Wikipedia:Good article mentorship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | FAQ | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
| Reviewing initiatives: | February backlog drive | Mentorship | Review circles | Pledges |
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
Mentorship Request for the Reviewing Process
Wisenerd
hi, I am in the process of this review. Would appreciate feedback! Talk:Kidnapping of Arbel Yehoud/GA1
Wisenerd (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Wisenerd here is some feedback for your review, listed from most to least important:
- Checking criterion 2c (no original research) requires doing a source spot check. This means you should check a good amount of the citations in the article to see that they support the text they are meant to support. For an example of passed spot check, see Talk:WJZY/GA1, and for an example of a failed spot check, see Talk:2004 World Snooker Championship/GA1. These checks are also important to ensure the article doesn't contain copyright violations.
- Most the issues you raised are very valid toward the GA criteria, especially the issues you raised while reviewing criteria 1a and 1b.
- Your review of criterion 2b is very weird. It reads like you fed an LLM the article and asked it to give you instructions on how to review this criterion. There is actually no major issues with the sentence Early on in Yehoud's captivity, her and Cunio were able to maintain a correspondence through intermediaries, but this correspondence was terminated after several months as it is fully supported by the citation.
- When evaluating broadness, if you are arguing that material should be added, you should demonstrate that the sourcing actually exists to add it. You can add links to unincorporated sources that have information you think should be added to the article.
- I think this meets the stability criterion, since it seems the event is mostly concluded.
- When reviewing, you should create a space for discussion between you and the nominator, and it's normal to make an opening comment for them to reply to. I suggest starting that discussion above or below the table, with a ping to @EaglesFan37, so that the review can progress. Feel free to ping me at that discussion for further feedback/guidance.
- Note I did not scan the article for issues you missed in your review. I'll happily do that though once the review has progressed a bit more and most of the big issues you have identified have been fixed. Just ping me! IAWW (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- For 2b, I can be very pedantic about things so noted in the future. I have had a dialogue with the author about improvements. I'm going to review spot checks. I did run it through the tools for copyright violations. While I understand that they aren't always accurate, the similarity checks were so low that I have a pretty high level of confidence that the article is not plagiarized. Wisenerd (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @It is a wonderful world@Wisenerd Since the review started, I have significantly expanded the lead of the article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Tioseafj
Hello! I am going to try reviewing an article for GA status. I haven't done so before, so I am requesting a second opinion or for someone to let me know how I did. I've started this review: Talk:Millat_Times/GA1 and I will get to it this week
thanks, /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)