Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 13

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived requests[change source]

Crater Lake[change source]

Crater Lake (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I discovered that article today and expanded it greatly based on the GA version of that article from the English Wikipedia. I simplified it as good as I can and also added some more references to it. It's been some years since I've nominated an article for GA here, so I guess there might be some issues to be fixed. Any help is really appreciated! -Barras talk 15:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Barras. All the references are working and look reliable. The redlinks will of course need fixing; I can do some work on those tomorrow. There are also quite a few technical terms, especially in the infobox, that either need linking or explaining. Those are the only obvious issues I see under the criteria, though I'm always willing to provide some more suggestions if you want them. Osiris (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always happy about help and comments. Please note that a few redlinks are actually permitted under the current criteria. I don't really want to create more (useless) stubs about places in the USA. Infoboxes are often a general problem, I don't really like them much as everything of them is usually explained in the article. Anyway, thanks for helping. Much appreciated! -Barras talk 14:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha!—yes that was my first thought when seeing Klamath Falls. I was more referring to the links like coastline paradox and lake retention time, terms that I'm not familiar with. I'll have a deeper look into it tomorrow during the daytime. Osiris (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, it appears that Factoidz.com might not be a reliable reference. Its writers, though paid per contribution, are random individuals who have signed up to the website. The only other thing I might suggest is a brief "history" section, so that the lead can remain a summary and not contain facts not detailed further in the body. I fixed a typo and merged some duplicate citations. Regards, Osiris (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just replaced that reference with another one, it should be OK now, I think. As for the history section, I'm not really sure about it. I don't think that maybe two sentences or so warrant an own section. I'd rather keep it as it is. -Barras talk 20:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking great, I'll get to work filling in the two red links. -Orashmatash (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a good article. I quickly filled in the Great Slave Lake red link and made a few small simplifications. Gotanda (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is generally looking good. My only concern (and this affects a lot of articles we have) is the use of complex language in the info box. I do not think we should have any redlinks in an info box for a PGA. But I also wonder what we can do to simplify the language in infoboxes generally.--Peterdownunder (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The values can try to be explained I suppose. At the very least the complex terms need a link on them. The fields can be changed as well, although it's likely they'll just get changed back the next time the infobox is "synchronised" with the enwiki version. Osiris (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now filled the two remaining redlinks in the infobox. Now, there is only one more redlink in the prose, which I won't fill as it would just be another stub about a city no one really cares about. Thanks again to all those who help here with either edits or reviews. It is much appreciated! -Barras talk 10:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Support, nice work! Osiris (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted. Self-explanatory. -Orashmatash (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Cleveland Show[change source]

The Cleveland Show (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Large article TBrandley (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not comprehensive, has hardly any references and several redlinks and is far away from becoming a good article. Simple Wikipedia does not mean dumbed-down Wikipedia; by removing most of the sections from the enwiki article, which this article is based on, you've made it lacking in content. I suggest you review the criteria, expand the article, provide suitable references and re-nominate it. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please review this policy regarding attribution; it appears you have not mentioned that this article is based on its enwiki counterpart through either its talk page or your edit summary. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted. Not at GA standard and there is no consensus either. -Orashmatash (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Prohibido (song)[change source]

Amor Prohibido (song) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

There were no consensus to promote, added a few things. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jona. Good to see you've come back. A few notes:

Overall the article looks very presentable. It might need a bit of collaborative simplification, but nothing too major. I hope my notes aren't too picky. Regards, Osiris (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D It's ok, I would like as much reviews as possible good or bad. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you had to remove some bits, I've probably just been a bit pickier than the enwp reviewers. I don't write Simple English very well, so I'll let others perhaps take a look at the complexity of the wording. Other than that, it's well written and the references are all good, so as long as you can fix those dead links, I don't see any reason this can't pass. Osiris (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good :D I have found an online (subscription needed) source for FN#12 that verifies the same content from the old source. It was published on the same day, though in 2005 not 1999. Hope this is okay, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. Osiris (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alex’s SeaSide 14:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a scroll down:

Probably poke TRM to get a really good review. -Barras talk 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As before, I think this article is typical of so many in its genre for one-sided adulation and over-the-top hype. Gosh, it's just a 2 min 50 sec recording of a song! The theme is trite, clichéed and hackneyed, done ten thousand times before. And as for "Music critics have compared it to the story of Romeo and Juliet because it is also about forbidden love", words fail me (almost). What would we say about a truly original and important song? I notice that the text seems to go much further than some of the supporting refs, such as #12 (of which the link only gives us a sentence). It should be possible to find a more mature, less hyped, assessment. For me, the article fails to provide critical balance. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as no consensus to promote. I personally think it's fine for a GAC, but since there hasn't been a comment in over two weeks now it's clear that this has gone stale. Osiris (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Floyd (1987)[change source]

