Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Simple English 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)
  • This one I can almost support. It seems more even-handed than I had expected. A terrible period in U.S. history, but an important one. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Macdonald-ross: I noticed you said you can "almost support" the promotion. If you don't mind me asking, what is stopping you from fully supporting it? If there are any specific problems or concerns that you have, please let me know! ~Junedude433talk 15:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have left a review on the article's talk page that is really more of a future VGA review. Currently, there is only one issue remaining that, in my opinion, blocks the article from achieving GA specifically, and this issue is not expected to take particularly long to resolve, so an overall support promotion from me here. Chenzw  Talk  14:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to give an update that what I felt were GA blockers in my review, have all been resolved. Chenzw  Talk  15:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It has now been a little over three months since I nominated this article, and there doesn't seem to be any objections (save for @Macdonald-ross: saying "almost support" without specifying what's stopping their full support). Should we promote this article or not? ~Junedude433talk 02:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Frankly, were it not for the fact that I was involved in editing and review, I would have promoted the article by late-September. Since no other discussion has been going on, if no one voices an objection within the next 36 hours, I will close this and promote the article to GA. Chenzw  Talk  12:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • 2 quick points, can we have sources for 2nd paragraph for Background, it's unsourced + can aftermath not have a wikilink on the title of the section itself, can the wikilink be incoporated into the text. Otherwise no issue, fine article. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Done Promoted to GA. Chenzw  Talk  02:51, 9 November 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)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
X mark.svg Not done No consensus to promote. Chenzw  Talk  12:40, 16 November 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)
  • You're all nowhere with this one because you haven't asked (let alone answered) the difficult questions. Look at reference #2: what a joke! You haven't asked or answered why the Earth has so much oxygen. Ask yourself where it comes from. Oxygen is very reactive. Why doesn't it just react with everything else and disappear as a gas? (It's all here on this wiki, but not on this page). What does it benefit us to eliminate red links and leave all the real issues not just unanswered, but unasked? (though I would accept that much so-called science taught at school level is similarly defective). Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
True, that reference is not good. It looks like this was added recently by another user. I thank you for pointing this out. I will remove the reference. As nobody had pointed out that this was something that should have been included, I hadn’t considered adding it. More should definitley be said about why the Earth has so much oxygen. I wrote what is currently on the page using much of what is on the enwiki article, and thus some information is on subpages over there. IWI (chat) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This proposal appears to have lost traction, pinging the editors who have been involved in this: ImprovedWikiImprovment, Eptalon, Junedude433, TDKR Chicago 101, Macdonald-ross. Chenzw  Talk  15:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment:Yes, I'm sorry about the bad reference. I wouldn't normally leave any reference in the lead, but the problem was that my edit was contradicting the previous "consensus" by changing "all life" to "most life". Then I couldn't find where respiration was covered later in the main body of the article, so I popped over to anaerobic respiration for a reference from there but the only reference was a broken link... I guess I just gave up at that point and left the problem for the next day (which never came). I apologise for the inconvenience.
"Respiration" occurs seven times in the article and "breath-" also occurs seven times, so I think that a section covering respiration is needed (enwiki has too much on this subject, in my view, but it is hard to know where to draw the line). Full disclosure: checking back through the revisions, it appears I was the one who introduced the erroneous "all life" in the first place, when I changed it from "animal life"... back when the article was proposed, it said "most life", as it does now (and I'm not sure that's correct, thinking about fermentation). Anyway, if someone who understands biology could summarise the essentials in the body of the article, the lead should take care of itself.--GrounderUK (talk) 01:08, 4 September 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)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: Normally, I prefer that citations are not made in the introduction, but only in the body of the article, however the article looks good. Good job. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @A.WagnerC: Thanks for the feedback! It has been awhile since this nomination has gotten any. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]