The six good article criteria are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail a GAN. Other comments designed to improve the article are encouraged during the review process but should not be mandated as part of the assessment.
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}},{{POV}},{{unreferenced}} or large numbers of{{citation needed}},{{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also{{QF}})
It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article
In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria. 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.
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline;[4]
reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
Featured articles: a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality.
^Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is forFeatured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.
^Compliance with other aspects of theManual of Style or its subpages isnot required for good articles.
^WP:GAN/I#R3 says, "This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source."WP:RGA 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 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 that 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)."
^Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not abare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material isnot required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied so that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
^The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required offeatured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Edits that do not apply to the "stable" criterion include reverting vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such ascopy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold. Stability is based on the article's current state, not any potential for instability in the future.
^The presence of media isnot an absolute requirement. If illustrating the article by media is impossible, the article may still be a good article. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided.