Hurricane Floyd (1987) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Simplified version of enwiki GA. Contains some (eight) redlinks, which I'll remove by creating the articles. Thanks in advance for reviewing the article. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though it isn't a specific requirement I think a GA should be free of red links. I'll maybe do a review later this week. -Orashmatash (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria Six actually says some redlinks are OK "...and there must not be many red links left..." although I can't remember any articles getting through with them. See my comment above that the criteria and our actual practice do not meet. maybe its time for a rethink or realignment.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much going on here on this page. Left a few comments on the article's talk. Osiris (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if someone extended this for one/two weeks. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly fixed the concerns for this article. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me! Osiris (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a month, and I've fixed most of the concerns with the article (even redlinks have been reduced to four). Can we come to a decision now? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted - Well, someone needs to do the work. Good work here, just read it (again?) and couldn't find any troubles. Good to go, I think. -Barras talk 11:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena[change source]

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

Fixed issues from last nomination. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Good article. But there are two photos in the same article which are very similar (The main photo of the article, that is the Mirador de la Flor and the photo under the 'Legacy' section are same. What I'm talking about is the memorial to Selena in Corpus Cristi). Apart from that, two red links need to be fixed (under the 'Other Websites' section, in that box). Apart from that, it's good! Gaurang Prasad (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want me to remove the two photos in the "Legacy" section? And I don't see any red links in this article, explain? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a start, please look at the article on the English Wikipedia how they format the book references. It should work similar here. Patoski, p. 111 should have a link down to the book as it is on enwp. This is only what I just noticed by a quick scroll down. -Barras talk 10:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't really see that you changed anything from the last time you nominated it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't specify what needed to be done. I couldn't make out what needed to be fixed so it wouldn't be too "promotional" or like it was written by a fan (well besides the obvious lolz) but if you can please tell me what I can do to fix those sections it would be great :D Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now; all sources used are not reliable (IMdB?), sources don't state facts article claims, plus article has too much trivia. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal needs to be closed too. I can't do this myself since I'm the only one opposing it, but it would be great if someone else could. Personally, I don't think there is any consensus for its promotion, but of course that's just my opinion. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dispute your claim. How is Billboard not reliable? I can quickly replace the IMDB sources. Secondly, can you provide proof on which sources that do not cite claims? Also can you provide which sentences are trivia? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was that in a GA, all the sources should be reliable, but the IMdB sources here are not. Please read the talk page of the article; I have mentioned an instance of an incorrect source being used there. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. This has been open for long enough. Since PGA runs on a rough deadline, it would be best to ask some friendly editors to collaborate with you over the content beforehand. Someone not familiar with the subject will be able to identify trivia and other parts where the information seems irrelevant. Make sure the sourcing is solid and have someone check it. As WP:RGA says, no one writes perfect articles. Osiris (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutcracker[change source]

The Nutcracker (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Written in simple English for children attending or dancing in the ballet and their parents. Oregonian2012 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick oppose: no inline citations? Albacore (talk · changes) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having inline citations are not a criteria (even if they are usual practice). Maybe it is time to align the criteria with actual practice.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, I think we need to revise. Osiris (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good, though I do think inline citations would make it better. -Orashmatash (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that we need to look at standards for GAs and VGAs here once again. Times move on and standards (should) improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I'd support this article. I read the article and I couldn't find any further needed changes. -Orashmatash (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it through, but it looks good on the surface. There might be some sourcing issues. Only three references so far. Osiris (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I just noticed that the "Story of the ballet" section does not have any inline citations at all. If the information for that came from one of the books, some inline citations would help. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in-line citations and a new section "The Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy". I think girls would like to read this section. Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given reasons on the talk page to explain why, at present, this is not good enough for GA. It has several different problems, ranging from details of the prose to the overall organisation. At present it does automatically fail on references, but I think the prose has some real problems, which I have tried to explain.
I am 100% with the idea that we should revise the criteria, though a checklist approach to writing prose will never be entirely sufficient. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extending this as the article has been changed significantly since it was initially nominated. Osiris (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could use some reviews here to get this finished. The old reviews are not relevant anymore, since the article has been overhauled since then. Osiris (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. There seem to be quite a few words and phrases that could be simplified, such as "enormous proportions", "battle" (as a verb), "fray", and "regale". Those are just from the first paragraph. There are many more. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is spectactularly unstable: about 250 edits since it was proposed. And it is not simple, as Auntof6 says. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted at this time. This has improved dramatically since it was nominated, but it appears it could use some collaborative efforts to simplify the language. I suggest getting a set of fresh eyes on it, and then re-nominate when you're happy with it. Osiris (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Prohibido (song)[change source]

