Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

Proposed good articles

This star represents the proposed good content on Wikipedia.

"Good articles" are articles that are better than other articles, according to many people. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria.

This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles. Please only put one article in at a time.

Articles that are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles that are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

Articles that are better than the good article criteria can be proposed to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

Joining the talk

If you choose to join in the talk about good articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly.

If people think that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may not be allowed to join in any more.

Proposals for good articles

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code, filling out 'page title' and 'reason' with your proposed page's title and why you think this page should be a proposed article: {{subst:Pgapropose|page title|reason}} ~~~~

You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

None at this time

Proposals closed recently

2025 Pahalgam Massacre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

2025 Pahalgam Massacre (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe it fits all the requirements needed for to attain GA status. Shubhsamant09 23:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. There's quite a bit of complex language and even regular wiki-formatting is not right. There's a dablink in there, W:WP:CITEKILL in the lede and acronyms used without definition. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

note - I've fixed up the WikiData links so it's to this and not the redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I have further simplified a lot of the text. Shubhsamant09 18:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel that the lead could be expanded to cover more about the massacre such as a bit of background/build up and a bit talking about the aftermath and maybe reactions. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I further expanded the lead Shubhsamant09 14:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too complex. Raayaan 9911 01:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to simplify a lot of the text over the past few days, could you direct me to the lines you are referring to, it makes it easier for me to go and fix :) Shubhsamant09 01:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The lead section doesn't really cover enough for me. The article's name isn't even mentioned there (as it should be). The massacre section isn't really neutral starting with the section header. More neutral would be attack or something. While I understand it is a massacre, we should try to avoid loaded words. With that, we should also move the page according to enwiki. Is the time mentioned in the section local time or UTC time? Important things like revenue minister aren't linked. Phrases like domicile certificates aren't simple language. Under the new rules - which new rules? Not gonna read the rest now, the article is just not ready for GA status. -Barras talk 11:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that it is likely too soon for such a recent article to be promoted, and in a few years without consistent maintenance, the article will likely be outdated in some way or another. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 11:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted consensus to not promote.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

1755 Cape Ann earthquake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

1755 Cape Ann earthquake (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I did simplified the article about the 1755 Cape Ann earthquake. There's no templates about the article needs improvement, and it have good references. But if there's any problems, leave a comment. Bakhos Let's talk! 12:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the text is complex, and needs simplifying. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 19:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteralee I did try my best simplifying the whole text, which i did simplifed some texts again. Can you show me the sentences which are complex? Bakhos Let's talk! 03:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of a clean of the lede. I don't think it's too far off, but needs a bit of TLC. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, the sentence "Even people a ship" might be incorrect. What about keeping the sentence "Even people on the ship"? By the way, if the page with the sentences needs to be cleaned up, feel free to show me the sentences. Thanks. Bakhos Let's talk! 08:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that should have read "on a ship", I've changed that. The problem with "even people on the ship" is:- what ship? We haven't defined a ship. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, it doesn't mentioned what a ship is. Just a ship. Bakhos Let's talk! 12:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No consensus to promote. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 21:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby's Dream Course

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

Kirby's Dream Course (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It has been about a year since I last proposed this article, and it should be ready to be renominated. I ran it through a readability checker, and it said that the page was at an eighth-grade reading level, which should be low enough. It also meets all of the other criteria. If you have any problems with the article, please tell me. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've made some edits to the article that I recommend you look at here. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 22:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the sake of other editors that I have reviewed these changes. They are good changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this if the number of red links were reduced. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 03:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No consensus to promote. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 21:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related pages