=
|2b=
|2bcom=
|2c=
|2ccom=
|2d=
|2dcom=
|3a=
|3acom=
|3b=
|3bcom=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6acom=
|6b=
|6bcom=
|7=
|7com=
}}

{{GABox}}

{{subst:GABox}} - for those that like boxes

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

{{subst:GABox
|1a=
|1b=
|2a=
|2b=
|2c=
|2d=
|3a=
|3b=
|4=
|5=
|6a=
|6b=
|7=
}}

{{GATable}}

{{subst:GATable}} - the criteria in table form

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

{{GAHybrid}}

{{subst:GAHybrid}} - Table and lists combine

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

Well-written:
1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]
Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;^[2] and
3. it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.^[4]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:^[5]
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review:

Well-written:

Criteria Notes Result

(a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined

(b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria Notes Result

(a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined

(b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes Result

The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes Result

The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result
Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

{{GAProgress}}

{{subst:GAProgress}} - This template can only assesses each criteria with pass/fail/neutral etc. Should not be used without further comments.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

{{subst:GAProgress | prose = | mos = | reflayout = | reliablesources = | originalresearch =
| copyvio =  | broadness = | focus = | neutral = | stable = | freeortaggedpics =
| picsrelevant = }}

Notification templates[edit]

{{subst:GANotice}} – To notify a nominator that you have passed, failed, held or started a review

Your GA nomination of Article

The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Article for comments about the article. Well done!

Your GA nomination of Article

The article Article you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Article for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.

Your GA nomination of Article

The article Article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Article for issues.

Your GA nomination of Article

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Article you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

{{subst:GANotice
|result=<!--Pass, fail or hold. A blank field defaults to an introduction-->
|article=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:GANotice2}} – A template to notify contributors or the nominator that you will be reviewing the article

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article [[Talk:{{{article}}}/GA{{{page}}}\|{{{article}}}]] in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to [[User_talk:{{{user}}}\|contact me]] with any questions or comments you might have during this period. {{{sign}}}
· · ·

{{subst:GANotice2
|article=
|sign=~~~~
|page=
|user=
|type=
}}

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]