Amor Prohibido (song) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hoping to achieve good article status this time :D Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nothing except a chart position was changed since the last time you nominated. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly because no one commented that anything needs to be fixed. Unless of course you found something that needs to be fixed? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really think good articles here should be fairly well simplified. This article isn't. Some of the words and phrases that could be simplifed here are: social differences, disapproval, "step out of" (used figuratively), began, enjoying, and various. Those are just from the intro. Also, be careful using expressions, such as saying "the song sold 500,000 copies". Think about someone with limited English skills reading that -- it would sound like the song literally conducted a business deal. Instead, say something like "500,000 copies were sold", or "people bought 500,00 copies" (although I'm not sure if the 500,000 applies to consumer sales or to what was ordered by record stores). Even though that's passive voice, it's simpler. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done any others? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think some collaborative simplification might be needed. It's getting high scores (not good in this case) on my readability screening. There are still a lot of complex words in there that can be simplified. There are also a few wiktionary links that lead to nothing. Osiris (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, yet again. For me, not a specially good article. The intro, which has no references, claims 500,000 copies of the video were sold. Proof? And what, exactly, was sold, and how? Generally, English is clunky (the grandparents were "different from each other"), and the verbal description of the video is quite ridiculous. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In intro does not need to have references if it is an introduction of the entire article which has sources. The single sold 500,000 copies in the US not the video, it is sourced in the certifications section. Anyways, I am withdrawing this article. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw because I would like to work on it further and I know it's not going to pass at this rate. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brown recluse spider[change source]

Brown recluse spider (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Expanded from three sentences to full-length article with photos and a better range map. I'm used to writing for the English Wikipedia, but I wanted to try writing for the Simple Wikipedia. Please be extra critical, since I want to learn how to write a good article on Simple. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have indeed simplified the main text. That's good. However, the article suffers from a weakness inherited from the en.wiki page. It is almost entirely about the human interest angle, but has almost nothing about the biology of the spider. An article on a particular species must give an adequate account of that species, and as it stands this one does not. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good observation! I'll work on that. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I left comments on the talk page. Check them out and tell me after you've finished looking over them! :) Good work overall. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 08:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see more animal articles being nominated!

Comments

  • The lead section needs to be expanded with an introduction of the entire article without leaving any important information out.
  • Wikitory timid, unusual, identified
  • "that lives in the United States." - you mean that it is native to the United States? According to the map provided, it seems as though it is native to Southern United States and not the whole United States.
  • "The scientific name of the spider Loxosceles reclusa comes from words that mean "slanted leg recluse"." - which language? Latin?
  • The whole "Description" section needs a source

Fix these and the ones on the talk page and I'll continue on with the review. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native wouldn't be simple, lives would be. He is correct to have used it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. The distinction is important in biology. You can use the word 'native' if it's explained, or circumlocute by saying 'the spider originally lived... but later spread...' Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I come back a month later, and I see improvement, but do not think it makes GA. There is a through-and-through confusion between what is true of all spiders of this type and what is true of this species.
• Example: "The blood cannot flow through their legs while they walk, so they must stop every few seconds to allow the blood to flow". As far as I know, this is true and characteristic of all spiders. It's the way their legs are constructed, and boy, is that a basal trait. And so, obviously, is not characteristic of this species. Incidentally, blood doesn't flow in arthropods the same way it does in us because they don't have blood vessels. They have a sort of internal soup called a haemolymph. I imagine chemicals just diffuse to and fro. They do have a sort of heart, and muscular movements help the goo get round. Just thought you'ld like to know!
• Example: "Scientists who study brown recluses and their relatives can even identify relatives of the brown recluse by studying the shapes of the sex organs". Since I once occupied a lab space next to someone who was doing a PhD on the genitalia of spiders, I can confidently say that's how all closely similar spiders are identified. Spider genitalia work on a lock-and key fit which serves to prevent hybridisation between species. They just can't do it with the species next door...
• On another matter, the last sentence is a victim of WP:Citation overkill. Either you've left something out, or you don't need that many references.
• Flies and moths are not 'soft'. They can be remarkably tough. However, they're not so robust as cockroaches, beetles and some bumblebees. What is soft (in insect terms) are caterpillars and other larvae, and some of those are no pushover, either. However, all spiders are remarkable predators. It's what they do. There seems to be no data on how this particular spider goes about its normal killing.

