Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:PGOOD)
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. ~~~~

Lawrence massacre[change source]

Lawrence massacre (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is about a massacre in the American Civil War, and it's one of the most important (arguably the most impotant) events in the history of Lawrence, Kansas. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a GA or VGA about a battle or massacre, so there wasn't any template or example of which I could use to base this article. The article details the background information, two major reasons for the attack, what happened during the attack, and the aftermath of the attack. I believe it fulfills all of the requirements for a GA. Seeing as this would be a first of its kind for a GA, I am very open to any criticism or suggestions to improve the page. ~Junedude433talk 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I will see whether I can post a review similar to what I did for Lawrence, Kansas, in the next few days. There seems to be a fair amount of detail, so I have high hopes for this one. --Yottie =talk= 21:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The issues I noted have been fixed. I have taken the liberty of making a few minor fixes (feel free to revert, if not suitable). I am happy to support promotion on this. Would be good, however, to get a few more opinions! --Yottie =talk= 18:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Clicker Heroes[change source]

Clicker Heroes (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I understand that I’m really new here, but please bear with me. I looked at the requirements, and I believe that it meets most of the criteria (specifically 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). It doesn’t meet criteria 2, but I believe that can be fixed. I will note that there is one red link, but that’s because it’s a link to the game’s company, which may not even be notable. Let me know what you think, --sithjarjar666 (my profile | my contribs | speak to me) 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC) --sithjarjar666 (my profile | my contribs | speak to me) 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@SithJarJar666: I wouldn't call you crazy, but this article is absolutley nowhere near good article status. Should be closed, as I don't see it reaching this status any time soon. IWI (chat) 19:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: You probably know better than I, so if you think it won’t pass, I’ll accept your judgement:) --sithjarjar666 (my profile | my contribs | speak to me) 19:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with IWI, I'm afraid. It likely needs expanding if it's to be anywhere near GA status. I suggest closing the nomination to clear the backlog. --Yottie =talk= 11:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • X mark.svg Not done - does not seem like the article will meet GA criteria any time soon. Chenzw  Talk  11:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

September 11 Attacks[change source]

September 11 attacks (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Lots of information, no red links, and properly formatted sources, although it could be a little bit longer and include more sources. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment @Chenzw: aren't user's only allowed one proposal at a time? IWI (chat) 15:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, I didn't notice it until you pointed that out. I think it would be pointless if this proposal is just removed, though. However, I will ask that Matthewishere0 please stop nominating additional articles for the time being - the GA process is slow on this wiki due to a lack of editors. Chenzw  Talk  15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know either. So what will happen now that I have nominated 4 articles? Do I pick one as priority or what? Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: Not a mod, so I don't have an answer to that question, but I first must ask why you are nominating these articles? Are you personally interested or invested in making these articles up to GA standard, or did you simply look at these articles and think they are good enough for nomination? If it's the former, I would suggest picking one or two that you can really focus on, and the community can help point out areas of improvement for you to work on. If it's the latter, then don't worry about it that much unless you want to improve it. ~Junedude433talk 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Junedude433: - For some of these articles I actually focused on improving them a lot to become GA standard, such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Donald Trump, and Eminem. For the other ones I nominated I either made minor changes or just read through them and checked the sources and they looked GA status to me because of the length and the source formatting. Thats what I did with September 11 attacks and Petr Cech. Matthewishere0 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump[change source]

Donald Trump (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This would be a good addition to GA articles because it includes enough information, and almost all sources are well formatted. He is the current president, so there will be a lot of information on him. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • The article only has one sentence about his presidency during 2019. It could be expanded and updated such as mention of his COVID-19 response, Presidential transition section could be it's own article or change the format, etc. Also seeing that the article is about an incumbent officeholder keep in mind the article would have to be constantly updated, especially with a president of a major country. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@TDKR Chicago 101: - I know it needs an update, but I think we should wait until the end of the year to add those topics, such as COVID-19 Response and etc. It would be easier to add a big chunk of information since it is more likely to be well sourced than to just add a sentence on his COVID-19 Response, which still isn't over yet. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Matthewishere0: Then if we still have to wait for the article to be updated then perhaps it’s not the best time to nominate it for GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2020
@TDKR Chicago 101: I mean the update doesn't really matter, at least it has sentences about 2018 and 2019. The most important things are the format and how it is written in order to become GA status. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: I think it is important. Trump is the President of the United States and to be a GA the article cannot be missing key details/info about his presidency. Look at Bernie Sanders, his article has been updated constantly during the 2020 primaries. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not just important, it is necessary. The criteria includes "The article must be fairly complete." Two sentences in the body of the article about the last 2 years of a president's term is not complete. Additionally, the prose for this is not good quality. In the section on his presidency, 22 paragraphs of 23 start with a form of "On X date" or "In X month." Prose should flow naturally rather than being a list of events. Only (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@TDKR Chicago 101: The Bernie Sanders comparison isn't really a good one, since he isn't current president and the section is about his campaign and how he dropped out, while Trumps reelection campaign just started and there isn't much info on it, although I do agree with the decision that more needs to be added.
@Only: After rechecking the article, I agree with you on the point that the article does have bad prose and the last 2 years in his term do actually have more than two sentences, but at the same time isn't really complete. Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: Obviously Sanders isn’t President what I was getting at is that Sanders’ article had to keep on getting constantly updated due to the fact he was an active candidate. The same edit energy would have to be given to Trump since he is President and therefore would require constant editing to keep the article updated. If the article is not updated then it shouldn’t be GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@TDKR Chicago 101: Like I said before, there haven't really been many "events" involving Trump, other than his COVID-19 response. I believe when someone is running in the primaries more information is needed because of how the results are and how much votes they receive and things like that. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's clear the article isn't there yet. Articles shouldn't really be nominated until they are realistically going to pass, needing only minor changes. I suggest closing the nomination to help clear the backlog. --Yottie =talk= 11:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Eminem[change source]

