- Disclaimer: This is intended as an in-depth guide to reviewing at WP:FAC; a simpler guide is available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. See also User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article.
Featured articles (FA) are promoted via the featured article process (FAC), which is always in need of new reviewers with an interest in contributing to Wikipedia's best content. In fact, some nominations are not promoted simply because not enough reviewers look at the article. All Wikipedians are welcome to review articles at FAC. When reviewing, here are some important points to keep in mind:
- FAC is not Peer Review: WP:PR is a great way to get feedback on an article, but FAC is instead designed to determine whether or not an article meets the criteria. If you find yourself leaving a huge "wall of text" on a review page, consider whether your comments are best placed elsewhere (article talk, review talk, etc), or whether the volume of concerns merits an oppose !vote and a suggestion of peer review
- Make comments actionable: review commentary should be in relation to the criteria outlined at WP:WIAFA
- Be constructive: rather than simply opposing because "the article sucks", detail the reasons for your oppose in a constructive fashion. Similarly, if you're supporting, explain why or give details of further possible improvements. A key question to consider when reviewing is "What can be done to make this article better?"
- Declare: give the delegates and other reviewers enough information to evaluate your review. If you've reviewed only on particular criteria, say so explicitly. If you have a relevant Conflict of Interest or previous involvement with the article (for example, if you were the GA reviewer), mention it.
- Read: be prepared to read the entire article, and perhaps also its talk page, sources and previous reviews as necessary, before entering an unmitigated support.
The following is an outline of the types of review present in an "ideal" FAC, though in some circumstances some of the following may for whatever reason not be needed or possible. Depending on your level of comfort and expertise, you may choose to combine multiple review aspects, though you should indicate which criteria your review covers. You should endeavour to read commentary provided by other reviewers, to engage with the nominator with regards to your review, and to revisit your !vote if necessary.