It's difficult to work on the basis of such a poor article as the one in enWP. Well, this doesn't make it for me. Sorry. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena (album)[change source]

Selena (album) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Expanded the article with sources and some copy-editing. Please note that the album had little to no exposure so I couldn't find any commentary reviews. I did the best of my ability to bring the article to good standards. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some simplifying here, but it could still use more. Please look at my comments for "Amor Prohibido" for ideas. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems nice, but I think the list of references is still a little short (although that's not a big problem considering the whole page seems rather short). Although it's not completely necessary, some more expanding would be better. I'll leave a list of comments on the talk page. :) ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 11:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there anymore concerns? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't feel the simplification issues I raised have been addressed. Do you need someone to point out each thing that could be simpler? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be great :) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I simplified another paragraph, and I think that takes care of most of it. Please take a look at the things other people have simplified so that you can get ideas on how to do the simplifying. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On reading this back, I think I came across as being grouchy, and I apologize. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the issues on the article. I'm sorry if I was asking for too much. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So does the article pass? Are there anymore issues remaining? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very good. Simple, well written and clear. (Glad to see more articles been written and promoted.) Definitely Support. --weltforce (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very well written article. I was just about to promote it, however, there are two things: Reference 4 doesn't open for me and the "Chart performance"-section only has this table. This is not worth an own section, either put it into another section or write some little text around it. -Barras talk 19:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the chart performance section and FN#4 is working for me, are you sure its this one? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Works on a different computer now. So all issues seem fixed.

The Nutcracker[change source]

The Nutcracker (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article was recently "not passed" in its bid to VGA. It has been trimmed hugely and simplified. Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left some comments on the talk page. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

 Done Nope, it's on the BWL so it doesn't need to be linked.
Since when do we link only things that aren't on the BWL? If there an article, we can link it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep the linking and wikifying down in the interests of "flow". If a word is on the BWL, it's assumed the reader knows its meaning. Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that terms that tells what the article is about should be linked. Same goes for an article about a song, album, movie, animal. Yes they are all on the BE 1500 but even though most will know what it is, it is still a term that is about the article. Best, Jonatalk to me 14:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for good articles says, "All important terms should be linked". When the article is about a ballet, ballet is an important term. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I don't think this needs to be linked but I've done it anyway to keep the peace. Oregonian2012 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This story was loved by Russians." is a huge claim, do all Russian's love the story? Also since it is a big claim it needs a source.
 Done The citation is at the end of the paragraph.
  • Do you really need to link century? ask?
 Done Yup. They're not on the BWL.
They are common words and if you can not link ballet, why link these terms? What makes them different? Best, Jonatalk to me 14:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The children dance about the room after getting their presents." is missing a word
 Done What word? Rewritten.
  • "All of a sudden, mice start running about the room." why not just say they were running around the room? or running inside the room?
 Done Because "around" is not on the BWL. "About" is on the BWL.
I question whether it's on the list because of this meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't know what meaning is intended by its being on the list, so we should assume the reader knowns the various meanings of the word "about". "About" is perfectly correct. I don't want to use the word "around" because it means linking or wikifying and there's too much linking in the article. Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • threatens, tedious, mastery, ballet-goer, dumbing-down, levelled, permit, and indulged are not simple words according to WP:BE 1500
 Done
  • "Clara and the Nutcracker Prince set off through a snowy wood for the magical Land of Sweets." why not say "Clara and the Nutcracker Prince set off through the snowy woods for the magical Land of Sweets."?
 Done
  • Remove the period on "To this orchestra."
 Done
 Done
  • "Russian ballet lovers liked expert adult dancers and the large cast of children was attacked" so they attacked the children?
 Done "Critically attacked" would be preferred but the reader knows we're talking about the criticism of the ballet.
  • "Even the adult dancers came under fire." really?
 Done Yup.
  • "Tchaikovsky thought the staging was very beautiful, so much so that it tired his eyes to look at its beauty" it did what?
 Done
  • "that the great composer" does the source really say the great composer, sounds iffy to me
 Done This is ok. At the time, Tch was asknowledged as the world's greatest living composer.
  • "The newspapers were divided." about what?
 Done Rewritten.
  • "St. Petersburg Gazette wrote" no the newspaper did not write it, an editor did please attribute the copyrighted material to the author or just simply say "an editor wrote..."
 Done To say "a newspaper wrote" is a convention. It's understood an editor was involved without having to say it. Citation at the end of the paragraph.
Does not matter, a newspaper did not write it an editor did. Best, Jonatalk to me 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our readers are not stupid. They will understand it was written by an editor. I want to keep the wordiness down. "Newspaper" is on the BWL. Using "editor" means sending the reader on a side trip to Simple Wiktionary because "editor" is not on the BWL. Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that, nor was I implying that our readers are dumb. The fact is, a newspaper did not write the comment a writer did (which is a BE 1500 word). Best, Jonatalk to me 14:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Today, The Nutcracker has been staged and seen by people all over the world." I've never seen it before
 Done Rewritten.
  • "Whole families take part in staging the ballet." what is considered whole families?
 Done Rewritten.
  • Overuse the word "adaptations", try a different variety to spark interest in readers
 Done Used "version".
Version is not on the BE 1500 list. Best, Jonatalk to me 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to Simple Wiktionary. Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What the music historians think" I think it's better off without "the". Secondly this section is solely based on one author's commentary review, I believe it needs to be merged with the reception section.
 Done Added more material.
  • "as a promotional device" what is a promotional device?
 Done Rewritten.

