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.

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 may want to read the guide for nominating good articles for extra hints and tips.

The nomination process:

1. Find the most appropriate section from those listed below. If you are not sure which one section is best, use "Miscellaneous".
2. List the article at the bottom of that section:
   • Copy this for the syntax: # {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~
   • Copy this for the edit summary: "Nominating [[ArticleName]]"
3. Add {{GAN|~~~~~|status=|subtopic=name of section where article is listed}} (five tildes) to the top of the nominated article's talk page.^[1]

Note that it may take more than a few weeks for your nomination to be reviewed, as this page tends to have a large backlog. If you are are a registered user, you can help by reviewing other articles.

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)

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. You can also indicate this on the article talk page by adding "on review" to the status parameter of {{GAN}}.
3. Check the "quick-fail criteria" before reading the article in detail: if a quick fail is appropriate, add your reason to the talk 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}}).
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.

Pass

If you feel the article meets the Good article criteria:

1. Remove the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Passed [[''ArticleName'']]".
2. Remove {{GAN}} from the article's talk page and add {{GA|~~~~~}}.^[2] Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
3. Leave a review of the article, giving an overview of how you believe the article fulfills the Good article criteria (with suggestions to improve the article, if you can). {{subst:PGAN}} may help you organise the critique. You can also use {{subst:GAList}} or {{subst:GAList2}} to generate a checklist. Please also encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.
4. List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section. Consider listing it at the top of the good articles page under "Recently listed good articles".

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, remove the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Failed [[Article Name]]".
2. Remove {{GAN}} from the article's talk page and add {{FailedGA|~~~~~}}.^[2] Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
3. State which criteria were not met on the article's talk page. The template {{subst:FGAN}} may help you organize the critique. You can also use {{subst:GAList}} or {{subst:GAList2}} to generate a checklist. Please detail the article's flaws to help other editors improve the article for another GA nomination.
4. If your sole criterion for rejecting the article was a lack of appropriate references, please add the article to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list.

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:
   #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~
2. On the talk page of the article set the GAN status parameter to "on hold", as in {{GAN|~~~~~|status=on hold}}
3. Don't forget to specify on the talk page what needs to be done. You may use {{subst:GAList}} to generate a list, or {{subst:GANOH}} for greater explanation and/or plain text.

Second opinion

If you are uncertain whether an article fully meets the Good article criteria, you may ask for a more experienced reviewer or subject expert to offer a second opinion on the article. To make such a request:

1. Copy and paste the following below the nomination entry:
   #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~
2. On the talk page of the article set the GAN status parameter to "2nd opinion" as in {{GAN|~~~~~|status=2nd opinion}}
3. Don't forget to review the article yourself, stating what needs to be done on the article's talk page, using {{subst:GAList}} to generate a list, {{subst:GANOH}} for greater explanation and/or plain text.