Wikipedia talk:Good articles

"Good articles are the best articles in the Simple English Wikipedia that can not meet the good article criteria" I don't understand what that should mean, because criteria are missing. It must have been decided that they are good. --Cethegus 16:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Good articles are the best articles in the Simple English Wikipedia that can not meet the good article criteria". That sentence doesn't make any sense. It's saying that an article is a good article if it doesn't meet the good article criteria...

Shouldn't there be "very" there? - "good articles ... cannot meet the very good article criteria".

Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm here and reading this, the above is not quite the way to phrase it. We should phrase more positively, but without making unreasonable claims. How about "Good articles are worth reading. They meet our criteria for good articles, listed in WP:GA". (supposing it is not on the actual page). Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Question

Since all GA and VGA articles have to have no red links, does this include templates on that page as well? ShadowBallX (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Early promotions

I looked at a few of the early promotions. They had flaws which we would not allow today, but there were interesting articles I had not read before. I was able to shore up Hot chocolate with a much-needed source. I think many of the articles are weak in sources. Incidentally it caused me to read our page on caffeine. It's a more dangerous chemical than most people think: "Caffeine has been used to double chromosomes in haploid wheat. Thomas J, Chen Q, Howes N (1997). "Chromosome doubling of haploids of common wheat with caffeine". Genome. 40 (4): 552–8. doi:10.1139/g97-072. PMID 18464846. Yikes! Whatever next? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Rainforest

Seems to me almost a VG, and certainly should be a G article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)