Wikipedia:Good article mentorship
| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | FAQ | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
| Reviewing initiatives | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Review circles | Pledges |
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.
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
[edit]Requesting mentorship
[edit]I am mainly interested in military topics. Hip hop/soccer occasionally too. One obstacle is, as a rule (most of the time), I can only access sources if they've been archived at the internet archive.
NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 01:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Thefakeslimshady777: Can commiserate with working with Russian half-dead internet. Do you have a VPN? It also needed to access wikilibrary sources (at least for me). I cannot really help with military topics but happy to collaborate on hip hop and sports related topics! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- nah, I don't live in Russia. Just a thing on my computer, don't ask why, it's stupid. Thanks though, if you could mentor that would be good off the record, though, I only need the mentorship to pass WP:GARC criteria (and for whenever I actually get to reviewing GAN's often). Is there a formal thing that puts you as mentor? NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 15:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on getting several articles to GA status over the next few months and currently have two nominations (see here for more context) and am going to add to the backlog a bit. I mainly want to review in earth sciences, particularly weather, but am open to other topics. The main thing I want to get at is criteria 1a: are there any specific guidelines or rules of thumb for clear, concise
? At my current stage in life I'm a relatively inexperienced writer despite Wikipedia helping me elevate that, and I want to know if there is anything more specific to know that will help that click. Also, advice for spot checks. I have AfC and NPR rights so I'm accustomed to checking every source and claim so don't really get how to spot check. Would appreciate some guidance with how to approach that. Thank you.
🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 04:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Hurricane Wind and Fire, I'll happily help you get into GA reviewing. Feel free to start a review and ping me there. I'll oversee the review.
- To answer your first question, clear and conciseness requirements is one of the criteria that varies most between reviewers in my opinion, but generally I'd be quite forgiving on conciseness (only mentioning clear significant improvements) but a bit more strict on clarity (it should be understandable to readers of almost any background). TBUA's WP:GARG has some more information on questions you can ask yourself while you're reading.
- To answer your second question, reviewers generally pick 5–20 citations (depending on the length and type of article) to spot check. If no/only minor issues are identified, the article passes the spot check, otherwise the nominator is expected to go through the article and fix any source-text integrity issues before another spot check is performed. In addition, I would check any WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims or claims that look like they could have issues while reading through the article. IAWW (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- @It is a wonderful world Thank you! I'll get started on a review tomorrow when I have more time. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 13:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in GA reviewing (or at least the thought has crossed my mind on multiple occasions), but would appreciate a bit of mentorship. I have experience in a variety of areas (recently AfC, earlier on anti-vandalism, typo-fixing, and a potpourri of others), but not much with quality content. I've read through the criteria, instructions, and adjoining materials, but would appreciate any advice for someone reviewing GAs with none to his name, as well as another (more experienced) set of eyes to look through a review (or a couple) if/when I get there. Thanks! LittlePuppers (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)