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.

Tear down this wall!

Tear down this wall! (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article has been properly expanded, simplified and important terms have been linked. It's fairly complete and there's no red links. I always welcome feedback on how to improve article in terms of simplifying it a bit further :)

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 All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

As always, I welcome thorough feedback to make this article into a good article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is definitely ready to be a GA.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think there is a little scope to simplify it a tad more (if you were to go to VGA) and maybe id have more points there, but I think this meets the criteria for GA status. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Lee Vilenski that it could be simplified more if you wanted it to become a VGA, but it fits the GA requirements as of now. ~Junedude433^talk 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Break

Big Break (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've put some work into researching one of the most silly but also popular BBC Television shows from the 1990s. I'm happy to answer any issues you might have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a bad start! I went ahead and created the BBC Genome Project article as that was the major redlink in the ref section. Overall not bad, but I feel that the article could be expanded just a bit. Seeing the enwiki article, I see a "history" section that talks about how the idea and the show itself came to be. Perhaps something like that would benefit the article. Just a thought. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, obviously this was based on that article. I think a lot of that history is only based on this source [1], which I have no idea of the validity of. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to do some research over the week/weekend and see if I could find any reliable source to expand the article :) If not, I could change my comment to a support vote! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athena

Athena (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have done some work on to this article, mainly adding good sources, some copyediting (minor). I feel like it is ready to be a good article. I am open to suggestions on how to make this article better and a good article Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 04:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme Needs a bit more simplifying and breaking up sentences with coordinating conjunctions. This article has potential, but it needs minor changes. Thanks, Aster🪻 ^talk ^edits 12:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lemme work on it Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteralee

Done Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job :) Aster🪻 ^talk ^edits 13:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a little more information on how the current world and culture views her. Also some modern interpretations of her would be good addition to this article.--BRP^ever 12:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure, I will simplify from EN Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever added modern intepretaions Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTCs
It looks great overall. I would say it should be longer, as there is a lot more that can be said about the stories involving her, since she's one of the most important Greek gods. I notice that "patron" was simplified to "person"; "person of craftsmen and artisans" is not very clear and should be reworded. Batrachoseps (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Batrachoseps Done, expanded Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 06:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's close and the expansion is good, however there's roughly 25-26 red links. I think the number of red links should be reduced a bit further. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, any suggetions. its going to take a long time Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 09:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now the page lacks any good pictures. I think the pictures could have been better explained or more pages could have been created. GA is not something we rush into. We are trying to promote the page in terms of quality and not just status here. BRP^ever 10:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101 I removd the picture, that may help Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 09:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no more red links, created 2 articles Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 10:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I feel that the article could talk more about her impact on classical/post-classical art. Maybe some more information about her mythology might be nice too. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will add in the weekends Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think removal of infobox was a bad idea. BRP^ever 10:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added back, working on links Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 11:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting really close. I personally feel that the article just needs a bit more info about Athena and art. Maybe more info about her appearing in artwork from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries or statues of her appearing in several prominent buildings like at the Austrian Parliament Building or even at the Statue of Liberty. Like I said, it's getting pretty close, nice work on expansion though! :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a good look through the article. I am a bit worried there are too many complex words being used, could do with a bit more simplifying. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Lee‎

Rock Lee (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on this page for a while. There is much to be improved, but with some effort and work based on feedback we might be able to lift it up to GA.--BRP^ever 13:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there are a bit too many red links, especially near the end of the article.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will be working on those and creating a few pages to deal with that. Will probably finish by this Thursday/Friday. BRP^ever 06:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub I have created a few pages and linked most of the red links. There are still few but this shouldn't be a big problem anymore. MourningRainfall also helped link/create many pages.--BRP^ever 13:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 but that (in my opinion) is a good enough number of red links for a good article.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are two, which I am leaving for those that are interested. Just some character so nothing that's going to significantly affect the page. BRP^ever 11:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is well-written and detailed, it needs some simplification. Some words are complex and not linked/simplified (ex: symbol, popularity, promotional, interview, polls, demonic, etc.) You can either simplify the complex terms, link them to an article, or link them to the Simple English Wiktionary. Also, shortening complex sentences would improve the article's readability, as tests show that it is currently at a 9th to 10th-grade level. After simplification (and an attempt to remove the last two red links), this article should be ready to obtain GA status. Peterlaxamazing (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comment. I will be working on this for the next few days and will keep you updated. BRP^ever 21:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterlaxamazing I tried simplifying a bit further. If you have specific part or sentences that can be made better, please point me towards that. Most of the above words have been linked/simplified. Also, can you link me the test you are using? Since there are many terms which are from the series and games, it's difficult to get good score but I will try working on it further. BRP^ever 22:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks well enough for GA. It's in-depth, two red link articles (shouldn't be a dealbreaker) and the article does appear simplified enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I plugged the article's text into a Flesch-Kincaid reading score calculator. I realize it's not a perfect end-all-be-all measurement, but I think it's a good stand-in. It came back with the grade level being 7.5 and the reading ease score being 66; this comes out to about an 8th or 9th grade reading level. If you would like this to go further (say, a VGA nomination), I'd try to find a way to get this down to a 6th grade reading level (7th grade at a minimum), especially given the subject material. ~Junedude433^talk 22:53, 24 December 2024 (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 edits should be made to this discussion.