I found nothing to complain about here. A very well written article. -Barras talk 13:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted - Looking at the first supports, the fixes to the article and also to the most recent supports, I think there is enough agreement here to promote that article to good article status. A really well-written article! -Barras talk 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone National Park[change source]

Yellowstone National Park (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I was really excited about this topic, so I expanded the article. I hope it fits the requirements for a good article. Independent if it will become good or not I will expand the article further in future. Thanks. --weltforce™ | Talk 17:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a need to say that huge changes have been made to a page which was already in a good condition. Many of the changes made the English worse rather than better. All in a single day, without consulting the editor who had put the work in. And immediately proposed for GA, also without consultation. This is not the way editors should behave. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need to say that I'm really new to the Simple English Wikipedia, so I may not be familiar to all of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. But I think that the content is really more important than language, and most of my edits added more content. I'm not a native speaker of English, so my English is and can never be correct. If you see any mistakes, please correct them. Are you the editor who wrote the article? You put the work in nearly 2 years ago, so I wasn't sure. --weltforce™ | Talk 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this project language is the most important part of a PGA or PVGA or any article really. It is what makes us different from English Wikipedia. We would rather have less content, but better Simple English than more content and worse English. This is the driving force behind this wiki, if you have a hard time writing English you are still welcome to contribute but I wold probably not get involved in the PGA/VGA process. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, thanks for that information. I'll try to make the article better (language). --weltforce™ | Talk 12:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more content now. Can you give me a short review please? --weltforce™ | Talk 20:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the article is quite complete now. Can you all please take a look at it? --weltforce (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Thank you, Osiris! --weltforce (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other comments/reviews? --weltforce (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one. Please link (and maybe explain) the term megafauna where it is used first. Right now it's linked at the second use. I'll look at the rest of the article now, so stand by for a moment. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I took care of that one and made some other fixes (typos and simplifying). What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I now explained "megafauna" as very big animals. I'm not sure wether that is 100% accurate, but it may fit well. --weltforce (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments? Or conclusions? Regards, weltforce (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left comments on talk page. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Osiris (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not successful: Concerns not addressed; nominator has not edited page for a month. I think it's better to simply renominate it after fixing the problems. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that I've not responded, I was inactive due to private reasons, and I left a note on my userpage. I will now start improving the article. Sorry for that. --weltforce (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After over two months, there are still problems.
  1. The references are still a bit of a mess. References 3 and 4 are identical, and 9, 25 and 27 are identical. Each group should be merged by use of <ref name=/>. ref 17 is a dead link. How does it come about that such elementary things are still to be found here?
  2. Translating megafauna as 'very large animals' is poor. A proper discussion is given on the page megafauna, and the editor should just link the word. I repeat what I have said elsewhere, that intensifiers like 'very' are rarely used in written English; also it is right and proper to use links to explain technical terms. When you get right down to it, if man is an example of megafauna (which he is in much of the literature), then would you describe him as "a very large anumal"? In the context of zoology, man is a major predator.
  3. 3,000 small earthquakes gives a wrong impression unless you add that almost none of them was noticed by people, in other words they were tremors which could not be felt (see enwiki article).
  4. The Wyoming template should be set as closed, not open. It's an eyesore, full of red links. As it is, it gives the page an unfinished look.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose to close this nomination for now, and give him time to address the issues. He can later propose the article again? -Barras talk 08:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, going to re-close this now as not promoted. I left you a first review there and it is quite a lot that needs to be done. I think it is safe to close this now. When everything is improved, then you can re-propose it. -Barras talk 19:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --weltforce (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog[change source]

