Good article mentors provide assistance and feedback to editors who are new to reviewing. If you are interested in reviewing but are not sure where to start, requesting a mentor can make the process easier. To request a mentor, press the button below and follow the instructions.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Mentors can:

Help find an article suitable for a new reviewer to review
Explain any of the good article criteria and how to assess them
Check a review to make sure it was done correctly
Answer any other questions about how to review a good article nomination

Mentors are not expected to complete any part of the review. Mentorship is optional, and you do not have to request a mentor to begin reviewing.

Mentors ()

This is a list of users who have volunteered to be good article mentors. If you wish to choose a specific mentor, you can leave a message on one of their talk pages. Remember that not all of them might be active or be able to help at any given time.

If you're an experienced reviewer, you can add your name! You do not need to be on this list to answer a request for mentorship. Mentors are encouraged to add the mentorship page to their watchlist.

Current requests

TheGhostGum

I want to prepare for the good article backlog push in January and the Women In Green drive. Would be good if there was a video to see where to start. I can read style guides pretty well but getting an idea in more working class terms on what I need to do would be nice TheGhostGum (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any videos on the process, so let's try to give a quick summary. The key things to check for in a review are whether the article is fully sourced and whether the sources are summarized correctly and without plagiarism. Note how many sources you've checked. Then, see if you can understand the article fully and if there are typos or grammatical errors. Finally, check if the article is written neutrally or if it omits one of the mainstream opinions on the topic. The style guide that helps you spot issues with neutrality is WP:words to watch.

I've been rewriting the WP:good article instructions slightly after your comment, in more plain English. If there is a specific help page that's written overly posh or complicated, let me know, and I can simplify it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I'm used to reading things like the APA or Stanford style guides, but the plain language goes a long way for the more broad things like this.

If you're up for it I've attempted a review, could you vibe check it? Talk:Mushu (I know there is an active friction around wiki openings and if they should have sources so wanted to air on requesting them to be added) TheGhostGum (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:TheGhostGum; it seems I'm slightly too late to reply here :). Well done on the basics. I don't think there is too much friction around whether you must have sources in the lead (the answer is no). Some people, at WP:FAC mostly, will request that sources are deleted when they are present, but experienced users rarely request them when they are missing.

In this review (also pinging nominator Changedforbetter), I would have made comments around 3b, WP:summary style. For instance, parts of the critical reception feels overly detailed to me. Do we need so many rankings about voice acting performance? Or could we have selected the most relevant ones? (As a side note, there are issues with WP:overcitation, but that's not part of the GA criteria). This usually doesn't come up in reviews, and is a bit subjective.

In most reviews, there will be suggestions to make prose more clear (per 1a). After all, a nominator usually wants to improve the article further. For instance, you could have noticed that this sentence is awkward: "He claims he learned from peers working at DreamWorks that their animators had reviewed animation footage of Mushu when developing Donkey for Shrek, who was also voiced by Murphy". The word WP:CLAIM casts a bit of doubt on the statement, and is a key WP:word to watch for neutrality. A simpler sentence could be "He says he heard that animators at DreamWorks reviewed footage of Mushu while developing Donkey for Shrek, both voiced by Murphy." —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So on this, even if an article is being approved it's good practice to give improvements to make? I felt like "Oh If I'm passing it on X,Y,Z then I shouldn't give the critique unless I'm denying" TheGhostGum (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding that it's pretty much agreed that no, there don't need to be citations in the lead barring extraordinary circumstances. But I'm replying to suggest that you might want to slow down. You've just begun Talk:Centre-right politics/GA1, Talk:IBM and unions/GA3, and Talk:Microsoft and unions/GA1 at the same time. Besides starting new reviews before finishing previous ones, you should probably take more time to learn the process here before jumping in so much. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including me in this discussion, and specifically for your feedback regarding use of the term "claim". Despite the article already being promoted to GA, I will definitely revise the sentence for more neutrality, in addition to trimming the prose in the critical reception and legacy sections. Like you've pointed out, my goal as editor is always to improve the quality of an article, therefore all feedback/opinion is welcomed.

I'd also like to shout out @TheGhostGum for being so open and accommodating when I countered that inline citations are not required for leads, and for their desire to seek additional feedback regarding this matter because it does appear to be a grey area. Changedforbetter (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MolecularPilot

Hi! I'd love to get into good article reviewing because I just realised how long the backlog is, and I've nominated an article, so I'd love to pay it forward to the good article community.

I think I have a good mastery of the P&Gs, through my work at AfC, AfD and NPP, but I'm always open to learning new things. My interests are in Biology, Chemistry, Psychology and Computer Science, but I'd be happy to review any topics because I'd love to expand my worldview and expertise. I can probably offer more technical analysis in those areas, if it's needed.

I can probably commit a lot of time to GA reviewing in January and am very happy to do a lot, once I get the hang of it.

Thanks for your consideration and time to review this application! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]