উইকিপিডিয়া:প্রস্তাবিত ভালো নিবন্ধ/দিকনির্দেশনা

প্রধানমানদণ্ডদিকনির্দেশনামনোনয়নআলোচনাপূনঃমূল্যায়নপ্রতিবেদনসাহায্যকেন্দ্র
Good article nominations

নিবন্ধগুলোর নির্দেশাবলী ব্যাখ্যা ধাপে ধাপে ঠিক কিভাবে মনোনয়ন এবং পর্যালোচনা করতে হয় ভাল নিবন্ধ মনোনয়ন (GAN) ভাল নিবন্ধ মানদণ্ড অনুসারে হতে হবে। তাহলে এটা হতে পারে একটি ভাল নিবন্ধ (GA)। নির্দেশাবলী মনোনয়ন এবং পর্যালোচনা উভয় ক্ষেত্রেই প্রয়োজন।

যেকেউ নিবন্ধ মনোনয়ন করতে পারেন, যদিও এটি অত্যন্ত ভাল যে তারা নিবন্ধটিতে উল্লেখযোগ্যভাবে অবদান রেখেছে এবং বিষয়টির সাথে তারা পরিচিত। মনোনয়নটি কোন নিবন্ধিত ব্যবহারকারী দ্বারা পর্যালোচনা করা যেতে পারে। সেই ব্যবহারকারী পারে যে ব্যবহারকারী ঐ নিবন্ধটি উল্লেখযোগ্যভাবে অবদান রাখেন না এবং মনোনীতকারী নন।

মনোনয়নসম্পাদনা

GA candidate.svg

ধাপ ১: নিবন্ধ প্রস্তুত করাসম্পাদনা

নিবন্ধটিতে এটা নিশ্চিত করা প্রয়োজন যে, এই নিয়ম সব নিবন্ধের ক্ষেত্রে গ্রহণযোগ্য। এই গ্রহণযোগ্যতার মধ্যে নিরেপক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি, যাচাইযোগ্যতা, উইকিপিডিয়া কোনো মৌলিক গবেষণা নয় , এবং উল্লেখযোগ্যতা থাকতে হবে। তারপর ভাল নিবন্ধের মানদণ্ড এবং আপনি যদি চান প্রয়োজনে নিবন্ধের যেকোন উন্নতি করুন। আরো তথ্য পাওয়া যাবে ভাল নিবন্ধ মনোনীত করার জন্য নির্দেশনা। যেকেউ ভাল নিবন্ধে পর্যালোচনা করার একটি নিবন্ধ মনোনীত করতে পারেন। যদিও এটি আরো ভাল যে মনোনীতরা নিবন্ধে উল্লেখযোগ্যভাবে অবদান রেখেছে এবং তিনি বিষয় এবং এর উদ্ধৃত তথ্যসূত্রের সাথে পরিচিত তিনি মনোনীত করুন। অনুগ্রহ করে নিবন্ধটি উল্লেখযোগ্য অবদানকারী নয় এমন মনোনীতকারীরা মনোনয়ন করার আগে নিবন্ধের আলাপ পাতায় নিবন্ধটির নিয়মিত সম্পাদকদের সাথে পরামর্শ করুন। পর্যালোচক পর্যালোচনা প্রক্রিয়ার সময় ভাল নিবন্ধ গুণমানের নিবন্ধটি উন্নত করার জন্য পরামর্শ করবে; অতএব, পর্যালোচনাটিতে আপনি মনোনীতকারী হিসাবে আপনার জড়িত থাকার প্রয়োজন হবে। একটি নিবন্ধ মনোনীত করার আগে, নিশ্চিত করুন যে আপনি সময়মত এই মন্তব্যতে সাড়া দিতে পারবেন।

