Reviewing a "Good Article"

Welcome to the quick guide on how to review a good article. Firstly, I will lay out the basics for what constitutes a good article. And secondly, I will address some of the most pressing questions you might have when it comes to reviewing an article nominated for good article review. I have to mention that first and foremost, reviewing a nominated article involves carefully reading the article in its entirety. So a careful read of this article is a great place to start! Good luck, and let the reviewing begin.

    When an article is nominated for good article review, people are seeking feedback. They want your input. Reviewing is a space that welcomes advice; you’re input is taken to heart. Here’s what to look for in a good article:

A good article is—

  • Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic, and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (uses summary style)


    It is important to make sure the article meets all the criteria listed above! Here are answers for some need to know good article review questions:

  • Where do I find Articles up for review?

  • What makes me qualified to review this article?

    • If you think that you can apply the Good article criteria (listed above) fairly, your perspective is perfect! Feminists make good reviewers in the same way that academics can make good reviewers.  

  • What is the first thing I should do when starting a review?

    • You will want to make sure you are reviewing an unvandalized version of the page, that there are not any valid clean-up banners, and that there are no outstanding issues from a prior review if the article has been nominated for good article review before.

  • What do I do if the article doesn’t meet the criteria?

    • The best thing to do is suggest ways to improve the article; this happens on the page’s “Talk” page. After all, most nominations are seeking feedback for improvement. When you see something missing, or misrepresented, don’t just point out the problem, suggest an improvement and provide links to some useful sources if you can. However, if the problem is minor and/or easy to fix, it’s often best to just go in and improve the article yourself.

    • If there are extensive problems you can fail the article. You will invite the article to be renominated when it has been improved, but this is a really good way to upset editors who are, after all, seeking help on the improvement process.

  • What are some mistakes editors make when reviewing that I should avoid?

    • Don’t pass an article that doesn’t meet all of the criteria.

    • Whenever you are unsure of something (or if there is a dispute), ask for a second opinion within the Wikipedia community itself. You can always ask for a second reviewer. There are instructions for how to proceed here.

    • Be careful not to inject your own bias and criteria, especially so the missing scholarshipfeminist or otherwiseyou suggested to improve the article doesn’t get removed.

  • What do I do if I need more help?

    • Don’t fret, there is the Good Article Help Desk! Bring any and all questions regarding this process here.

    • Also, there is a list of editors out there who want to help you. They are the good article review mentors and you should feel free to ask them for their help on their talk pages. Here’s a link to the list.

No comments