Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

Proposed good articles

This star represents the proposed good content on Wikipedia.

"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.

Proposals for good articles

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.

Ed Gein

Ed Gein (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
Y The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors. (Check my sandbox history as well)
Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
Y It has at least one interwiki link.
Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

Perfectly timed nomination (day before Halloween). The article checks out all the check marks from what I can see. I've simplified the article, expanded it, added more reliable sources and reworked some sentences. Everything done to the article has been to the best of my ability. If there's anything I've missed or there's words/sentences that can be simplified further please let me know. I truly value any constructive feedback! Thank you for your consideration as always! :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article meets and exceeds criteria to become a GA. I would even consider nomming this article for VGA. ~2025-31938-47 (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals closed recently

MacBook Pro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

MacBook Pro (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I’m nominating the article "MacBook Pro" for Good Article status. It covers the history, models, features, and environmental impact of Apple’s MacBook Pro laptops. The article is up-to-date, including the latest M4 Pro and M4 Max models (2025), as well as past Intel and Apple silicon versions. All major facts are backed by reliable sources like Apple Newsroom, Apple support, MacRumors, and The Verge. The article is neutral, well-organized, and includes an infobox, tables, and sections for easy reading. I believe this article is clear, accurate, and ready for Good Article review. What do you all think? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 19:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was this modified with AI? Why are almost all of the sources from Apple's website instead of picking a variety of reliable sources? This article has a long ways to go in my opinion. Ternera (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ternera: "a long ways to go"? Could you elaborate? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 21:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of it come across as AI-generated and the references could use improvement. Ternera (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs independent sources. fr33k man 03:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose #Features looks AI generated to me, and I counted only 4 non-apple sources, nowhere near enough to consider promoting.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The environmental section looks sale-sy to me too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 11:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally just a list of "look how environmental we are". Contains no prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- This article looks good to go. I like what you did with it. ~2025-31236-74 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm going to flat out oppose this looking at it a bit deeper. References are mostly all WP:PRIMARY, the model list is uncited and the next two sections are written like a press release. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is mainly bullet points with the only text body in the article, the History section, being over a dozen (roughly 15) sentences. The lead could also be expanded as such. There needs to be more prose/sentence info within the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Boldly closing this early, clearly not going to pass, nominator hasn't been working on the article since nom. Clearly not ready to be a GA. Nominator is advised to read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for better idea for the minimum standards for GAsPlutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 09:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pages