Below are the "old" instructions. Over time they will morph into the "new" instructions. ;) -Pete (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: also need to review Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, specifically remove reference to "on hold" status, and add in "stability" to the list of criteria. -Pete (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List the article at the bottom of the relevant section below using the syntax: # {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~ with an edit summary of "Nominating [[ArticleName]]"
Add {{GAnominee|2024-05-29}} 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 wish to withdraw your nomination, just remove the article's listing from this page and the {{GAnominee}} template from the article's talk page. Please leave a comment on the article talk page explaining your reasons for withdrawing the nomination.
Articles that have been withdrawn can, of course, be renominated at any time.
only registered users may review articles—ensure 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 or fail an article that another reviewer is working on, without good reason for believing they have abandoned the review;
nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority.
Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry; this avoids multiple reviews of the same article.
Paste {{subst:GAchecklist}} on the article's talk page; this will generate a "checklist" for you to use throughout the review in assessing the article's quality.
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.
Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the criteria listed here. If you feel the need, seek second opinion from another reviewer. If you wish, you can inform the nominator of your action (e.g., using {{subst:GANotice}}). (Note: "On Hold" is no longer a formal status; the article is assumed to be "on hold" from the moment you take on the review, until you choose pass or fail. You may institute timelines, however, at your own discretion. A common technique is to request that your concerns be acknowledged within 48 hours, and addressed within 7 days, to avoid a "fail.")
Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review.
Remove the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Passed [[ArticleName]]".
Remove {{GAnominee}} from the article's talk page and either add {{GA|2024-05-29}}[1] or update the {{ArticleHistory}} template.[2] Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
Leave a review of the article on its talk page, in the checklist previously generated by {{GAchecklist}}. Give an overview of how you believe the article fulfills the Good article criteria (with suggestions to improve the article, if you can). Please also encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.
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".
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]]".
Remove {{GAnominee}} from the article's talk page and either add {{FailedGA|2024-05-29}}[1] or update the {{ArticleHistory}} template.[2] Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
State which criteria were not met on the article's talk page, in the checklist previously generated by {{GAchecklist}}. Please detail the article's flaws to help other editors improve the article for another GA nomination.
If your sole criterion for rejecting the article was a lack of appropriate references, please add the article to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list.
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:
Copy and paste the following below the nomination entry: #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~.
On the talk page of the article, replace {{GAnominee}} with {{GA2ndoptalk|2024-05-29}}.
Don't forget to review the article yourself, stating what needs to be done on the article's talk page. Put your review in the checklist previously generated by {{GAchecklist}}
^ ab It is also helpful to add an "oldid" and "topic" to the template, using the syntax {{GA|2024-05-29|oldid=nnnnnn|topic=topic name}}. Replace nnnnnn by the id number of the reviewed version, which 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 after the word 'oldid'. The topic name should be one of the topic abbreviations.
^ abThe {{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. When finished building ArticleHistory, please scroll to the bottom of the talk page to make sure the red ArticleHistory error category is not highlighted.