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

Has lots of sources, good prose, neutral point of view, etc. It has very few red links, although those articles should be created and shouldn't impact GA status. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Needs a substantial update to the career section post-2017. Wouldn't help to have an artistry section like they have at enwiki. Hiàn (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hiàn: - What do you mean by "Artistry" section? I left someparts out on purpose because I didn't want it to look likeit came straight from the English Wiki. Matthewishere0 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Something describing who/what influences his music might be nice. I don't think the other parts are entirely necessary. Hiàn (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The article needs updating, simplifying and expanding somewhat. I don't think it's ready for GA. When the issues have been sorted and it has a realistic chance of making a GA, then re-nominate. Until then, I suggest closing the nomination to help clear the backlog. --Yottie =talk= 11:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Petr Čech[change source]

Petr Čech (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It has a good amount of sources and everything is well written. It includes basic facts about his career, and has well formatted sources. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  • The article is only a huge personal life section, Club career statistics and the rest is bullet point statements. If any more sources should be added, a career section talking about his career is needed and maybe restructure his records held section (maybe as a subsection for his career section). I like that there's little redlinks though! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Still seeing some red-links --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: - I understand that there are red links, but those can be disregarded as they are not essential to the article itself. Matthewishere0 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If they aren't essential to the article, then are they even worth linking? ~Junedude433talk 23:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Junedude433: In some ways yes, because some of them are clubs he's played for, but in some ways no because those clubs aren't notable enough and aren't really "urgent" links to be created, instead they are more of a "wanted but not necessary" links. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I decided to make two articles to fix two of the redlinks: FA Community Shield and UEFA European Under-21 Championship. You're welcome. ~Junedude433talk 18:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with TDKR Chicago 101's assessment. There isn't enough prose and "meat" to this article. It is dominated by tables and lists. Convert more to paragraph prose as the focus. Only (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Only: So should I add more to his club and international career? Matthewishere0 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Clearly lacking any substantial work on his career. Not fit for GA. I suggest closing the nomination to help clear the backlog. --Yottie =talk= 11:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • X mark.svg Not done - article is too list-y and bullet point-y to meet GA criteria. Chenzw  Talk  11:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo[change source]

Cristiano Ronaldo (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article should be a GA because it is very well written compared to other articles of football players and it also has a good amount of sources. I have also edited the article many times in the past which means I am a significant contributor. Matthewishere0 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Good start, but I see that his entire club career of 18 years has been condensed into only one section, and that his career with Portugal's national team is completely missing. Not quite yet. Hiàn (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It is a good start but it is not good enough to be a good article yet. A lot more is needed. IWI (chat) 01:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I just did some editing, I added more to his club career, what do you guys think? Matthewishere0 (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Matthewwishere0: Again, good start, but there are several major problems. One issue would be the sheer number of red links, many of which I think are deeply related to the article. There are a lot of people, games, tournaments, and awards that are red links, so if I wanted to know more about them, I couldn't do it on the Simple English Wikipedia. Another issue is length; several sections are extremely short, such as his International Career section. I'll admit, I know nothing about this guy (I've never even heard of him before), but if it says that he started in 2002, and he has at least continued playing through the 2018 FIFA World Cup, I would expect that there be more than a few sentences detailing his 16+ year career. If I were interested, I would want to know if his performance suffered or improved greatly at some point in his career, for instance. As it stands now, this is nowhere near the quality for a GA, but it easily could be with some more information. You have the general format already in place. That's a good thing. What you need to do now is greatly expand each of those sections. Once that is in place, grammar checking, simplification, and some polish would be needed, but we can all help with that. Keep going! ~Junedude433talk 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Junedude433: thanks for your feedback, I really appreaciate it. I'll keep working on the article. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
A comment on the red links; so for every red link there is I would have to create an article for it, that would take ages. I know the red links are deeply connected to the article, but I was wondering if somebody could help me out cause you can't really create like 20 something articles in one day. So one of the areas I need to focus on are the international career section? I got most of that information from the English Wiki but I can get more and put it in simple words and then add sources and etc. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Creating articles for the redlinks aren't that bad. That's what I did for Reagan, Sanders, Fred Rogers and AOC. Is it possible to add more images into his article? That's always a good start! I love his career section so far! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
More images can absolutely happen, thats an easy thing to do. I'm going to try to upload some from the English Wiki, but use some different ones rather than the ones that are on his English Wiki article. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is a decent introduction to the player, however it really is lacking in detail about the player. I suggest closing the nomination to help clear the backlog. --Yottie =talk= 11:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oxygen[change source]

