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.

2025 Pahalgam Massacre

2025 Pahalgam Massacre (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe it fits all the requirements needed for to attain GA status. Shubhsamant09 23:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. There's quite a bit of complex language and even regular wiki-formatting is not right. There's a dablink in there, W:WP:CITEKILL in the lede and acronyms used without definition. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

note - I've fixed up the WikiData links so it's to this and not the redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I have further simplified a lot of the text. Shubhsamant09 18:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel that the lead could be expanded to cover more about the massacre such as a bit of background/build up and a bit talking about the aftermath and maybe reactions. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I further expanded the lead Shubhsamant09 14:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too complex. Raayaan 9911 01:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to simplify a lot of the text over the past few days, could you direct me to the lines you are referring to, it makes it easier for me to go and fix :) Shubhsamant09 01:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1755 Cape Ann earthquake

1755 Cape Ann earthquake (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I did simplified the article about the 1755 Cape Ann earthquake. There's no templates about the article needs improvement, and it have good references. But if there's any problems, leave a comment. Bakhos Let's talk! 12:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the text is complex, and needs simplifying. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 19:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteralee I did try my best simplifying the whole text, which i did simplifed some texts again. Can you show me the sentences which are complex? Bakhos Let's talk! 03:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of a clean of the lede. I don't think it's too far off, but needs a bit of TLC. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, the sentence "Even people a ship" might be incorrect. What about keeping the sentence "Even people on the ship"? By the way, if the page with the sentences needs to be cleaned up, feel free to show me the sentences. Thanks. Bakhos Let's talk! 08:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that should have read "on a ship", I've changed that. The problem with "even people on the ship" is:- what ship? We haven't defined a ship. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, it doesn't mentioned what a ship is. Just a ship. Bakhos Let's talk! 12:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby's Dream Course

Kirby's Dream Course (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It has been about a year since I last proposed this article, and it should be ready to be renominated. I ran it through a readability checker, and it said that the page was at an eighth-grade reading level, which should be low enough. It also meets all of the other criteria. If you have any problems with the article, please tell me. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've made some edits to the article that I recommend you look at here. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 22:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the sake of other editors that I have reviewed these changes. They are good changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals closed recently

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.

iPhone 15

IPhone 15 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I did improved article from December to May, if you have any problems, improve me and leave comment. Raayaan 9911 17:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911 English needs some work; like simplification. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 21:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good to go. Shubhsamant09 21:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've simplified it, if you still have problems? Suggest me. Raayaan 9911 01:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this, but the grammar is not good. 166.107.163.11 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give me suggestions Raayaan 9911 01:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: poor grammar at times, like ...

"People can buy early on September 15, 2023." (that's future tense talking about a past time).

"They were launched to sales" "launched to sales" isn't a phrase that makes much sense

"Apple changed lighting connector to USB Type C " What is "lighting connector"?

You are using both "it" and "they" as the pronouns here. You need consistency. Your subject is plural since you're talking about two models.

"It was before to the iPhone 14 and iPhone 14 Plus" What was before? "before to" is not a phrase that makes sense.

Please don't consider the above the list of the only grammatical issues; this is just a sample of some as examples as why it is not close to Good Article status. Other concerns include the length/balance. You have multiple paragraphs in "review" but only 2 sentences in "history" and one sentence in "sales." There are too many issues now to consider this ready to be a Good Article. CountryANDWestern (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted withdrawn. Raayaan 9911 02:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 09:09, 23 May 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.

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.

Sanna Marin

Sanna Marin (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.
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.

This article was always on the back-burner for me to nominate for GA (maybe VGA one day). The article is properly referenced, good in length, I've simplified it to the best of my ability (definitely open for feedback/suggestions to simplify it further if needed), up to date, no red links and even has a good amount of images. I am open for feedback on how to make this article good enough for GA status! Thank you for your consideration. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks ready Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support great work! Raayaan 9911 08:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful.--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 02:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 02:47, 24 May 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