Wikipedia:Good article review circles

Welcome! This page is for people who want their Good Article Nomination (GAN) reviewed and are also willing to review someone else's GAN. It replaces a quid pro quo or horse trading arrangement. The problem with horse trading is that it can lead to low-quality reviews, quick approvals, and a culture of complacency. The review circles model aims to involve around four users who list their GANs and form a circle. In this setup, no one reviews the GAN of someone reviewing their own work, reducing pressure to pass the work and ensuring more thorough reviews.

In order to participate in GARC, you must have either

• reviewed 5 good article nominations, or
• made 5,000 edits to the English Wikipedia.

Users who don't meet these requirements but are in an active good article mentorship may also participate in GARC.

Include your article in the nomination pool below using the GARC-list-item template:

* {{GARC-list-item|topic you would like to review=  |GAN-subpage=  |article=  |nominator= {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} }}

Parameters

• topic you would like to review: A topic or area of interest you would prefer to review. Eg. US politics, Geography, Sport, no preference, etc.
• article: The name of the article you want reviewed.
• GAN-subpage: The GAN subpage number. Eg. Talk:Barack Obama/GA1
• nominator: The user nominating the article up for GAN (typically you).

Wait for a coordinator to match you with an article to review, and for a user to review your article.

Current coordinator: GMH Melbourne (talk)

Once paired with another user you will receive a message on your talk page notifying you. Once you receive the message you will have 24 hours to either accept the invitation to start the review. If you feel the article is out of your depth or is beyond your current editing abilities, you will also have the option to decline and your article will re-enter the pool. Once all users have accepted the invitation, or 24 hours has elapsed, you may begin reviewing.

If a user declines a review or another user starts reviewing an article prior to the 24-hour cooling-off period, another article will be allocated by a coordinator.

Try to complete the review within a timely manner (reviews should take no longer than seven days). Also ensure you that you are responsive to the user reviewing your article. It is also encouraged to contribute where you can to other reviews taking place within your review circle, thus strengthening the quality of the GAs outputted by this process.