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. ~~~~

Pike Place Fish Market[change | change source]

Pike Place Fish Market (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a GA on enwiki and I thought I might bring it here and try and make it a GA myself. I think it meets 5 or more of the GA criteria. It definitely needs simplifying and a peer review. I'm not sure why but there is a red category at the bottom of the page that I don't know of. If anyone could try and help this article, I would appreciate it greatly. Eurodyne (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That red link is there because some of the references are flagged as dead links. A dead link, in case anyone doesn't know, is a link to a website where the link doesn't work. The link might be wrong or outdated, the website might have been down when someone tried to access it, or the website might not exist any more. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If the link is dead, I think the reference needs to be replaced with a reliable website. I also think that some of the words are too complicated to remain as red links as well. I would recommend creating the articles to explain them, even if it does take some work. Bella tête-à-tête 09:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with those comments. And, necessary work should be done before bringing a page here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I also would like to see articles in better shape before being proposed here (or for DYK or PVGA), but the rules say an article only has to meet five if the nine requirements. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I put back the dead links that were removed because they can help find active links. I found replacements for 2 or 3 of them. I'll look more later, unless someone else gets to it first. If anyone wants to know how to look for them (a good thing to know how to do), let me know and I'll explain what I did. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I would like to know, if it doesn't trouble you too much. Eurodyne (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Nope, no trouble. I'll put the info on your talk page, so it doesn't take up space here. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Auntof6. I haven't gotten anything yet... Eurodyne (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I haven't posted anything yet. I have some other things to do before I get to that. It will probably not be until at least tomorrow. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Related pages[change | change source]