major copy-edit: no substantive change in meaning; items numbered for easy reference by reviewers |
tweak of my previous edits |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
# It is '''well written'''. In this respect: |
# It is '''well written'''. In this respect: |
||
#*(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to |
#*(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers; |
||
#*(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects |
#*(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; |
||
#*(c) where |
#*(c) where appropriate, it contains a succinct [[WP:LEAD|lead section]] summarising the topic, and the remaining text is segmented into a proper system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles); |
||
#*(d) it follows the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Wikipedia Manual of Style]] |
#*(d) it follows the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]; |
||
#*(e) |
#*(e) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided. |
||
# it is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''. In this respect: |
# it is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''. In this respect: |
||
#*(a) it provide references to any and all sources used for its material; |
#*(a) it provide references to any and all sources used for its material; |
||
#*(b) the [[WP:CITE|citation]] of its sources is essential, and the use of [[Wikipedia:Inline Citation|inline citations]] is desirabl, although not mandatory; |
#*(b) the [[WP:CITE|citation]] of its sources is essential, and the use of [[Wikipedia:Inline Citation|inline citations]] is desirabl, although not mandatory; |
||
#*(c) sources should be selected in accordance with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] |
#*(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]; |
||
#*(d) it contains no elements of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. |
#*(d) it contains no elements of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. |
||
# It is '''broad in its coverage'''. In this respect: |
# It is '''broad in its coverage'''. In this respect: |
||
#*(a) all major aspects of the topic are addressed (this requirement is slightly weaker than the |
#*(a) all major aspects of the topic are addressed (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|WP:FAC]], and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);. |
||
# It |
# It follows the '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy'''. In this respect: |
||
#*(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; |
#*(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; |
||
#*(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted |
#*(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. |
||
# It is '''stable''', i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]]. |
# It is '''stable''', i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]]. |
||
# It '''contains [[Wikipedia:Images|images]]'''. In this respect: |
# It '''contains [[Wikipedia:Images|images]]'''. In this respect: |
Revision as of 02:28, 10 May 2006
What is a good article?
A good article has the following attributes.
- It is well written. In this respect:
- (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
- (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects;
- (c) where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is segmented into a proper system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
- (d) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
- (e) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
- it is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
- (a) it provide references to any and all sources used for its material;
- (b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirabl, although not mandatory;
- (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
- (d) it contains no elements of original research.
- It is broad in its coverage. In this respect:
- (a) all major aspects of the topic are addressed (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
- (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
- (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
- It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
- It contains images. In this respect:
Good vs. featured articles
These criteria are very similar to the criteria for featured articles. However, they are written, and the good article review process is designed, primarily with short articles in mind, for which prose is less likely to reach the 'brilliant' standards required of featured articles, and in which inline referencing is not as important.
Length
A good article may be any length, as long as it is able to properly address all the major aspects of the topic. However, authors might consider whether it is more appropriate to merge a very short article into a larger article. For articles longer than about 20Kb, the more rigorous reviewing of Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is more appropriate than the process here.
Articles dealing with fiction
For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, or locations, significance outside the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship. The focus of the article should remain on discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, not on establishing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe; otherwise, the article may be better placed in one of the many fictional-universe specific wikis.