ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ:ਚੰਗੇ ਲੇਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਪੈਮਾਨੇ

ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ, ਇੱਕ ਅਜ਼ਾਦ ਗਿਆਨਕੋਸ਼ ਤੋਂ
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ਮੁੱਖ ਸਫਾਗੱਲਬਾਤਨਾਮਜ਼ਦਗੀਅਾਂਮੁੜ-ਮੁਲਾਂਕਣਹਦਾੲਿਤਾਂਪੈਮਾਨੇਰਿਪੋਰਟਮਦਦ
Good article nominations

RUPIKA SHARMA The good article criteria are the six standards or tests by which a good article nomination may be compared and judged to be a good article. A good article that has met the good article criteria may not have met the criteria for featured articles.[1] The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.

ਪੈਮਾਨੇ[ਸੋਧੋ]

Immediate failures[ਸੋਧੋ]

SATPAL

An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)[2] if, prior to the review:

  1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.
  2. It contains copyright infringements.
  3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}).
  4. The article is not stable due to edit warring on the page.

In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed.

ਚੰਗੇ ਲੇਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਛੇ ਪੈਮਾਨੇ[ਸੋਧੋ]

Symbol support vote.svg

ੲਿਕ ਚੰਗਾ ਲੇਖ ਹੈ—

  1. Well written:
    1. ਵਾਰਤਕ ਸਪਸ਼ਟ ਅਤੇ ਸੰਖੇਪ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਹਿੱਜੇ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਆਕਰਨ ਸਹੀ ਹਨ; and
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[3]
  2. ਮੂਲ ਖੋਜ ਉੱਤੇ ਆਧਾਰਿਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ (ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ:ਤਸਦੀਕ ਯੋਗਤਾ):
  3. [4]
    1. ਇਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਹਦਾਇਤਾਂ ਮੁਤਾਬਕ ਸਾਰੇ ਹਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ;[5]
    2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6]
    3. ਲੇਖ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੋਈ ਮੂਲ ਖੋਜ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ;  and
    4. ਲੇਖ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੋਈ ਕਾਪੀਰਾਈਟ ਉਲੰਘਣਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ.
  4. ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਬਾਰੇ ਪੂਰੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ:
    1. ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਦੇ ਮੁੱਖ ਪਹਿਲੂਆਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਗੱਲ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ;[7] and
    2. ਇਹ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਕੇਂਦਰਿਤ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਬੇਲੋੜੇ ਵੇਰਵੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ.
  5. ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ:ਨਿਰਪੱਖ ਨਜ਼ਰੀਆ: ਲੇਖ ਕਿਸੇ ਇੱਕ ਨਜ਼ਰੀਏ ਦੇ ਮੁਤਾਬਕ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਪੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਿਆਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ.
  6. ਸਥਿਰ: ਲੇਖ ਵਿੱਚ ਹਰ ਰੋਜ਼ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੀਆਂ ਤਬੀਦਲੀਆਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਰਹੀਆਂ ਜਾਂ ਲੇਖ ਉੱਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਸੋਧ ਜੰਗ ਨਹੀਂ ਚੱਲ ਰਹੀ.
  7. [8]
  8. ਲੋੜ ਮੁਤਾਬਕ ਤਸਵੀਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ ਹੈ:
  9. [9]
    1. ਤਸਵੀਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਾਪੀਰਾਈਟ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਗ਼ੈਰ-ਮੁਫ਼ਤ ਸਮੱਗਰੀ ਲਈ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਦੀ ਹਿਦਾਇਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਿਆਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ; and
    2. ਤਸਵੀਰਾਂ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਧਿਤ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਉਚਿਤ ਸਿਰਲੇਖ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਗਏ ਹਨ.[10]

ਚੰਗਾ ਲੇਖ ਕੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ?[ਸੋਧੋ]

RUPIKA


  1. Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria. At the time of assessment, they may or may not meet featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.
  2. Quick fail was added to the process solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination, since anyone can nominate to GA (see WP:SNOW). Unless the reviewer is dealing with a "drive-by" nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review, quick fail should normally not be used.
  3. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
  4. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
  5. Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
  6. Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
  7. The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  8. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
  9. Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion.
  10. The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then such images should be provided.