Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:PGA)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
GA candidate.svg

Good articles are articles that many people find to be better than other articles. 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.

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 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 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 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 source]

Proposals for good articles[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. ~~~~

History of Kansas[change source]

History of Kansas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article effectively details the major parts of the history of Kansas. It covers the history of major things in Kansas not just for basic political history or for wars, but also for things such as Farming and Sports, which are important to the state's identity. Everything is appropriately linked and cited. Any more improvements that could be made would likely just be links and possibly more references if need be. By this point though, I think it's a worthy GA candidate. ~Junedude433talk 00:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't see any reason why not it seems like a high quality article, certainly worthy to be described as one of the best articles on here. Really no improvements at all that are a big deal. IWI (chat) 20:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a well-written article that meets the GA criteria. I suggest promoting the article.--BRP ever 23:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 Done - Promoted to GA. Chenzw  Talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale[change source]

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been significantly improved, and gets its point across simply and effectivly. Wyatt2049 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend merging the "Examples" and "Scale and Damage" categories. There are also many more examples you could give. I would recommend adding a history section so readers can understand how the scale came to be. There is also some criticism of the scale which should be included so as to make the article unbiased. Keep it up, and it can get there! ~Junedude433talk 18:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the article is not ready yet. The sources need to be formatted and the Scale And Damage section is still complex imo. The ENWP article contains some history about the scale, which should probably be included too.--BRP ever 23:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - Article issues remain unresolved. Chenzw  Talk  18:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Four color theorem[change source]

Four color theorem (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think I started this, or contributed a lot to the article. Yes, its a subject about matehmatics. As far as I have seen there are a few red-links (about math-related concepts, mostly graph theroy), and almost all names mentioned are red links. What is the general impression, esp. concerning the fluency/readabiliy? - Yes, I know it is about mathematics, so simplifying the language will be dificult in certain places...--Eptalon (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eptalon: I think this is a good start to a tough subject to simplify.
I see you've been away from the article for a bit. Give it a fresh read now. Some things will prove obvious. (Example: "Proving that four colors suffice turned out to be significantly more difficult." I'm sure I'd change "suffice", and probably also "significantly".) Then ping me. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I agree that it is a good start considering how difficult the subject is. I went ahead and simplified a few words to help out. Some words are easy to notice as being unnecessarily difficult. Specific mathematical terms can stay - I don't really think anything can be done to avoid that, but there are non-math related terms that could be changed. For instance, "required" could become "needed"; "significantly" could become "much more", and so on. Good start, and I think with some more editing (and fewer red links), it could certainly be a GA. ~Junedude433talk 00:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Introduction is very well-written, there are some red links and some things as pointed above that can be improved but other than that it's probably one of the finest and simplest description of the theorem one can come across considering how difficult the subject is.-BRP ever 23:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to say this article is not interesting, but it absolutely certainly is not simple in language. I'm afraid that rules it out as a good page. For a start the page gets absolutely lost in the woods when it tries to give practical examples. As to vocabulary, "contiguous" is one of the rarest words ever used in ordinary texts in English. For all practical purposes the only simple word to use is "touching" and with the (already present) proviso about points, that will have to do. It is better to say "this gives some idea, but for an exact wording see...". Sorry, there are good intentions, but I would rate it very difficult for our readership. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Oxygen[change source]

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

I know that this article is not quite at GA status yet but would like some feedback on how it could be improved. I have been translating it from the enwiki over the last week. IWI (chat) 21:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a first step would be to get rid of red links. In my opinion, link to a person (name) is not as important as a link to a concept. Some links (such as liquid oxygen), can be split. As we are on the page about oxygen, we only need a link to liquid. Otherwise, I think the page is a good start. I fainly remember from Chemistry, that IUPAC (IIRC) defined a color for flasks of Oxygen (blue?). It would be worth mentining this, probably in the into...--Eptalon (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
With respect to red links: Leave the ones to people alone for now; they can always be swept up at the end. (Exception: Once or twice, there are duplicate red links to the same person; the ones after the first can be removed.) Let's see what red links are left for non-biography links and work on those. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Esperanto[change source]

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

This a detailed yet simple article describing the language Esperanto. It is well sourced and i believe it deserved to be a good article. (talk)

First of all, please create an account, it makes communication easier. Secondly: Yes, the article is a good start. I do however think that esperanto-related redlinks (such as "esperantujo") will probably need creating (a short explanation is enough). If you don't use esperantujo, but rather: places where E. is common, you probably also get around fixing the few Esperanto-related red-links. There are other planned languages; I don't know if you want to mention Ido (which is based on Esperanto, but about 50 years younger), or Occidenntal/Interlingue, which takes the idea, bur uses a different vocabulary, or Interlingua. No idea if they are worth mentioning; Esperanto is probably the most successful of the "planned languages". Will have a closer look if other editors comment as well...--Eptalon (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

List of U.S. states[change source]

List of U.S. states (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A concise and clear list of the states with a map and simplified explanation. The list itself was based on the enwiki version (an article that was featured, meaning it is probably the ideal way to present it). I can’t see says it could be improved further, besides possible simplification. Also, it was the most viewed article last month for some reason, which I’m not certain why. IWI (chat) 21:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we ever settled whether lists can be considered for good status. Last discussion I see is Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_good_articles#Should_lists_be_allowed_to_be_nominated?. That being said, I don't think that this article would be "good" worthy. It is 2 sentences plus the table. The featured list at the English Wikipedia has multiple substantial paragraphs. Only (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Bare bones list and this isn't remotely close to being a GA (or good list or whatever). Hiàn (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
We can discuss about the possibility to have "good lists" (personally, I don't believe lists can become good, because there's too little room for variation). Nevetheless: I'd expect the list to have sortable headers (there's a template for that). Probably the last states to join the union were Alaska (bought from Russia, in the 1860s, and Hawaii, who joined in the 1950s or 1960s). There may also be some joiners from the wars with Mexico. Anyway: There hasn't been much chang in this listing in the last 50-odd years. Also it is probably difficult to explain why Hawaii is a US state, and for example, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or Puerto Rico are not (even though they are US territories). In short: I don't really see a future for a good list, there might be for an article that explains the different statuses of different US controlled territories. --Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. Just for the record:
    • The last states to join were, in fact, Alaska (purchased in the 1860s, but not admitted as a state until January 1959) and Hawaii (annexed in the 1890s, but not admitted as a state until August 1959).
    • The land now occupied by the states of California, Nevada, Utah and Texas; most of Arizona and New Mexico; and portions of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming; resulted from wars with Mexico. The earliest of those states to be admitted was Texas, in 1845; the last were Arizona and New Mexico, in 1912.
    • Why the others are not states is a longer discussion.
  2. As @Only points out, English Wikipedia does not have "good" lists. (Most of its lists that aren't junkworthy are at least as good as this one.) It does have featured lists—what we would call a "very good list" here. The criteria for that status are far more substantial than what is contained in this list. And we do not even officially have "very good lists" here.
This request should be closed. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Can be expanded via en. The content now is simply inadequate for a very good list if it exist. The territories and first few paragraphs should match en in terms of depth. Sources should be more adequate also. --Cohaf (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Right now, we don't have VG lists anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. Several comments above suggest that the article (list) doesn't fulfill the GA criteria so I am closing this as not done.--BRP ever 13:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]