This page is where users can nominate good articles. Good articles are articles that meet high standard requirements, but are to limited in terms of content to be featured articles. Users who help bring an article to good status will be given an award by administrators when the article is given good status.
The nomination processEdit
There are some requirements that must be met before an article can be a good article.
Nominating user requirementsEdit
Any user can nominate an article as long as they are signed in under a screen name.
A good article must...
- ...be well written and as detailed as possible, given possible content limitations
- ...be unbiased, non-point of view
- ...be sourced with all available sources and appearances
- ...follow the manual of style
- ...not be the object of any ongoing edit wars
- ...not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc.)
- ...have a reasonable amount of red links; use common sense
- ...be over 250 words long. This should not include templates, image captions or sources and references but may include sub-headings, lists, quotes and tables. We are flexible with the word count and an administrator will check the criteria, so don't worry about counting every word before nominating the article! Articles that are not long enough might be applicable for comprehensive article status instead.
A good article cannot...
- ...be over 1000 words long. This should not include templates, image captions or sources and references but may include sub-headings, lists, quotes and tables. We are flexible with the word count and an administrator will check the criteria, so don't worry about counting every word before nominating the article! Articles that are too long enough might be applicable for featured article status instead.
How to nominateEdit
So, you have an article and it fits the above criteria, or at least you think it does. Now nominate it!
To nominate it simply start a new section underneath the nomination partition lower down on the page, this is done in the following way:
===[[Name of article]]=== '''Time of nomination:''' ~~~~~ <br /> '''Nominator:''' ~~~ ====Support (Number of supporting votes)==== ====Oppose (Number of opposing votes)==== ====Comments====
Now simply vote whilst following the voting process given below, and wait!
The voting processEdit
This section will list how to vote for good articles, and how the voting process works.
How to voteEdit
Simply add *~~~~ under the relevant section. Users can vote as many times as they want (but only once for each article) and may move their votes on a specific article. For example, a user can vote for article one to be a good article, and article two, and can oppose to article three's nomination. However a user cannot vote both for and against the same article.
How long does the voting last?Edit
The voting process lasts until a good article monitor has voted on the nomination. Usually a good article monitor will have voted within a week of nomination at the latest. Nominated articles that are turned down for the status remain here until improved enough to gain the status unless they are nominated for an alternative status.
How do the results work?Edit
There are two sides to each nominated article; support and oppose. The side with the most votes wins, however there are some exceptions...
All opposing votes must have a reason, an article cannot become a good article until every problem is addressed. Cross out previous comments that have been addressed to show how an article has improved. Good article monitors may remove opposing comments if they are not related to an article being good or not.
If one of the good article monitors votes against an article's nomination, with good reason, then the article cannot become a good article for now. Good article monitors will check that any nominations match the criteria, if it does not then they will vote against the article's status whilst stating the reason.
Who are the good article monitorsEdit
If you would like this status, then please contact Hunterj or one of the other monitors to discuss it.