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

I believe the article is up to standards. Several users have c/e and simplified the article. If there any other issues, I will fix them. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but most of the references don't function, and so the article is a fail, and needs to be withdrawn. Recommended for simplicity are in-line references, examples of which you can find on pages such as Lichen.
Better to have a few references which really work, rather than hundreds which don't. Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are talking about. All references do work, none are 404 errors. On top of that most of them are books which automatically works because their ISBNs can be located. Can you specifically mention the footnotes that need attention? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 dead links- see here. There are also 2 dab links. Could you also fix those Harvard citation links like I showed you? Osiris (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all dead links and dabs. I did what you did to the Selena article but it's not working, did I do something wrong or missed something? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've fixed the formatting for you, but you'll need to look into what's going on with the references. The links aren't working because the references aren't there. Hillis, Wilcox, Pauly, Dickerson, Bartlett, Lawrence, and Danielson don't appear in the references. Storer, Glotzhaber, and Murphy are there, but apparently not the right works (different years)... Osiris (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references still need cleaning up. It looks like you've used the |pages= parameter in the citation templates to say how many pages there are in the book, which we don't really need to know... That parameter is used in footnotes when referencing a segment of the book that runs across more than one page. It shouldn't be used in the bulleted bibliography, and you would use |page= instead of |pages= if referencing only one page. Some of the footnotes (1, 4, 5, etc) could use more detail, like a publisher, access date, publication date if known. And I think most people will need convincing that eHow.com is a reliable reference.

I think for a good article, we should have a map that is in English, and the key should be text-based (not part of the image) for accessibility reasons. The images could use alt text also but that isn't a requirement of course. Osiris (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the no of pages in the books section and added publishers and dates where needed. I am not an expert on maps and I can't find any maps other than the one on the article. EHow.com articles are written by freelancers who are paid by the company to write informative how-to articles and are chosen by the company so their articles cannot be changed and cannot be vandalize unlike Wikipedia. If this is not enough I can find other reliable sources to replace those. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up a rough map for you. I'll have to look into that eHow website a bit more closely, but I would recommend having some replacements ready. Osiris (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
eHow articles can be written by anyone, not just paid writers. I know, because I have written eHow articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I got the information from enWP where it was sourced. I will begin searching through books online for replacements. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced them all. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the conflicting information that Barras is talking about, but you need to combine those two sentences on the weight and size in the "Adults" section if (according to the information in the start of the "Reproduction" section) they are both about females. I also don't get why that information is being repeated. Is the weight and size of adult frogs immediately relevant to reproduction? The first four sentences of that section don't seem to be about reproduction at all.

It looks like this is considered a pest or invasive species in many countries, but there isn't any information on this. Could you perhaps add a paragraph on the status of the species in countries other than its native one? Osiris (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done did I satisfy your comments? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the first sentence in my comment in regards to these two bits of information:
  • "They can weigh up to ½ a pound (227 g), while females can reach up to 8 inches (20 cm) when they are adults."
...whereas earlier you stated,
  • "Adult female bullfrogs can grow up to 8 inches (20 cm) and weigh up to ½ a pound (227 g)."
So I'm confused. Do males also weigh ½ a pound or are both pieces of information in the sentence about females (as the sentence you removed suggests)?
Is the species considered a pest in any other country besides Puerto Rico? What about in South America, Europe or Japan? Sorry to be picky. These are my only remaining concerns with this article. Osiris (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to FN11 it says "The largest of all North American frogs, this giant can grow to a length of 8 inches (20 centimeters) or more and weigh up to 1.5 pounds (750 grams)." However, in their "fact chart" it says "(adult female) 3.5 to 6 in (9 to 15 cm)" So I'm not sure how you want me to rephrase that sentence since in this source it doesn't give a gender. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So then why have you attributed the size to females at all if it's not in the source? Where is the information from? The weight you've given is different from the source as well: you've written that they weigh up to ½ a pound (227 g), but the source says 1½ pounds (750 g). Osiris (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed I've added (750g), however, it does say that females can reach 8 inches in the source. I hope I have now satisfied your comments. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost then... Is there more to that source? I can't find where it says females reach 8 inches, and looking further into it there are a couple of other facts attributed to that particular source that I can't seem to find on the page either. Can you point the female's size out to me, or quote it here? All I can see is 3.5 to 6 inches. You also need to fix the pounds to match the grams. Osiris (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jona, I've had a more thorough look at this and have a few more concerns - but nothing that can't be fixed.

