A good article (GA) is an article that meets a core set of editorial standards but is not featured article quality. Good articles meet the good article criteria, passing through the good article nomination process successfully. They are well written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses. Good articles do not have to be as comprehensive as featured articles, but they should not omit any major facets of the topic: a comparison of the criteria for good and featured articles describes further differences. In Punjabi Wikipedia, there used to be no criteria for a Good Article and this project is the part of development of such policies and structures to have criterias for Good Articles in order to improve the quality in the content.
How To Propose Article For Nomination for GA?
The process for designating an article as a good article is intentionally straightforward. If an editor creates or contributes to an article and believes that it meets the good article criteria, they may nominate the article for an impartial reviewer to assess. Another editor will review the article after selecting it from a queue of good article nominations then evaluating it against the good article criteria. The nominated article will be added to the list of good articles below if it is accepted by the reviewer. Anyone may nominate or review an article by following the instructions. Similarly, anyone may propose that an article which no longer meets the good article criteria be removed from the list, following the instructions for reassessment.
General Criteria for GA in Wikipedia
A good article is—
1. Well written:
- the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Satdeep Gill
- Satpal Dandiwal
- Jagmit Singh Brar
- Nirmal Brar Faridkot
- Stalinjeet Brar
More good content is available at Wikipedia:Good topics.
|S.No||Step||Source page||Editor(s) working||Status||Comments|
|1||Define the basic GA criteria in Punjabi||en:WP:GACR||Wikilover90||Active||Example|
|2||Translate the simplified manual of style into Punjabi as required||en:WP:SMOS||Example||Example||Example|
|3||Identify relevant sections that will be of use from the generic Manual of Style||en:WP:MOS||Example||Example||Example|
|4||Translate the necessary content to Punjabi||Same as for 3.||Example||Example||Example|
|5||Create necessary templates as required to visualize the MoS||Variable||Example||Example||Example|
|6||Translate the required content from WP:RS for the assessment of reliable sources||en:WP:RS||Example||Example||Example|
|7||Create necessary syntax templates for various referencing styles||en:WP:CITE||Example||Example||Example|
|8||Review the entire manual style among the team||—||Example||Example||Example|
|9||Develop at least 10 articles as examples for GA, and review them||—||Example||Example||Example|
|10||Write instructions and guidelines for the entire system—nomination, review, closure etc.||en:WP:GAN/I||Example||Example||Example|
|11||Create necessary templates||Same as for 10.||Example||Example||Example|
|12||Propose entire system for community review,
and make modifications based on the feedback
|12||Formally put the system into effect||—||Example||Example|
|12||Elect a team of three coordinators to manage the process||—||Example||Example||Example|
|13||Conduct a drive/contest to take the spirit into community||—||Example||Example||Example|