Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

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

WP:PGOOD
WP:PGA
WP:GAC

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 which 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 which 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. ~~~~


Jeremy Corbyn[change source]

Jeremy Corbyn (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on making this article into GA status. He is a currently active politician but that hasn't stopped me with Bernie Sanders. I vow to keep the page updated with recent events. The article is well-sourced and has all the needed information to inform the readers of this SEW page of Corbyn's career. Any suggestions as to add sources or any simplifying of words are greatly welcomed. I've sourced everything appropriately and each section is filled with the proper content with simplification. Thank you. --08:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)TDKR Chicago 101 (talk)

This has been sitting for a year now, so we should decide one way or the other. Content-wise, I think it makes the grade. I think the language is still a little complicated for GA here, though. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
About time we get another GA out. I'll have a look at it and see what I can do. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 15:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks like some of the references aren't formatted (e.g. ref 80), so fixing that would be a good start. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: - For what it's worth when I look at the article, I still think there's one or two things which could be simplified further. Words like "aftermath", "steering committee", "resignation" need to be simplified or linked to Wiktionary. A grammar note too, for you: "The crowd chanted "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn" and sung to the tune of a The White Stripes song." - the last part of this could be reworded, since it doesn't make proper sense. Maybe: "The crowd chanted "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn" and sung to the tune of a song by The White Stripes." You're on the verge of a good article, but there's still work there. Sorry :) DaneGeld (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • First, please try not to link to Wiktionary: simplifying, explaining, and rewording are always better options. Second, that sentence does make grammatical sense, but it's awkward, so the rewording would help. The part of it that is wrong is the verb tense of the last verb: it should be "sang", not "sung". --Auntof6 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That goes down to my English studies then, Auntof6. I was taught not to use "the" after (or before) "a" or "an". To me, as a secondary speaker of English, that doesn't make sense. If it makes grammatical sense in English, I apologize - I simply don't read it like that. It sounds wrong, and it looks wrong. I agree with you on the verb tense though, I was simply rewording the sentence based on what TDKR Chicago 101 had written. DaneGeld (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Usually, one wouldn't use "the" after "a" or "an". Here, "The" is serving as part of a multi-word proper noun phrase, though, as I assume the name of the band is The White Stripes. Colloquially, people would probably say "Do you have a White Stripes album?" rather than "Do you have a The White Stripes album?", but the latter is really standard English in this narrow type of case. Still, I happen to agree that it sounds wrong and looks wrong. The only reason that it's not actually wrong is because of this narrow exception to the rule. But narrow exceptions are almost never pretty. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I fixed the chanting section about "Oh Jeremy Corbyn". Is the sentence good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's definitely much clearer. I wasn't aware of the exception StevenJ81 pointed out, which is why I highlighted it. Thank you for fixing it though! DaneGeld (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What are some other issues in need of fixing? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I have promoted the article; no input for more than a week. No obvious issues. --Eptalon (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]