Step 2: Nominating the articleসম্পাদনা

  1. Paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template such as WikiProjectBannerShell.
  2. For the |subtopic= parameter, add one of the following 30 subtopic sections headers that best defines the article:
    Agriculture, food and drink  · Art and architecture  · Computing and engineering  · Transport  · Geography  · Places  · World history  · Royalty, nobility and heraldry  · Language and literature  · Mathematics and mathematicians  · Film  · Television  · Media and drama  · Albums  · Songs  · Music  · Biology and medicine  · Chemistry and materials science  · Earth sciences  · Physics and astronomy  · Philosophy and religion  · Culture, sociology and psychology  · Education  · Economics and business  · Law  · Magazines and print journalism  · Politics and government  · Sports and recreation  · Video games  · Warfare
    If it fits under more than one category, choose the one that best fits. If it doesn't fit under any of the above categories, leave the field blank. The nomination will then be placed in the Miscellaneous section.
  3. Save the page. A bot will add the nomination to the GA nominations page under the chosen subtopic heading to indicate that the article is ready to be reviewed.
  4. (Optional): Consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate.
This does not imply quid pro quo. This simply means that helping to review articles will help the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to help pay it forward.

Step 3: Waitingসম্পাদনা

Depending on the size of the backlog, there may be a delay of several months before someone picks up the review. Conversely, it may only take a few days. Do not start the review page yourself, as this may lead other reviewers to believe that your nomination is already under review.

Leaving a note for the reviewer: To leave a note related to the review, edit the |note= parameter of {{GA nominee}} on the article talk page. For example: {{GA nominee|...|note=I might not be able to respond to the review until next week. ~~~~}}. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to display the note.

Withdrawing: To withdraw a nomination before the review has begun, remove the {{GA nominee}} template from the article talk page. To withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, let the reviewer know. The reviewer will then fail the nomination.

Step 4: What to do during a reviewসম্পাদনা

You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner (if you absolutely cannot, make sure another editor can). Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer. Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow you time to fix any issues that may arise (reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit if they wish). If a review stalls or there is disagreement over interpretation of the good article criteria, you may want to consider allowing the review to fail, then renominating the article to get a different reviewer. Or, you may try asking the nominator to ask for a second opinion. Otherwise, you can ask for assistance at the GA help desk or the GA nominations talk page.

If the reviewer withdraws: A reviewer who starts a review has committed to complete it in a timely manner, but in rare occasions a reviewer withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page as follows: Increment the |page= parameter (e.g. from "page=1" to "page=2"), and change the |status= parameter from "status=onreview" or "status=onhold" to the blank setting "status=". You can also remove the transclusion of the former GA review from the article talk page if you wish, but this is not essential. Save the page. A bot will reset the nomination in its same position in the queue on the GA nominations page. If the reviewer has not made any comments other than opening the review, it may be better to request a G6 deletion of the review page and start over.

Step 5: After the reviewসম্পাদনা

At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.

If the article has been promoted to good article status, consider submitting an interesting fact from the article to be featured on the Did You Know...? section on the main page.

Reviewingসম্পাদনা

Step 1: Familiarize yourself with the criteriaসম্পাদনা

Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. Before starting a review, you should familiarize yourself with the good article criteria. These are the standards an article must meet in order to be granted good article status. It is also suggested that you read the guide for reviewing good articles and an essay on what the good article criteria are not. Ensure the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability. Good article mentors are available to help you during your review. If you need further clarification, post a question at the GA help desk or the GA nominations talk page.

Step 2: Starting a reviewসম্পাদনা

To review an article you must:

  • Be a registered user—make sure you are logged in
  • Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review
  1. Choose an article from GA nominations page that you would like to review. Please note:
    • You may review any unreviewed article, but the older nominations at the top of the queues have been waiting for several months and should be given higher priority.
    • If someone else has started a review, you may add comments to the review page, but the review should be closed by the first reviewer.
  2. Start the review by following the start review link appearing on the GA nominations page or near the top of the article talk page. A new GA review page will be created. You may add opening remarks, an initial review, or one of these templates to the bottom of this review page.
  3. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is being reviewed, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article is being reviewed.
  4. Remember: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. Consider reviewing only one or two articles at a time and plan to wrap up your review in about seven days.

If you are in a situation where you absolutely cannot continue to review the article, please contact the nominator. Consider helping them find a new reviewer. If necessary, leave a note on the GA nominations talk page.

