Before nominating, ensure that you are a registered user and have the time to implement changes or clarifications requested by a reviewer.

If you believe an article to be good according to the Good article criteria:

1. List the article at the bottom of the relevant section below using the syntax: # {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~ with an edit summary of "Nominating [[ArticleName]]"
2. If the article is longer than about 32 kB add '''LONG''' to its listing: # '''LONG''' {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~
3. Add {{GAnominee|2024-07-19}} to the nominated article's talk page.

When you nominate an article, please consider also choosing another article from the list to review.

If you are the article's nominator and would like to withdraw a nomination for one reason or another, simply remove the article's listing from this page, and don't forget to remove the {{GAnominee}} from the article's talk page as well. It is not necessary to update {{ArticleHistory}}, but it would be a good idea to add a comment to the article's talk page stating that you are withdrawing the nomination, and your reasons why you are doing so.

Articles that have been withdrawn may still be renominated for Good Article status at any point in the future.

Arts

Language and literature

Philosophy and religion

Everyday life

Social sciences and society

Geography

History

Applied sciences and technology

Mathematics

Natural sciences

Miscellaneous (if unsure what section to use)

1. Check that you are logged in: anons may not review articles.
2. Choose an article to review, noting:
   • you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it;
   • 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.
3. Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry; this avoids multiple reviews of the same article.
4. 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.
5. 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 action (e.g., using the {{GANotice}} template).

Review carefully — see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for more suggestions.

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 {{GAnominee}} from the article's talk page and either add {{GA|oldid=|topic=}} or add/update the {{ArticleHistory}} template. The {{ArticleHistory}} template allows other editors to follow the article's milestones such as peer review and FAC in addition to GAN: the syntax needs to be followed carefully for the template to display correctly. To indicate the reviewed version of a Good article, you will need the id number of the reviewed version. This number may be found by clicking the "Permanent link" in the toolbox on the left side navigation bar of the page. The id number is to be found in the url of this page mentioned as 'oldid'. Also categorize the article using the appropriate topic parameter.
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). {{PGAN}} may help you organise the critique. You can also use {{GAList}} to generate a checklist.
4. List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section and update the article count. Increase the count at the end of the appropriate section. Consider listing it in the infobox at the top of the page under "Recently listed good articles".

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.
2. Otherwise, remove the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Failed [[Article Name]]".
3. Remove {{GAnominee}} from the article's talk page and either add {{FailedGA|2024-07-19}} or add/update the {{ArticleHistory}} template.
4. State which criteria were not met on the article's talk page. The template {{FGAN}} may help you organize the critique. You can also use {{GAList}} to generate a checklist. Please be fairly specific as to the article's flaws, so that the editors are better able to correct and improve the article for another potential GA nomination.
5. If your sole criterion for rejecting the article was a lack of appropriate references, please add the article to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list.

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, replace {{GAnominee}} with {{GAonhold|2024-07-19}}.
3. Don't forget to specify on the talkpage what needs to be done, using {{GAList}} to generate a list, {{GANOH}} for greater explanation and/or plain text - according to your choosing.

If you are uncertain whether an article fully meets the Good article criteria, you may request that either a more experienced reviewer, or a reviewer with more knowledge on the subject, offer a second opinion on the article in question. To request a second opinion:

1. Copy and paste the following below the nomination entry: #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~.
2. On the talk page of the article, replace {{GAnominee}} with {{GA2ndoptalk|2024-07-19}}.
3. Don't forget to review the article yourself, stating what needs to be done on the article's talk page, using {{GAList}} to generate a list, {{GANOH}} for greater explanation and/or plain text - according to your choosing.

If this does not resolve the matter, consider listing the article at Good article reassessment.