User:Chzz/gatest

GA notes

1. Check the "quick-fail criteria" before reading the article in detail: if a quick fail is appropriate, add your reason to the review page and go to the fail process; otherwise continue with the next step.
2. 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}}). The template {{subst:FGAN}} may help you organize the critique. You can also use {{subst:GAList}} or {{subst:GAList2}} to generate a checklist.
3. 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.

substGANotice

{{subst:GANotice|article=Article|days=7}} ~~~~

Your GA nomination of Article

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Article you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Chzz  ►  23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Also same for hold/good/tail; see Template:GANotice for syntax

substFGAN

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 28, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

substGAList

Example;

{{subst:GAList
|overcom=This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
|1a=aye|1b=aye
|2a=nay|2b=???|2c=aye|2com=The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3
|3a=aye|3b=aye|4=wtf|4com=Is section 3 really neutral?
|5=aye|6a=|6b=aye|6com=I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid
|7=nay|7com= Good luck improving the article}}

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Is section 3 really neutral?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

User:Giggy/Easy GA ArticleHistory

ArticleHistory | action1 = GAN | action1date = ~~~~~ | action1link = Talk:subst:BASEPAGENAME}}/GA1 | action1result = listed

| currentstatus = GA | topic = {{{1}}}

ArticleHistory | action1 = GAN | action1date = 13:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | action1link = Talk:subst:BASEPAGENAME}}/GA1 | action1result = listed

| currentstatus = GA | topic = {{{1}}}