Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
|
Proposed good articles  "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. |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.
|
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, 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.
Kikkoman
[change source]Reworked by me on dewiki; there as an article on the main page for 2 days (see de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Archiv/20. August 2026 and the following day); translated into simple english by me. I think many people around the world know this brand and I am confident that I was able to point out the history in short but completely NDG (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
What's Wrong with Me
[change source]
The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.- The article is fairly complete.
- The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
- The article is filed in the appropriate category.
- It has at least one interwiki link.
- The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
- There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
- Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.
The article checks out all the check marks from what I can see. I've simplified the article, expanded it, added more reliable sources and reworked some sentences. Everything done to the article has been to the best of my ability. If there's anything I've missed or there's words/sentences that can be simplified further please let me know. I truly value any constructive feedback! Thank you for your consideration as always! :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Proposals closed recently
[change source]Vaginal yeast infection
[change source]- 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.
This article was started a few years ago when I found out that this topic (and others) would benefit those whose first language is not English. I have been working on it since 12/22/24. I have been editing other articles related to Women's Health on Simple. Women need good information on their own bodies and their own health. I believe this article meets the criteria for a good article. It is well referenced and uses simple English. It has been a challenge to include medical terms in Simple English but I think it will be easy to read for most readers. Barbara (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Anything with medical and science terms is a challenge on Simple English. I like the way the article reads at the moment. I will look at it in more detail this week. It would be good to create some short stubs to deal with the red links. Peterdownunder (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I will work on your suggestion to take care of the red links. Barbara (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Anything with medical and science terms is a challenge on Simple English. I like the way the article reads at the moment. I will look at it in more detail this week. It would be good to create some short stubs to deal with the red links. Peterdownunder (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is pretty good in terms of simplicity and covers the subject in a good manner. I've added a diagram image because I felt that the article could use one other image. There's an image on commons of a picture of someone with a yeast infection, not sure if that's appropriate to add to the article (it's added on the English wikipedia) since Wikipedia is not censored, I could see the article benefiting from a real life pic, but I know that sometimes it's best not to have explicit nudity on simple wiki. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)- Support, looks alright to me. Garsh (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
The red links have been replaced by valid wikilinks to appropriate articles.Barbara (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think that for this article the discussion is no longer whether there are red links, or whether it is long enough, but really about its content. To me this is a sign that the article is ready for the flag
- Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support Taking a look at it the page seems to be ready for GA status.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Good work everyone. I'll go ahead and promote this article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- 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 Uplift Mofo Party Plan
[change source]- 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.
This is an album page that I have been working on for some time. After a break, I returned to it to fix some red links and do copyedits. I think this would be an appropriate Good Article. Readability checks put it at around 4th to 7th grade depending on the formula. I will make new pages for the red links still here soon, but thought that I would put it up as a proposal for people to take a look at the page itself and revise/change it. :) 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The article is close I’d say. There’s no areas in the article that need sources, so I’ve tagged them with [source?]. Also the section Credits and Track Listings could use some sources as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Sourced & adapted the credits, and fixed the text areas that still needed sourcing. Thank you for the help! 🤘🤘 DFRD (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Not bad! Made some slight tweaks with the sourcing. From a glimpse I noticed the last half of the first paragraph of the Music section is unsourced. Tomorrow I’ll thoroughly read through the article and see how the simplification language is, but so far this nom seems on the right track. I’ll have a more thorough review by tomorrow and I’ll ping you with feedback :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- After reviewing the article and cleaning up the last two red links on the infobox, I'm leaning towards Support this nomination. Good work :) Should wait for other reviewers before a decision is made. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think it meets the standard, and support it having GA status. Peterdownunder (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- After reviewing the article and cleaning up the last two red links on the infobox, I'm leaning towards
- Not bad! Made some slight tweaks with the sourcing. From a glimpse I noticed the last half of the first paragraph of the Music section is unsourced. Tomorrow I’ll thoroughly read through the article and see how the simplification language is, but so far this nom seems on the right track. I’ll have a more thorough review by tomorrow and I’ll ping you with feedback :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Sourced & adapted the credits, and fixed the text areas that still needed sourcing. Thank you for the help! 🤘🤘 DFRD (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the article is ready to GA, just wanted to make a note in case other people have some thoughts since I feel two votes isn't really a strong consensus, but given the lack of activity here I think it's close to getting promoted. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support Looks good! Garsh (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Excellent work everyone. I'll go ahead an promote this article to GA! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- 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.
