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. ~~~~


Thumbelina[change | change source]

Thumbelina (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well written article. We do not have a fairy tale among the GAs. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well-written, yes, but not simple enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Will review. I invite you to participate. SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You will need to become familiar with Basic English. When I run a check on the article, it is full of complex words. Your answer above, has three complex words in it. What I have written here to help you, has none at all.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead and plot sections have been simplified. Please review and comment! Thanks! SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Related pages[change | change source]