View source for Wikipedia:Good article criteria

<noinclude>{{short description|Description for Good article}}
{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header}}
{{shortcut|WP:GA?|WP:GACR|WP:WIAGA}}
<!--{{redirect|WP:GAC|"good article candidates"|Wikipedia:Good article nominations}}-->
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|40px|left|Good article nominations]]
The '''good article criteria''' are the six standards or tests by which a [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article nomination]] (GAN) may be compared and judged to be a [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] (GA). A good article that has met the good article criteria may not have met the criteria for [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured articles]].<ref>Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria. At the time of assessment, they may or may not meet [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|featured article criteria]], which determine our ''best'' articles. The good article criteria measure ''decent'' articles; they are [[Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article|not as demanding]] as the featured article criteria.</ref>

==Criteria==

The six good article criteria are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail an article. All other comments designed to help improve the article are to be encouraged during the review process but should not be mandated as part of the assessment.

===Immediate failures===
{{shortcut|WP:GAFAIL}}
An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review:
<ol>
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0a}}</li>
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0b}}</li>
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0c}}</li>
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0d}}</li>
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0e}}</li>
</ol>
In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer. For most reviews, the nominator is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed. Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review.

===The six good article criteria===
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|75px|right]]</noinclude>
A [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] is:
<ol>
<li id=1>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:
<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha">
<li id=1a>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}; and</li>
<li id=1b>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}.<noinclude><ref>Compliance with other aspects of the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] or its subpages is ''not'' required for good articles.</ref></noinclude></li>
</ol></li>
<li id=2>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:<noinclude><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles]] says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."</ref></noinclude>
<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha">
<li id=2a>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}};<noinclude><ref>Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a [[Wikipedia:Bare URLs|bare url]]. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is ''not'' required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.</ref></noinclude></li>
<li id=2b>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}};</li>
<li id=2c>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}; and</li>
<li id=2d>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2d}}.</li>
</ol></li>
<li id=3>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:
<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha">
<li id=3a>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}};<noinclude><ref>The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured articles]]. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.</ref></noinclude> and</li>
<li id=3b>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}.</li>
</ol></li>
<li id=4>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.</li>
<li id=5>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.<noinclude><ref>Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as [[copy editing]]), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold. Stability is based on the articles current state, not any potential for instability in the future.</ref></noinclude></li>
<li id=6>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:<noinclude><ref>The presence of media is ''not'', in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided.</ref></noinclude>
<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha">
<li id=6a>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}; and</li>
<li id=6b>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}.</li>
</ol></li>
</ol><noinclude>

==What cannot be a good article?==
* '''[[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists|Stand-alone lists]], [[Wikipedia:Portal|portals]], [[Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Audio|sounds]], and [[Wikipedia:Images|images]]''': these items should be nominated for [[Wikipedia:Featured lists|featured list]] and [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|featured picture]] status, if applicable.
* '''[[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|Disambiguation]] pages and [[Wikipedia:Stub|stubs]]''': these pages cannot meet the criteria.
* '''[[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured articles]]''': a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality.

==See also==

* [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions]]—step-by-step instructions on how to handle the GA process
* [[Wikipedia:Nominating good articles]]—advice for nominating an article for GA status
* [[Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles]]—guidelines for reviewing an article for GA status
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control/Reviewing Cheatsheet]]—useful suggestions for GA review
* [[Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not]]—GA reviews should be concluded ''only'' in accordance with the GA criteria, not personal preferences
* [[Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria|Wikipedia:''Did you know'' eligibility criteria]]—within 7 days of promotion, a GA article may be nominated for a DYK hook review
* [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]]—setting your sights on FA criteria may help with the GA review process

==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}

[[Category:WikiProject Good articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia article assessment|Good]]
</noinclude>