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

I nominated this article a while back. I have cleared the non-person red links and would be open for ideas on how to improve it further. IWI (chat) 20:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If possible, get rid of the red-links in the footnotes/citations? - There's generally no need to link authors, journals or publishers...--Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Will do. IWI (chat) 21:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Apart from two that I can't change, I have done it. Is there anything further that can be done. IWI (chat) 21:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Uses: Metallurgy: Making steel, welding, cleaning wastewater, Zinc–air battery; food additive E948, Carbon dioxide which is added to almost every drink? --Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes the uses could be added to. I will add your points thank you. IWI (chat) 21:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I have added an "industrial" section to the uses and also created a "compound" section. The enwiki doesn't mention E948 so I've left that out. I breifly mentioned CO2 being used in drinks, but the uses section is really for how oxygen is used on its own. Thoughts? IWI (chat) 14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You said that you cleared all of the non-person red links, but I found plenty, particularly in the infobox. I just created pages for two of them: the p-block and the element category. Please try to create pages (they can even be stubs!) for all of the red links. ~Junedude433talk 15:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Junedude433: The infobox is not technically the article. In the new sections that I created after that comment there are some red links that need clearing. IWI (chat) 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Regardless, I don't think an article should be a GA unless all red links are gone. I know that it might not technically be part of the criteria, but unofficially, it should be. ~Junedude433talk 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Junedude433: You are right, I will clear them. IWI (chat) 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you TDKR Chicago 101; can you see any possible improvements? IWI (chat) 20:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez[change source]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became an unexpected political celebrity following her upset victory back in the 2018 midterm primary. She has since then been a very vocal U.S. Congresswoman calling for a Green New Deal and reforming America's immigration laws. From bartender to the youngest woman ever elected to Congress her political career has been unorthodox, but accomplishing nonetheless. The article has been expanded with no redlinks and good amount of sourcing with sufficient simplification. As a result, I feel that with the article's good shape it would be an excellent addition to our community's Good Articles. Of course some work will be needed but as my Reagan, Sanders, Corbyn and Rogers nominations went, I work best when given specific areas where improvement is needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for this fine piece of work. I support the passing of GA. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Bit of work to do on this one. Have added some comments on the talk page. Will add more later this week.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I tentatively support this one when it becomes a bit more simplified. Everything else checks out pretty well.~Junedude433talk 02:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Junedude433: Any specific areas that needs simplification? This will help me find target regions that need work --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed the sections Early Life and Political Views need the most simplification but I'm not at all skilled with that thing but it's good to have a shot Dibbydib (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dibbydib:: Thank you for your input and I'll definitely take a look! What areas did you find specifically that looked off or not simplified? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have only given a quick look, and I think it is in generally good shape. One of the issues I found (which is not in the criteria) is the following: When using references don't link authors or publishers. It only adds a red link, and the need to create an article, when this ever goes to VGA status. As to newspapers: we do have an international readership, so except perhaps for the top 5 to top 10 US newspapers (by circulation), the reader won't recognise the reference. The added information value is very small. As I don't know the US media market, I can't tell you which of the links to keep, and which ones to remove. What I am trying to say is: It is very likely that a link to an author or publisher only generates extra work, and adds little to no information.--Eptalon (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This still needs quite a bit of simplification. Here is one example of idiomatic language that loses meaning without context, "She said that 80% of her campaign worked out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind the eatery's bar." In the original article that this is pulled from, there is more to explain what this means. Here it is complex and unclear what exactly "the campaign" means or what it means to work out of a paper bag. --Gotanda (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: I gave the sentence some context and reworded it. Thank you for this specific example. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't really address the idiomatic uses and is still unclear. In addition, now it is presented as a quote but this is not a direct quote from the cited article. There is still lots of low frequency vocabulary used that needs to be simplified. Fart, mockery, sham, clout, sophomore, ethic, stunt, premiere, and more. Many of these come in from quotes. A vocabulary profiler such as [1] can help you identify all of the low frequency words that need simplification.
Paraphrasing rather than quoting is more work, but is simpler. for example:
  • policies that "...most closely resemble what we see in the United Kingdom, in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden."
  • policies that are like those in the United Kingdom, Norway, Finland, and Sweden --Gotanda (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: Ah I see, thank you for the specific example and I'll start fixing the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: Made a few adjustments now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: Please see my recent edits. Some of your recent changes drastically change the meaning when you are trying to simplify. I may get to your other recent edits, but please review them again yourself. --Gotanda (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: - I am currently reviewing the article. Keep an eye on the article's talk page. --Yottie =talk= 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]