Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
|
Proposed good articles  "Good articles" are articles that are better than other articles, according to many people. 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. Please only put one article in at a time. 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 better than the good article criteria can be proposed to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles. This tool can be used to find the size of an article. |
Joining the talk If you choose to join in the talk about good 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 people think that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may not be allowed to join in any more. |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.
|
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, filling out 'page title' and 'reason' with your proposed page's title and why you think this page should be a proposed article: {{subst:Pgapropose|page title|reason}} ~~~~
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.
iPhone 15
[change source]
This article is fairly completed- No change wars, the article is stable
- This article with appropriate categories
- This article has at least one interlink
- This article without pointing at improvement templates
- This article has three red links
I've improved article. So, last time at May, i withdrew it because of poor grammar and i need more works, please see this. I've fixed some formatting issues in reviews and specifications. In May-September 2025 after withdrawn, three human editors worked with me in revision. Please see this. Raayaan9911 13:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Raayaan9911 The grammar is still poor. No offense intended, but this is not ready. canadachick (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for delayed response. I have fixed grammar. If you see it's still poor grammar. Let me know and give me examples. — Raayaan9911 10:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Alice in Borderland (TV show)
[change source]It meets the criteria outlined at WP:RGA. While others may have a concern that it was not gone through a few revisions by different editors, but actually it has gone gone through a few revisions by different editors in English Wikipedia (cause it was translated from there), and here it has gone through a few revisions by only me. I tried my best, at the starting there was full of red links, which are now blue. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 09:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- I can see some work has been done to make the sentence structure simpiler, which I appreciate, but there does seem to be a lot of more complicated words where simpler ones, or simpiler phrasing could be used. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment: It's a good effort and I think it needs an extra little push to become a GA. Per Lee Vilenski, I see some complex words being used. Let me lay out some examples: "praised", "underpass", "left 33 chapters untouched" and "some critics had mixed opinions" are some things that could be simplified further. But overall, it's a great nomination and it's nearly there :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help, I have fixed some more along with your suggestions. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 21:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- On my end, I’m seeing not a lot of complex wording or phrasing (GA standards) that would keep this nom at a standstill.
Support TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- On my end, I’m seeing not a lot of complex wording or phrasing (GA standards) that would keep this nom at a standstill.
- Thanks for your help, I have fixed some more along with your suggestions. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 21:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've done a bit of cleanup, and I'm happy to support now. It is always the lede that gets me, the rest of the article is pretty well simplified. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
