Wikipedia talk:Good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014[edit]

The Prison Break episode Demi Lovato guest starred in was Season 2 Episode 4 not episode 7 (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good articles. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Stickee (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good Article up for Deletion[edit]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that the article was rated "good" and is going to end up a redirect indicates a significant problem in the GA review process, rather than in the AfD process. The article lacks even a single source that is both about the song (the topic of the article), as opposed to its album, and meets WP:V criteria. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
User:John Broughton, the discussion is at the link specified and here: WT:Good article criteria#Notability missing from GA criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

delay in GA icon appearing on recently listed article?[edit]

Does anyone know if there's been a delay/lag of late with this? A song article that was listed on 14 November – The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord) – still doesn't carry the icon. Soon after the reviewer passed the article, I changed the quality rating myself on the Talk page. Just guessing, but might that be relevant; i.e., is it something that a bot should change? JG66 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The bot tends to miss that part of it. When I pass articles I always just do it myself due to this, so I went and added it. Wizardman 00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so the icon needs to be added manually … Thanks, Wizardman! JG66 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


A major problem occurred with this article which resulted in it being stripped of its GA status. It degraded so badly since July 2013 that I've largely restored the version that passed, with some refinements (which now need to sorted out) with the intention of getting it to GA again. The problem is the article is a liability. It attracts a whole bunch of shoddy editors and edit wars. I know that articles need to be stable to pass GA but I was wondering if there would be general support for placing a full lock on the article, should we get it to GA status. It's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to produce a stable (and sound) version.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I promoted this article to GA last year and also removed the GA status recently in view of the degradation of the article. For such an important topic Wikipedia needs a stable, well referenced, neutral article, if at all possible, and I reluctantly support the suggestion of protecting this page. I can understand why such protection is necessary for biographies of controversial people, but it is a great pity that Paris should need it, yet I think it does. I am unfamiliar with the degrees of protection available, but some measure of it is, I am afraid, seriously needed. Tim riley talk 10:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested split of Modern history (1800 to present)[edit]

G'day all, I reckon Wikipedia:Good_articles/Warfare#Battles and exercises Modern history (1800 to present) (in the Milhist genre) should be split. Perhaps 1800-1899, 1900-1999 and 2000-. This subsection currently has nearly 400 articles, and is huge in comparison to the others in the genre. Thoughts? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Help from a Finnish speaker on Kajaani?[edit]

Can someone (preferably someone who speaks Finnish) help me with Kajaani, an article about a Finnish town with 37,000 people? It passed GA review but has been challenged. Help would be appreciated! Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)