It's ok I'm glad you gave comments my friend. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the lead is summary, keep the citations for the body. Where a fact is mentioned elsewhere in the body of the article, move the citation down there. An issue that might tie in with this is the very last two sentences in the article (regarding the frog's lifespan) - the reference given seems to verify the first sentence, but not the second (that they live longer in captivity). In the lead, you use a different citation for this fact. Does this citation cover it? If so, it should be moved down to the body.
  • The two references you've used for the distribution don't seem to back up what you've written. Should probably either stick to the sources on this or replace the sources with more up-to-date ones if they are out of date. I don't know of bullfrogs being introduced to Australia.
  • Please link South America instead of South America.
  • In the lead, perhaps just use "food" instead of "favorite food", or even "popular food" if there's a reference for it.
  • Expand initialisms and other abbreviations where they first appear (e.g. USDA).
  • Reference #3 needs more detail, no idea what it is. If it's a book, please give an ISBN. Is there a publication date? An author? URL?
  • You've voided the italics in the |work= parameter in the citation templates you're using. Need to remove the double apostrophes, so the names of the websites are in italics.
  • Several of the works in the "Books" section (Davidson, Wells, Tracy Storer, Patricia Murphy, and Glotzhaber's earlier work) don't appear to be used as references. If this is the case, they should be either removed or moved to another section away from the references.
  • You're using two different date formats in the references - 13 December 2011 vs. November 29, 2010.
  • The second book, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of North American Reptiles and Amphibians, needs fixing. If "Mobile Reference" is the publisher, it doesn't need to appear as the author as well. You only need to list an author if one is named. Also, since this work is only referenced once, I would suggest moving it out of the books section and into the references.
Just looking at that work further - Mobile Reference appears to take most of its material from free online resources, including but not limited to Wikibooks and Wikipedia. Best replace it. Osiris (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still like to see some information on what kind of impact this species is having on local environments where it is an invasive species. Any information on that would be good.
  • Regarding the reason for it being considered an invasive species in Puerto Rico - I think this is going a bit beyond the information the source has given. It eating native species and it "eating anything it fits in its mouth" are two different things. I highly doubt it's considered invasive because it's eating rocks. I also doubt it would eat anything it fits in its mouth - what about a scorpion?

