Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

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


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. ~~~~

Shraddha Kapoor[change | change source]

Shraddha Kapoor (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I would like to nominate this article as a GA as i think it deserves to be one. I had worked on it since a few hours. Thank you OMGmelissa (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It still has a long way to go to make the language used Simple English. For example: "negative review", "positive reception", "endorsement". "portrayal", "commercial", etc. My suggestion is to have a really good look at the Simple English word list and see where simpler words could be used in the place of more complex ones. Where there is no suitable word, them link the word to wiktionary. Take your time and work through it all carefully. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, i'm really overwhelm by your gestures. OMGmelissa (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Another note is that "film" should be changed to "movie" and make long sentences short. Make some paragraphs and indent some more Start linking some words. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Closing as not promoted. No work has been done on the page and it even has a tag saying it's too complex, so it is pretty obvious that is not close to the standard required. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela[change | change source]

Nelson Mandela (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is my second attempt to make this article gain some recognition. Now I'm sure that there might be some mistakes, but I can fix them. This article is well written, simple, and hopefully amusing for our readers of all ages. I think this article is simple enough and of course worthy (my opinion) of being a GA. I'm not looking for a future VGA, but please just give me suggestions on how to make this article a GA. I know that some worries may be about Mandela passing away soon (sadly), but that shouldn't be in the way. I promise that if such an event happens I will give my full attention and my full awareness on the article. I want this article to be good and simple, so that future readers may learn about Mandela and his legacy. RIP. I hope the second try is the successful try. 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) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. While the nominator tells us that Mandela is a "significant man", this doesn't come across in the article. On the contrary, we are told he led a student strike, was expelled, worked as a night watchman, was sent to prison, etc. There's not much in the article to indicate he was a "significant man". The article has a superficial character and dwells on little things like Mandela's batik shirts. It doesn't go into any depth on the man. Some finger slips on the keyboard. Not GA material. Sorry, doesn't make the grade. Miley foam finger cyrus (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • When I said significant man, I didn't mean it literally. If it helps I deleted those words. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Struck out sock's comments. Osiris (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Made some fixes to improve clarity. I do not know much on the subject, but the article appears to be in good shape. -Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Are there anymore suggestions or supporters? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I rarely comment on GA proposals. This one is a reasonable page, but I think it suffers from having almost too many details, yet missing the whole point of the exercise, which is, why is he regarded as a great man? (this is the elephant in the room) I also see some impossible sentences, which need to be disentangled. And it's not clear what is being said about M'Beki (Presidency, third para). Second para (same section): awkward phrasing -- I mean, do you really think the ANC had no knowledge of or in politics? Fourth para (same section) has unclear language. No, the more I look, the more I find. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting at. Can you write on my talk page with some more examples? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Related pages[change | change source]