Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

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 (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 :)

1. Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
2. Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
3. Y The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
4. Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
5. Y It has at least one interwiki link.
6. Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
7. Y All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
8. Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
9. 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 (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 (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 (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 fr33kman 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 fr33kman 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 fr33kman 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 (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. Y

2. N, 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. N 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. Y looks good

5. Y is stable

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

7. Y

8. Y

9. Y 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 (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 (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:

1. Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
2. Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
3. Y The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
4. Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
5. Y It has at least one interwiki link.
6. Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
7. Y All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
8. Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
9. 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. fr33kman 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.