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

I completed my first review. Should I wait for the editor to fix the errors before issuing the final assessment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tamil_culture/GA1

LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeónGonsalvesofGoa, do you still need help? I see another editor has jumped in to give more feedback. As a general rule, yes, you should give the editor ample chance to fix the errors unless it's severely bad and needs to be rewritten. One thing I'll note is that you should make sure you're scrutinizing original research and copyright violations. You'll want to look at a few of the sources and make sure that they actually support the content, and that the editor didn't accidentally use the sources incorrectly for things they don't support. It's good practice to list which sources you checked in case anyone needs to go back and look over issues like this. You can also do extra checks for copyright violations at this time, because Earwig can miss things if a few words are changed, even though that's still plagiarism. I know that's a lot, so feel free to ask any follow up questions if you're unsure about anything, or to ask for one more look at your review if you think you've done everything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I identified one reference which may not be appropriate for scientific information and highlighted it in the tabled analysis. I will review a few more to ensure I don't miss anything else that needs to be corrected. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien While I was awaiting a response to one of my critiques, another user raised several concerns about the content on the page and requested to take over the review. As I learn more from active participation, I politely declined the offer. I believe the article can be improved through discussion with both the nominator and the other user. How do you recommend I proceed? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa, I haven't read the full review in detail yet so I can't usefully answer your question, but I do want to point out that the MOS issues you've observed aren't problems for GA reviews. You're welcome to point out any suggestions you have, but no nominator is obligated to fix anything except the five issues mentioned in the criteria (lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, lists). -- asilvering (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article mentorship

Current requests