Good article mentors provide assistance and feedback to editors who are new to reviewing. If you are interested in reviewing but are not sure where to start, requesting a mentor can make the process easier. To request a mentor, press the button below and follow the instructions.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Mentors can:

Help find an article suitable for a new reviewer to review
Explain any of the good article criteria and how to assess them
Check a review to make sure it was done correctly
Answer any other questions about how to review a good article nomination

Mentors are not expected to complete any part of the review. Mentorship is optional, and you do not have to request a mentor to begin reviewing.

Mentors ()

This is a list of users who have volunteered to be good article mentors. If you wish to choose a specific mentor, you can leave a message on one of their talk pages. Remember that not all of them might be active or be able to help at any given time.

If you're an experienced reviewer, you can add your name! You do not need to be on this list to answer a request for mentorship. Mentors are encouraged to add the mentorship page to their watchlist.

Current requests

Sangsangaplaz

I have reviewed a few articles like Vinland Saga (TV series) but I wish to gain more experience.

Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 10:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangsangaplaz: Hey there. I think you're doing very well on reviewing prose, you just need to make sure to cover other areas of the criteria as well. For example, doing spot-checks of the cited sources to ensure they verify the information in the article and look out for possible plagiarism of the sources. Earwig's tool can help with the latter. In addition to the prose review, a review of the sources will go a long way to make doubly sure an article meets all the criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst Just a quick question. How I do I verify the reliability of sources? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangsangaplaz: Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a good guideline for determining the reliability of sources. It goes over different types of sources, which ones are questionable and the context to consider when determining reliability. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrainman

Hi,

I have already started a review here: Talk:June/GA2. With regard to this one, it seems not to meet the broad coverage criteria. I wonder if I was right about that, with a subject such as this its a little hard to decide what proper coverage would look like.

Thankyou

𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Terrainman. To me, at a glance, the article looks like it might be a GA, or close to it. In terms of lead citations, please note WP:LEADCITE. It's common to not duplicate citations in the introduction, and perfectly acceptable as long as the lead only summarizes the body. You indicate it's a info-dump, but don't really give feedback on how it could be written better and how being an infodump doesn't meet the criteria. In terms of broadness, I feel the article does meet that criteria. There is no 'major' aspect missing. If there is a single bit of information missing (which countries use a word that looks like "June"), that's not a reason to fail the article, as this can be remedied within 7 days.

Overall, the goal of a GA review is to improve the article. The best way to do this is by giving a list of actionable feedback. Your review is very short so far. Please try to help the nominator improve the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've since learned about leadcite. 'Giving actionable feedback' is something I will make sure to do in the future. I am still not convinced the article is broad in its coverage, but that is just my gut instinct rather than anything actionable to the author, so I will mark it as neutral. I retracted my written review and will rewrite the review in the future. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]