Kendall Jenner

Kendall Jenner (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

In recent weeks I've worked up this article to get it up to GA. The article has been properly expanded, simplified and important terms have been linked. It's fairly complete and there's no red links. I always welcome feedback on how to improve article in terms of simplifying it a bit further :)

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 All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

As always, I welcome thorough feedback to make this article into a good article. As I mentioned, I think I've simplified the article to the best of my ability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support You did great! Aster🪻 ^talk ^edits 20:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, really good article! BZPN (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously GA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.71.206 (talk • contribs)
I did a bit of a copyedit of the lede, but, aside from maybe moving the cites to the body, it seems to meet the criteria. Support Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to GA. Consensus to promote to Good Article status.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:12, 4 December 2024 (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 edits should be made to this discussion.

Meta Quest 3

Meta Quest 3 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article meets (and exceeds) GA criteria. I've been working on it since the 8th of March of this year, and after a discussion at WP:Simple talk, I feel that it is ready. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 11:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not ready yet. A lot of sentences and words need to be further simplified. The content itself is lacking compared to enwiki. Needs better referencing. Can't support at this moment.--BRP^ever 08:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No article is perfect; and after reviewing, I don't see what you mean. Could you expand upon your thought? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 17:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much that it's hard to sum up here. Like what does Passthrough mean, there are other complex words like successor. The third sentence of intro can be broken down. The intro can be expanded. The page doesn't talk about hardware and software (which I think is very important for this page). There is no information about release which is the major event for most tech; there isn't even a release date. There are entire sections with no source. I think the length itself isn't good enough for this topic to be considered GA. GAs are the best work of the community, this needs a lot more work before nomination BRP^ever 13:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far too short to be a good article. Also you haven't linked VR, IR, or haptics. Contrary to what you said on Simple Talk, "passthrough" is not self-explanatory, which can be seen by the fact that a regular editor here did not understand it. An article should be created for pancake lens because it's important for this subject. Batrachoseps (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is way too short to be a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per TDKR Chicago 101. --Aster🪻 ^talk ^edits 21:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of expanding the article so far, how's it looking? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributor 118,784 Still too short. The article is 293 words long. This means that it's a stub. See WP:Stub. Aster🪻 ^talk ^edits 16:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it says that where?? When I read that policy it says that a stub has less than 1500 characters. :/ Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too short for it to be a good article. Good articles are usually longer and more in-depth. Sure, it may not be a stub technically, but it's still short to be a GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the clarification. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 19:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm revoking my nomination because it's been wayyyy longer than two weeks since this nomination was started. I'm gonna nominate Schutzstaffel next, it actually meets all criteria. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Not that it's too short, per se, but the article has so much uncited and doesn't cover everything about the subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Article needs expansion work before discussions for quality-related issues can be addressed. Nomination also withdrew nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (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 edits should be made to this discussion.

Kirby's Dream Course

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

This article is ready to be a GA. It has only five redlinks and meets all of the other requirements. Thanks to everyone at the Video Games WikiProject for helping me get this article to GA. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR Isn't five red links a bit too much? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 07:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are pretty spread out, and it is a decently big article, so I think it should be fine. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR Personally, I feel like good articles should at most have 2 redlinks. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme: There are currently only three red links, one in each section. In my opinion, this is a low enough number to satisfy the requirement of having few red links. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme: After a bit of rewording, the article now only has two red links. Is this enough to make you support the nomination? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify it a bit more? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 00:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme: Sorry for the wait. Do you think it is simple enough yet, or does it need more work? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, sure Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 11:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

personally, I think this article could do with some real simplification. Even in the first two paragraphs we have words like "perspective, similar, involves, miniature, bouncing, specific, various, throughout, transform..." Etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I have gone back through a good chunk of the article and made it simpler. Do you think it is good enough yet? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will evaluate this article like a F&F contest entry! First, I shall run this article through my readability gizmos! It's giving me an average of tenth grade with nothing below eighth. I like to see solid middle school on these things.

Now I will read the article with my mighty human brain. I concur with the gizmo's findings. I do not think this article is simple enough to be an example for SEWP. While this is a solvable problem, I oppose naming this version of the article a Good Article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted This one clearly needs some more work as demonstrated by the concerns above. Please feel free to renominate once further work is done. Thanks,--BRP^ever 10:35, 3 November 2024 (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 edits should be made to this discussion.