Step 3: Reviewing the articleসম্পাদনা

  1. Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on the good article criteria, decide whether the article could be immediately passed or immediately failed. Decide if the article is instead partially compliant or only marginally non-compliant and could pass after improvements are made.
  2. If the article is considered fully compliant with the good article criteria, provide a review on the review page justifying that decision and "pass" the nomination. You may use these templates to help organize your review if you wish.
  3. If the article is considered only partially compliant or non-compliant with the good article criteria, provide a review on the review page detailing what criteria it does not meet and state what is needed to bring the article up to standard.
  4. In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself.
  5. Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review. If so, note this on the review page and close the review as a "pass". If not, close it as a "fail". You may also make suggestions for further improvements, if appropriate.
  6. Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. Depending on the responsiveness of the nominator, you may decide to put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow time for issues to be fixed. You may also ask for a second opinion. See below for how to pass, fail, hold, or ask for a second opinion.

Using a review template is not a requirement; it is simply a way to help keep the review organized. If this is your first review, it is beneficial to ask one of the good article mentors to look at your review.

Step 4: Finishing the reviewসম্পাদনা

Passingসম্পাদনা

Symbol support vote.svg

If you determine that the article meets the good article criteria, you may pass it by doing the following:

  1. Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}
  2. The five tildes supply the date of the review. Fill in the |topic= and |page= number of the review by copying both parameter values from the replaced template. (The topic parameter refers to the topic values found here; the template automatically converts GA nominee subtopics into GA topics. The page parameter should be the number of the review subpage; that is, the n in {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} – a number only; no letters.)
  3. Update any {{WikiProject}} templates on the article talk page by changing the |class= parameter value to "GA", as in {{WikiProject|...|class=GA}}
  4. Save the page. A bot will add the good article icon to the article, will remove the nomination from the GA nominations page, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article has passed.[ক] Do not add the icon manually.
  5. Be sure the review page justifies how the article meets the good article criteria. You may also leave a personal note of congratulations for the nominator.
  6. List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section and update the tally at the bottom of that section.

Failingসম্পাদনা

Symbol oppose vote.svg

If you determine that the article does not meet the good article criteria, you may fail it by doing the following:

  1. Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page with {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}
  2. The five tildes supply the date of the review. Fill in the |topic= and |page= number of the review by copying both parameter values from the replaced template. (The topic parameter refers to the topic values found here; the template automatically converts GA nominee subtopics into GA topics. The page parameter should be the number of the review subpage; that is, the n in {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} – a number only; no letters.)
  3. Save the page. A bot will remove the nomination from the GA nominations page and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article has failed.
  4. Be sure the review page specifies what needed to be done to the article for it to meet the good article criteria. You may also leave a personal note of encouragement for the nominator, urging them to renominate the article once the problems have been addressed.

Putting the article on holdসম্পাদনা

Symbol wait.svg

If you determine that the article could meet the good article criteria if a few issues are fixed and you wish to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected (generally seven days), you may put the article on hold by doing the following:

  1. Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "onhold", as in
    {{GA nominee|...|status=onhold}}
  2. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is on hold, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article is on hold.
  3. Be sure the review page specifies what needs to be done to the article for it to meet the good article criteria.

Asking for a second opinionসম্পাদনা

Symbol neutral vote.svg

If you are unsure whether an article meets the good article criteria, you may call for another reviewer or subject expert to provide a second opinion by doing the following:

  1. Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "2ndopinion", as in
    {{GA nominee|...|status=2ndopinion}}
  2. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that a second opinion is requested.
  3. Be sure the review page specifies in what way you are looking for a second opinion.

Answering a second opinionসম্পাদনা

A reviewer's call for a second opinion may be answered by doing the following:

  1. Edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page, changing the |status= parameter to "onreview", as in
    {{GA nominee|...|status=onreview}}
  2. Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to remove the request for a second opinion.
  3. Be sure the review page provides the requested second opinion and any other assistance.

Do not close a review started by another reviewer without first attempting to contact the first reviewer. While there is no deadline, keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.

টীকাসম্পাদনা

  1. However, the bot has a bug that causes it to notify the user of a failed review if the page has previously failed the review. In that case, it will be necessary to correct the notice manually.

প্রশ্ন?সম্পাদনা

এই পাতাতে বা সাধারণভাবে ভাল নিবন্ধগুলিতে আপনার কোন প্রশ্ন থাকলে, দয়া করে বার্তা দিন ভালো নিবন্ধ সাহায্য পাতা অথবা উইকিপিডিয়া আলোচনা:প্রস্তাবিত ভালো নিবন্ধ পাতায়।