- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section):
b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Usage
[edit]{{subst:GAList|1a=|1b=|2a=|2b=|2c=|2d=|3a=|3b=|4=|5=|6a=|6b=|7=}}
or, full usage:
{{subst:GAList
|overcom=
|1a=
|1b=
|1com=
|2a=
|2b=
|2c=
|2d=
|2com=
|3a=
|3b=
|3com=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6b=
|6com=
|7=
|7com=
}}
Available arguments are y,n and ?; some synonyms are also available for these arguments; any other argument or no argument at all gives an undecided mark. Note that the template should be substituted, as the GA guidelines are reviewed from time to time and this template may be changed.
The template also allows comments to be added to the top of the review, and also to each numbered item, using additional parameters overcom, 1com, 2com, ... 7com.
Example
[edit]{{subst:GAList
|overcom=This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
|1a=y|1b=y
|2a=y|2b=n|2c=y|2d=y|2com=The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3
|3a=y|3b=y|4=?|4com=Is section 3 really neutral?
|5=y|6a=|6b=y|6com=I'm not convinced that the non-free use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid
|7=n|7com= I wish you good luck with improving the article!}}
results in:
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is section 3 really neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- I'm not convinced that the non-free use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I wish you good luck with improving the article!
- Pass/Fail:
See also
[edit]- {{GAList/check}}