|
Proposed good articles  "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. |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.
|
Proposals for good articles
changeTo 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.
Mia Love
change
The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.- The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
- The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
- The article is filed in the appropriate category.
- It has at least one interwiki link.
- The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
- There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
- Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.
The article has been expanded, is properly sourced, simplified as much as I could find [feedback always welcome :)], proper cats, no redlinks and thoroughly covers the subject. Please let me know if there's any way I can improve the article! There's often some tricky words that cannot/might require more attention to simplify when it comes to politicians, but I think I tackled most of it down. Thank you for your consideration! :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Support I enjoyed reading the whole article and can see nothing glaring that needs to be changed. It would have been good to have more people editing it but often that's not the case for GAs. Good luck
- fr33kman 17:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Baldwin IV of Jerusalem
changeI've transferred the subject's English Wikipedia article (which is currently nominated for GA status and which I am a major contributor to) here after making significant cuts and changes to the language. This is my first time writing an article for simple english Wikipedia, but I put a lot of work into it, so I hope it's worthy of GA status. The article has many sources, and it's just over half as long as the original version. If there's anything you need me to fix, please tell me, and I will fix it as soon as possible! Reverosie (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, there are lots of complex words used in the page like determination, commitment, uncooperativeness. The sentence structures are complex starting from the intro. Lots of redlinks too. There is quite a lot of work that needs to be done here. This page fails #3, #6, and #8. I recommend you read some of our featured pages to see what is expected. It is a very interesting topic to write on though. I hope you have fun working on the page. Thanks, :)-- BRP ever 17:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- There are quite a few words which are complex and either need explaining in line or linking to Wiktionary. Words such determination, disorder, vassals, uncooperativeness, and leprosy need to be explained or linked to other articles. That was just the first section. I'd suggest also that you read Simple Introduction and also run the page through the readability tools at the bottom of that page. We attempt to write articles that a lay person and children in US geades 7-9 can read. Many of our readers are also learning English as a foreign language so we need to keep grammar, sentence structure and length short. On a positive note however, the article seems to explain the subject thoughly enough. I'd like to see some editing from other people as we don't usually promote articles that are essentially written by one person. Good luck fr33kman 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you both for responding so quickly!!! I'll get to work on the article as soon as possible, and hopefully I can fix these issues! Reverosie (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- @BRPever @Fr33kman I've fixed the problems you mentioned. I replaced the words that were too complicated, added more links (and removed the red links), and simplified the sentences. I'm very sad to say that I'm not sure what I'm going to do about #3 because this is a very niche topic, but besides that, I think I fixed it :). Reverosie (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Reverosie We ususally create pages and turn the link into blue if there is no page on the topic if it's notable. Removal of red links is actually discouraged because it is believed that it helps wikipedia grow by encouraging people to create more pages. I will take another look when I get some time. Thanks, BRP ever 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I'll add some red links back to the article where they're needed Reverosie (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: More simplification is needed. For example, we use early life instead of childhood. The introduction could use some more wikilinking. You can see BE 1500 for a list of simple words. More complicated words can be wikilinked to our simplified Wiktionary. Good luck!
- ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 14:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I’m going to get to work on the simplifications as soon as possible 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 18:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I'll add some red links back to the article where they're needed Reverosie (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Reverosie We ususally create pages and turn the link into blue if there is no page on the topic if it's notable. Removal of red links is actually discouraged because it is believed that it helps wikipedia grow by encouraging people to create more pages. I will take another look when I get some time. Thanks, BRP ever 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- @BRPever @Fr33kman @Asteralee, I've finished simplifying the article. I hope that it is now acceptable! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 23:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- It looks much better. There are still many red links, so I suggest you make some related pages and turn them blue. Other than that, I think it's already looking quite good. BRP ever 23:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I'll get to work on making those articles as soon as I can 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 23:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Reverosie The article cannot have any apostrophes in it, so for example, The other nobles in the kingdom didn't like Amalric's wife, Agnes would most likely be The other nobles in the kingdom did not like Agnes, the wife of Almaric. Other than the apostrophes, your article is well on its way to be promoted; good work! ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 14:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I'll remove those as soon as possible 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 14:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- The banned apostrophes have all been removed 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I left you a more detailed review on the article's talk page. -Barras talk 15:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much!!! I'll get to looking at that right away! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 15:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I left you a more detailed review on the article's talk page. -Barras talk 15:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Reverosie The article cannot have any apostrophes in it, so for example, The other nobles in the kingdom didn't like Amalric's wife, Agnes would most likely be The other nobles in the kingdom did not like Agnes, the wife of Almaric. Other than the apostrophes, your article is well on its way to be promoted; good work! ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 14:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I'll get to work on making those articles as soon as I can 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 23:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- It looks much better. There are still many red links, so I suggest you make some related pages and turn them blue. Other than that, I think it's already looking quite good. BRP ever 23:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- There are quite a few words which are complex and either need explaining in line or linking to Wiktionary. Words such determination, disorder, vassals, uncooperativeness, and leprosy need to be explained or linked to other articles. That was just the first section. I'd suggest also that you read Simple Introduction and also run the page through the readability tools at the bottom of that page. We attempt to write articles that a lay person and children in US geades 7-9 can read. Many of our readers are also learning English as a foreign language so we need to keep grammar, sentence structure and length short. On a positive note however, the article seems to explain the subject thoughly enough. I'd like to see some editing from other people as we don't usually promote articles that are essentially written by one person. Good luck fr33kman 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
1755 Cape Ann earthquake
changeI believe it fits the criteria of a good article now, I have done everything suggested by Barras and CountryANDWestern in a PGA review, except for the sentence "A whiskey maker lost some of its...", which i'm not sure how to fix. If you think it's still not ready, please tell me what problems remain. Bakhos Let's talk! 09:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think even the whiskey-sentence is actually good to go. No objections from my side. I'd say promote to good article. -Barras talk 10:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support Great work. Article is well sourced, simple, thorough and meets the other guidelines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me! CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support it's quite complete about the subject and is certainly simple enough for our readers to comprehend. I'm not sure that the section at the bottom about what makes earthquakes happen needs to be there but it's not a concern for me. fr33kman 18:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support Nice job! ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)