95:
330:
by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the
221:
meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick
144:
There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each
355:
The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus
329:
This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page
167:
One advantage of reviewing articles to help the
Knowledge community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to
148:
While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the
298:
No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter
340:
That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were
271:
If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the
180:
Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly
160:
reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's
190:. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g.,
145:
day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 644 nominations listed and 549 waiting for a reviewer.
264:
after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the
244:
interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the
255:
editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the
356:
on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and
187:
213:
The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that
331:
319:
template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the
207:
Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue.
273:
341:
legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the
49:
181:
contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person.
370:
to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.
251:
The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact,
234:
in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another.
231:
260:
and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the
35:
320:
84:
210:
As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now?
367:
194:. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer.
129:
70:
284:, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the
63:
334:
page under "What to do during a review if it seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
357:
346:
77:
42:
56:
342:
285:
281:
261:
257:
28:
309:
template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the
276:. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. You might want to read
337:
I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!
289:
363:
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?
128:. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the
240:
The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while
149:
expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
125:
21:
94:
280:. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the
248:
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?
8:
303:
111:
204:
I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?
103:
288:, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to
313:
277:
135:
223:
156:
141:
The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?
268:
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?
198:
164:
What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page?
292:
later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting").
184:
Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to?
360:
is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
192:|note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor
232:
exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria
295:
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?
299:
periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the
352:
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?
326:
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?
171:What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic)
152:Can't we force nominators to review articles?
226:, although they are less common. Please
272:nomination, you may try asking them to
278:What the Good article criteria are not
366:You can bring those concerns to the
15:
230:make a list of nitpicky details or
217:meet the criteria. If the article
13:
93:
14:
380:
124:about nominating and reviewing
237:Who can respond to the review?
1:
222:passes" are as legitimate as
168:nominators who are new to GA.
7:
290:Knowledge:Featured articles
10:
385:
122:Frequently asked questions
101:
50:October 2024 Backlog Drive
130:GA nominations discussion
274:ask for a second opinion
98:Good article nominations
99:
345:, you can initiate a
343:Good article criteria
321:GA nominations report
286:Good article criteria
282:Good article criteria
262:Good article criteria
258:Good article criteria
97:
120:This is the list of
136:Nomination process
100:
92:
91:
376:
318:
312:
308:
302:
193:
176:
175:
114:
16:
384:
383:
379:
378:
377:
375:
374:
373:
368:discussion page
316:
310:
306:
300:
201:
191:
173:
172:
138:
118:
117:
110:
106:
12:
11:
5:
382:
372:
371:
364:
361:
353:
350:
338:
335:
327:
324:
296:
293:
269:
266:
249:
246:
238:
235:
211:
208:
205:
200:
199:Review process
197:
196:
195:
185:
182:
178:
169:
165:
162:
153:
150:
146:
142:
137:
134:
116:
115:
107:
102:
90:
89:
87:
82:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
64:Review circles
61:
59:
54:
52:
47:
45:
40:
38:
33:
31:
26:
24:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
381:
369:
365:
362:
359:
354:
351:
348:
344:
339:
336:
333:
328:
325:
322:
315:
305:
297:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
270:
267:
263:
259:
254:
250:
247:
243:
239:
236:
233:
229:
225:
220:
216:
212:
209:
206:
203:
202:
189:
186:
183:
179:
170:
166:
163:
159:
158:
154:
151:
147:
143:
140:
139:
133:
131:
127:
126:Good articles
123:
113:
109:
108:
105:
96:
88:
86:
83:
81:
79:
76:
74:
72:
69:
67:
65:
62:
60:
58:
55:
53:
51:
48:
46:
44:
41:
39:
37:
34:
32:
30:
27:
25:
23:
20:
18:
17:
358:reassessment
347:reassessment
332:instructions
252:
241:
227:
218:
214:
157:Quid pro quo
155:
121:
119:
78:Reassessment
36:Instructions
245:nomination.
224:quick fails
43:Nominations
304:GA nominee
174:IP address
71:Discussion
57:Mentorship
314:GANotice
265:article.
242:everyone
112:WP:GAFAQ
104:Shortcut
29:Criteria
219:already
228:do not
215:almost
132:page.
85:Report
323:page.
161:work.
22:Main
253:all
317:}}
311:{{
307:}}
301:{{
188:No
349:.
177:?
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
