Looking back on the hundreds of articles I read during the course of my doctoral research, a few have left a lasting and indelible impression on me and still influence my thinking to this day. Some of these articles fall into the ‘classic’ experiment or study category and represent ground-breaking research that changed the way psychologists viewed and theorised on a particular behavioural phenomenon or adopted a unique methodological approach that paved the way for future research. Others were narrative or systematic reviews of a particular field or area, but were equally as influential on my, and certainly many others’, thinking and were highly influential in advancing knowledge in the area and catalysed future research. Reflecting on these highly influential review articles led me to further ruminate on the key ingredients that make a ‘good’ review article; a highly pertinent question for the editor of a review journal such as Health Psychology Review (HPR) which has ambitions to be the lead forum for reviews on health psychology and behavioural medicine! Perusing the characteristics and features of the reviews that made such an impression on me, and likely many others, I have drawn up the following shortlist of candidate features that make a ‘good’ review article and present them here: