Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change
Good articles are a higher status of article than regular articles. In order to become a good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles.
This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the GA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed good articles.
Articles which are accepted by the community as good articles have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Good articles and are placed in Category:Good articles.
Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.
If you choose to participate in the discussion/voting process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Voting for an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your vote of support or oppose. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is voting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.
In order to make sure the article you are proposing meets the required size, use this tool from Wikimedia Toolserver. Please notice that the text size is important, not the wikitext size.
Contents |
[change] Archives
[change] Proposals for good articles
List your proposals here, newer ones at the top. Each proposal should be in a subheading. After 2 weeks from being listed, a proposal must either be voted on, or removed from this section. If it is removed, the {{pgood}} tag should be removed too. Articles that are ready before the 2 weeks time, can of course be voted on earlier.
[change] Manchester
Based loosely on the Midwestern United States VGA, I feel this meets GA criteria. Rudget 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Gothic architecture
Well-written article; probably needs a copyediting (linking all terms, if possible once), and reducing the number of redlinks. --Eptalon (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Maltese people
To me, it meets the GA criteria. I'm not so sure about the referencing on the top half of the article. Anyway, I think the length reaches 3.5. and there aren't too many red links. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Added the tag. In my opinion, needs a thorough copyediting. Once all terms are linked (which will result in more red-links, probably) their number should be reduced to about half of what they are now, this can be done by creating stubs). There should be no redlinks like the missing image in the box at the side. In general, I think this looks like a good candidate.
- I would argue against it based on the need for simplification.
| “ | One unusual example of this is the exile to Malta of all of the male population from the town of Celano (Italy) in 1223, the stationing of a Norman and Sicilian garrison on Malta in 1240, the expulsion from Malta of Arabs (presumably, those who refused to convert to Christianity) commencing in 1245, the arrival of several hundred Catalan soldiers in 1283, the European repopulation of Malta that began in the 13th century, the settlement in Malta of noble families from Sicily and Aragon between 1372 and 1450, the arrival of several thousand Greek and Rhodian sailors, soldiers and slaves with the Knights of St. John, the introduction of several thousand Sicilian labourers in 1551 and again in 1566, the emigration to Malta of some 891 Italian exiles during the Risorgimento in 1849, and the posting of some 22,000 British servicemen in Malta from 1807 to 1979. | ” |
- That sentence scares the hell out of me.. "One unusual example.." and 140+ words and 11 examples later we finally get to a period. I can at least agree with the unusual part.. Toss in more than a handful of terms like Advent, commencing, expulsion, exile, repopulation & depopulation, emigration, geneticists, continuous and coincided and simplification is definitely needed.
Plus as Eptalon pointed out, the redlinked image is a bad signand the edit links for the template really should be cleaned up (or removed) to be more presentable. -- Creol(talk) 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Ludwig van Beethoven
Looks like a well-written article, but lacks external references (either as works cited or as links ot othr websites). More "other websites" would be good too. --Eptalon (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is well written, but it needs referencing and more other websites for it to be fully approved for WP:GA. I noticed in the article, at the bottom of the lead section, there is one sentence saying "He moved to Vienna in 1792 and lived there for the rest of his life. He never married.". GAs shouldn't really have 1 sentence paragraphs. That one-sentence paragraph should either be expanded or merged into a another full paragraph. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fairly good upon first glance, could use some more "Other websites"/good website references and maybe some scattered work, but it is pretty good. -- America †alk 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Berlin Wall
Article still has a few red links (read: about 5-10). It is of a decent size. I am not sure about comprehensiveness, therefore I would first like to the "Good Article" tag. At first sight, the article should meet all the criteria. --Eptalon (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- At first sight, this article seems to be comprehensive, but I am uncertain about the sentence fluidity and structures. Could someone maybe do a complete copyedit of this article, while in the process, getting more comprehension into the article? Cheers, Razorflame 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - The article looks good to me. It has plenty of detail and hardly any red links. --Terry Talk - Changes 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Red link-wise, it's fine. But I have a reference fetish which needs to be satisfied and the 'Other Websites' is a tad complex. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Voting
Articles should be added below, newer ones at the top. Votes last for one week. Remember, in order to be promoted, an article must have a minimum of 5 named users participate in the vote and 70% (or higher) of the voters must support promotion.