Kenya Grace

Kenya Grace (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Meets GA criteria. Multiple people (and even an IP) have worked on it. Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 18:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteradeae I think the lead section needs to be expanded a little to provide better general introduction. Also the page doesn't talk much about the awards like iHeartRadio's Dance Song of the Year so some expansion is needed in the later section. Also, a few words and sentences can be simplified like switched --> changed to, the first sentence of early life can be broken into two. I think this page has possibility, just needs some work. Good luck. :)--BRP^ever 08:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the lead should give a brief of the important points of the rest of the article. See WP:SI fr33k man 22:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever, @Fr33kman I extended the lead. What about now? Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 23:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but needs more wotk fr33k man 03:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman More work on what, exactly? Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 12:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteradeae More reliable sources and simplification Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme Extended sources and simplifid. What about now? Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 16:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are still generally unreliable especially the last few ones. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme: I replaced refs. Now? Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 16:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 07:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the 5th sentence in the lead could use a citation. But other than that my brief skim of the article seems fine.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub I'll add one. Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 13:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can those numbers be made into million or thousand. It's much easier to read that way. BRP^ever 13:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub Finished. @BRPever Sure. Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 13:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever

Done.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub So, is it good now? Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 13:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The personal life section could use some sources, but aside from that, the article looks good :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TDKR Chicago 101 Done Aster🪻 ^talk ^edits 21:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good now fr33k man 06:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Ptromoted to GA--Eptalon (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2024 (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 edits should be made to this discussion.

Terry Fox

Terry Fox (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This page has not been active for around a year, but I did a pass over it and to me it looks like it is in a good place. It is a complete biography about a notable person's life, with not many red links remaining and properly sourced material. The only issue is that there have not been many editors on it, so I'm hoping this nomination can get others to take a look and see what needs to be fixed. this readability checker shows the page as being at about a 5th grade reading level (with outlying tests showing 4th to 8th grade). Terry Fox is a very inspiring person, so I would love it if his story was available to as many people as possible. Thanks - 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the article and wrote down what I think could be improved.

1.

2.

, I feel that the article could be more complete, specifically in the legacy section, because it doesn't currently do him justice. Maybe there could be more about his honors and awards, along with the musicals and movies about him, and also the inspirations for others, including the Achilles track club, rick hanson, and steve fonyo, etc,. These pieces of information I am only getting from other wikipedias in which others have deemed their articles as featured-worthy, so there may also be more that is notable and could be included to make a more complete encyclopedic page about him.

3.

Like you said, the majority of the article has been written by a single person, in a few edits and as such could have some more editors.

4.

looks good

5.

is stable

6.

There are 4 red links here, but that is easily fixable

7.

8.

9.

MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 19:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be more in the legacy section. I'll work on translating content from the English page, seeing as there's plenty there. Thanks for looking over it! 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 more red links though Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First glance, the article doesn't look too bad, however I agree with MrMeAndMrMe w/ the red links and how the legacy section could be a bit more in-depth. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I helped fixed one of the red links Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
working on the others Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks good enough. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is weirdly put together. It talks about the race, the fundraising, then him moving house, then how he ran in college and back to the race afterwards.
In Canada, people think he is a hero - even for Simple English, this is pretty biased.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to the lead based on what you said. I didn't realize it went back and forth like that - thank you! I changed the 'hero' statement into something more grounded. I thought that it was a simple summary of Canadian public opinion about him, but I see how it can be larger than life. I appreciate you looking at it. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A few red links but well-written overall. It's an easy support after going through the page. The lead has been improved, and later sections are also well organized and covers major events in his life. Don't really see any big issue with this page.--BRP^ever 12:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reesult: promoted to good article--Eptalon (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2024 (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 edits should be made to this discussion.

Tropical Storm Kai-tak

Tropical Storm Kai-tak (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is a GA in the English Wiki, and something tells me it can also be a GA in this Wiki. I was kind of busy so I rushed this. Feel free to list something wrong :) TheNuggeteer (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer Not simplified Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 02:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, real sorry about that, I was trying to compare to another "Very good article (is this what you call it?)" page about a Tropical Storm. I tried my best to simplify it but I don't think It wasn't enough. Thanks, TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fix the errors in citations when translating from EN. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 02:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also many res links, eg templates Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 02:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's long enough for a GA? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This page is close to being deleted for A4 than GA. It's very complex, the templates and cite error from copying haven't been fixed. Red links have been removed instead of changing them to blue. I suggest removing everything and keeping the simplified part as stub and slowly expanding from there.--BRP^ever 02:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick close. Page deleted.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above

Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 07:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted Impossible to promote as an article that is now deleted. --Ferien (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2024 (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 edits should be made to this discussion.

Dog

Dog (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It is a very well written article, with relevant sources and information relating to the subject. I believe it meet the following requirements for a promotion to a good article:

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 All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

If you have any feedback to improve the article, please do not hesitate and I would try my best to solve the issue/add improvement. Thank you Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too much uncited material for a GA. There's been some simplification, but not enough to be considered a simple article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work, could you take a look. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski The entire article is now simple. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 07:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's still far too much invited, as well as some cleanup tags. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are full paragraphs that have no citations. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me work on them. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski I added some reliable sources, can you take a look? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else want to take a look? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I will make edits that are different users. 2001:569:7C55:9000:C847:AED3:7E1E:1A2A (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article seems to be GA-ready. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 11:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. fr33k man 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: promoted to GA, there's support in the community--Eptalon (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2024 (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