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.

Kirby's Dream Course

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]

Metro Transit

Metro Transit (Minnesota) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Y The article is Suitable for Wikipedia.
Y The article is complete, sized 26,284 Bytes.
Y The article has gone through 9 edits with 4 different editors.
Y The article is in the appropriate category.
Y The article has at least one interwiki link.
Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing edit wars.
Y There are no article improvement templates.
Y All content is properly referenced.

Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 17:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there are missing sources for some paragraphs, especially in the Bus Numbers, History and Northstar Line sections. It also seems inappropriate to literally put the full quote from source in the last paragraph of the Funding section (it's too complex and without explanation). BZPN (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, the article needs further simplification. Such words like proposed, purchasing need simplifying. Also, there should not be any contractions in your article. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 19:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on these changes. I have made a edit to change up some words already and I would like to know what you think while I continue to further update this work. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 23:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly skimming the article, there is a lot of simplification needed. As mentioned, contractions are an issue, but also complex sentences with dependent clauses are very common. Over half of the sentences in the article should be rephrased and simplified before I believe it would be simple enough for good articleship. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 16:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit worried about this article. It seems unreadable in parts here. Here's some examples.

In 2024, over 159. - Full sentence?

Metro Transit carries 90% to 95% of riders in the region throughout buses, light rail, and commuter rail - throughout?

In 2017, 68% of Metro Transit's passengers were from busses. - from busses?

You've bolded Minnesota State Legislature, but the article isn't about them.

The former transit operator, Twin City Lines, goes back to horses in the 19th century - casual. The operator wasn't horses.

Just because the words used are simple, doesn't mean that the text can be inaccurate or badly written. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've attempted to address these changes. If you have time, can you take a look and give some feedback on it. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 20:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like It is the biggest of the four transit companies in Minnesota and Before being replaced, Twin City Lines had 635 buses: 75% of those were over 15 years old, 86 buses were so old that they were banned by the city. need references. I also think you should split some long sentences (especially the ones that have coordinating conjunctions) apart. There should be more wikilinks, and MTC needs to be stated with its full name, (according to MOS:ABBR). ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 22:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started work on the references and I've removed all abbreviations. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 02:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After more-thoroughly looking through the article, I think the biggest issue with the article right now is mostly references. I have highlighted some issues I thought needed to be discussed or addressed

Metro Transit was created in 1967... had history with horse carriages. There is no source for this, as citation 6(mndigital) does not contain any of this information.

Twin City Lines is mentioned various times, but I feel it could use some more explanation as how it served as the previously-existing transit system.

In #history, the second paragraph does not have a citation

It took 32 years to see the first proposed additional line. It is unclear from when 32 years is referencing, and what that first proposed additional line was. The source doesn't reference the number "32", and I am guessing 32 is not number either, and I am guessing the number is wrong as well, since it doesn't really make sense. enwiki also has this issue

The last four sentences of #History do not have a citation

The first four sentences of #funding do not have a citation, and the source(metro transit's home page) does not have any information that could be used for a source.

In early 2007, the system introduced a contactless smart card... the source never mentions the year 2007 and the introduction of this card

The last line of #funding does not have a citation

None of the sources in #light rail contain any information found in the text. The same issue is found in #northstar line

Metro Transit has 66 of local ... an average of 230,575 riders per week-day is not backed up by the citation next to it.

MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 02:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think ive gotten every paragraph into there proper amount of references. :) Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 03:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The funding paragraph could use some more simplification and references. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried simplifying it more and now there is a reference in almost every sentence. If there still is anything else that would need simplifying please give me pointers :) Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 15:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some rides cost more during rush hour and busy days, an express bus costs $3.25 in rush hour, but only $2.50 normally. needs to be broken up and simplified, and The price was raised again in 2017 by 50 cents could be In 2017, the price went up by fifty cents. There also needs to be a reference for that. The article could use some more simplifying too. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 12:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

could we not cite into section headers? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 13:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused on how to add references onto the bus numbers chapter. Each bus number is a different map so it would take me 130 references to prove all of the numbers. I had the list of maps and numbers in the header before because then you could just click any number and it would work but you took them out of the header so I don't know how to do this now. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 19:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add references to bus numbers since each number has its own link. It would take 130 references to give every single link to the bus numbers. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 20:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've massively re-written a large portion of the article (see my revision here) and I would like to see if this would now be ready for good article status? It has 115 references and I've been working on making the writing simpler. Also I'm pretty sure that the verdict is supposed to be today, correct me if I'm wrong. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some words could be simplified. There also needs to be more breaking up of sentences. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 21:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

updated :) https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metro_Transit_(Minnesota)&diff=prev&oldid=10204056

(there was a merge conflict between me and User:InternetArchiveBot, I think there shouldn't be any issues but if they are please let me know or you can fix them.) Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 18:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again voters! :3

I have a table in Fast Routes. I can't decide if I should turn this into a TON of sentences or leave it as a table. Which is better? Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 00:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The chapter was renamed to Bus Rapid Transit, my discussion still stands. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 15:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The History section has been updated with sub-sections for readability Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 20:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals closed recently

Gracie Abrams

Gracie Abrams (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
Y The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
Y It has at least one interwiki link.
Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

I've been working on this article for a few months now trying to get it into shape for GA. The article is properly referenced, good in length, I've simplified it to the best of my ability (definitely open for feedback/suggestions to simplify it further if needed), up to date, no red links and even has a good amount of images. I am open for feedback on how to make this article good enough for GA status! Thank you for your consideration. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I added one more link in "Other websites" and the authority control. You're all set :) ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 22:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is a well written article, deserves GA. BZPN (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice work! Ternera (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support well written article, Raayaan 9911 12:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article reads well and has good information. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to GA per clear consensus. BZPN (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. BZPN (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]