Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
GA candidate.svg

WP:PGOOD
WP:PGA
WP:GAC

Good articles are a higher status of article than regular articles. In order to become a good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles.

This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the GA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed good articles.

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

Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

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

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting 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 thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.


Archives[change | change source]

Proposals for good articles[change | change source]

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. 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.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a GA. ~~~~

Ronald Reagan[change | change source]

Ronald Reagan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ronald Reagan was a great leader and one heck of president. So, as my tribute, I would like to nominate the Ronald Reagan article for a GA status. The article is very simple, has large amount of pictures, goes through his life and presidency in details (which are supported by reliable references), and summarizes his life accomplishments in simple detail for our SE readers. Write any suggestions on my talk page --> here. Don't write any one the article's talk page because it appears it has a glitch. Thanks for the support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support - Looks like a pretty good canidate, a very easy read. I support. George.Edward.C (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 Question: The article looks fine, however, while reading I found several problems. Why are dates linked? (example in the lead), and decent, acquired, critics, legislature, interfere, are not simple words (wikitory them would help, or simplified them), Barry Goldwater is linked twice in the article body as well as republican and conservative. Can you provide a source for the last sentence in "honors"? Best, jonatalk to me 00:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. I simplified the article. Critics and decent are link to simple English pages to give a further simple def. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I Agree the article is GA worthy. Best, jonatalk to me 00:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hold on. Some of TDKR's changes created problems. Give me a few minutes and I'll fix them or note them here. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
How? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Give me a few more minutes -- I had to stop to feed my cats! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I have a fish myself. Pets I'm I right? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
At least a fish doesn't meow at you or knock things over when it wants to be fed! Anyway, I fixed a couple of small things. You linked "interference", but that article is about a specific scientific meaning of the word, not the meaning the article needed. (You really have to watch for words that have more than one meaning -- there are so many of them in English, and even words that are listed on the Basic English lists are only basic for some of their meanings.) I also fixed the phrase "got stuck the name", where it talked about his nickname.
Other than that, the article still needs quite a bit of simplifying. There are a lot of compound sentences. (If you don't understand what a compound sentence is, just ask -- I won't think badly of you!) Some of the easy ones to identify are where there are two sentences joined with semicolons, and some where they're joined by dashes. However, there are more besides those. Here's an example:
Reagan's favorite acting role was as a double amputee in 1942's Kings Row, in which he recites the line, "Where's the rest of me?", later used as the title of his 1965 autobiography.
That sentence should be divided into at least three shorter ones.
I also see some places that need copy editing. For example, "Although he used to be a Democrat who strongly supported the New Deal and admired Franklin Roosevelt." isn't a complete sentence. There are places that have some words that could be removed (in "They both became good friends", the word "both" is redundant). There are some misplaced modifiers. There is a link to the dab page Debut, which should probably be changed to a simpler word anyway. (Don't feel bad about not catching the dab link -- I have my account set so that they appear highlighted and I see them very easily.) Besides all that, there are some words that are just more complex than they need to be.
These are just the things I noticed giving it a quick read -- I'm sure I'd find others if I looked more closely. Don't get me wrong: large sections of the article don't have these issues. It's just that there are enough of them that I think the article needs a lot of improvement before it can be considered a GA. I'm going to stop now because I know you're waiting for my reply. Let me know how I can help. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I've simplified many complex words (sorry for not catching them) and I've shorten sentences and copy-edited. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm impressed -- you did some really good work there! A couple of the changes changed the meaning, though. When I'm back on my main PC, I'll give you the specifics. It's too cumbersome to work with long articles on my tablet. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Generally good, but I found this sentence under "Entrance into politics": "Although he used to be a Democrat, he strongly supported the New Deal". (Which of course makes no sense.) Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Related pages[change | change source]