Osiris (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaa? That's insane. Okay then, retracted ;)
However, "scorpion" was an example. To most readers "anything" means anything, which is pretty amazing - so you'll need amazing sources that say exactly that. Same would apply to "almost anything". I would suggest you just follow whatever is in the sources.
These are going to be my final comments:
  • My point on the reason for it being considered an invasive species in Puerto Rico still stands. You still need to fix the pounds to match the grams (0.5 lbs ≠ 750 g). You've also still got two different date formats in the references. Still need to fix up the "Mobile Reference" citation.
    • According to the IUCN Puerto Rico is the only place where it is an invasive species, I can't find no other source to state otherwise. I found a different source for the length and attributed the differences on the article. I have now fixed all date formats for consistency. According to every website (Google books, Amazon, etc) the author and publisher is Mobile Reference. I personally do not have the book and can't find the real author's name. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 04:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarise the distribution in the lead - you don't need to list every country, maybe just general regions/continents. Remove the term "Province of China" - that's IUCN politics, we don't need that here.
  • Who is the publisher of the last reference? Central Point Systems is a web designer/hosting service. Could've been written and uploaded by anybody.
To be honest, I think the whole article could just use some closer attention. There are still facts not found in the sources they're attributed to (an example is the first sentence of the feeding section). It also needs a good copy edit with some attention to detail. There are some sentences where you obviously mean something else (like "most of North America, Canada and Mexico"), missing words ("They also been introduced", "This makes less noticeable"), spelling mistakes ("band" where you mean "ban", "decease" where you mean "decrease"). There are sentences that don't make sense - like, "animals listed on the AIS are capable of having the most animal loss in biodiversity and are able to have their prey extinct worldwide". I know what it's trying to say, but it's constructed in a way that doesn't make sense.
At this point, I think it needs a few more eyes on it, and that it would be best if you took your time with it. It's unfortunate that I don't have a lot of time at the moment, or else I would stick with this longer. But since there are a stack of other nominations and nobody else appears to be commenting, I'm going to oppose promoting this currently. Osiris (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have  Fixed all concerns on the article. I understand your opposition and hope it will change to a support soon. Thanks for your review and best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 04:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
I don't have a great knowledge of English but I'll give it a shot. I might as well. DJDunsie (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have done the intro. I have changed some things which you, Barras, may have noticed, yes? DJDunsie (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing up the intro and correcting the translation of those Greek words which I got from enWP. Best, Jonatalk to me 15:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The American flag is red, white, and blue.
The American flag is red, white and blue.
See the comma after the word white? That is the serial comma, a comma after the next-to-last thing in a list. It's optional, but should be consistently used within a document -- either you use it with all lists, or you don't use it with any lists. Make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I thought I've fixed that already? Best, Jonatalk to me 22:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Sort of. From the article, it seems as if you do not want to use the serial comma. Is this correct? Yes or no? DJDunsie (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the article does not meet the standard. In addition to the many points raised already, its English is quite poor. Right in the first sentence is an invented word (semi-water). Some terms are both linked and explained (hibernate). The flow and sequence of sentences is poor. The prose varies between very specific and too general. Third sentence 2nd para goes "Because of this, they have been blamed for the extinction of many animals". I hope I don't need to spell out why that is not just wrong, but meaningless. Later comes "Bullfrogs can carry many viruses, bacteria and parasites". (every living animal carries large numbers of parasites and commensals) There are long slabs of prose which do not read well, though they are not actually wrong, such as:
"These bullfrogs were brought in on ships. Many people have placed bullfrogs outside of their native area. They did this because they no longer wanted them as pets, wanted to control the pest population, or because fishermen caught bullfrogs by accident."
That is prose, but it is weak prose.
I think the article has a great deal of detail which, personally, I would not have put in. But if someone puts it in, they they have to cope with it.
Throughout the dialogues, here and on the talk page, when a comment has been made on phrasing the proposer has said "What is your alternative"? He doesn't seem to realise that, if a commenter identifies a problem, it is the proposer's job to solve it. Asking others to do the work for you is an unjustified burden on editors who have already spent time trying to help. The page has been up for over two months, and it is still not satisfactory. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I do believe the "semi-water" word was added by DJDunise and not myself. Why should I delete information regarding the many viruses and bacteria's the frog carries? Yea every animal host some types, but it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant, un-notable, or "overly detailed". I ask "what is your alternative" because I'm not the owner, therefore I want to ask the user who clearly is telling me that the sentence in question is wrong. Okay, well if I wrote it I believe it is correct, if someone else denounces it, then provide an alternative because I can't find one. I have a learning disability so that's one of the reasons why I can't find a replacement and ask the reviewer for his/her opinion. Try not to be so negative... Jonatalk to me 23:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed as not promoted - The article is listed here since end of May and has made some process to get better. However, reading the discussion here, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to promote the article. People still seem to be not happy with the article and I think it's time to close this after more than two months of discussion. -Barras talk 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Thomas Carter[change source]

Gilbert Thomas Carter (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a simplified article from the Good article on the English Wikipedia. When I first came across that article, it was an inaccurate 1-line stub article. As a Governor of various former English colonies, I feel that it would have a wide appeal to readers, and his career was interesting! I am happy with this article, as it is about someone for which relatively little sources still exist! Any feedback would be appreciated, and I would be proud for it to be a good article on this Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a good article; good articles don't have red links and they don't have one-sentence paragraphs. Good articles also don't have one sentence leads or absurdly large infoboxes either; I'm opposing this article for now. Albacore (talk · changes) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected some of the red links, others I have removed (those to subejcts unlikely to get an article created in the near future). I've trimmed the infobox a lot, as you'll have seen! I've restructured the paragraphs - there are few one-sentence Finally, I have expanded the lead section to give a more complete summary of the article. I trust this answers your concerns, Albacore! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, I'll leave further comments at the talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added comments on non simple words on talk page --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Remove the extra period found near FN#3
  • "He left the Navy on 21 July 1875" any reason why?
  • interfere is not a simply word according to the WP:BE 1500
  • You've linked independence, human sacrifices twice in the article body
  • ,[10]. needs fixing
  • FNs needs to be placed after periods
  • Spring does not need to be in uppercase
  • "Boston, USA" you mean Boston, Massachusetts
Isn't Massachusetts in the USA though? DJDunsie (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, but we don't call it "Boston, USA". --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be pedantic, but my point is we need a consisent policy. Why are we writing the country for Leeds, say, but not here? Or what about Armidale, New South Wales? In both of these cases, we are writing the country. I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that everyone knows where Massachusetts is. So what about Boston, Massachusetts, United States? DJDunsie (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: The article has been here for well over two months now. There has been no input into the article from the nominator in over a month, and minimal input from others. Frankly, this is gathering dust. PGA is not an indefinite process. The article has had a review (of sorts) with issues to look into before it gets re-nominated. Thanks, Goblin 12:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

Palaestra[change source]

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

Article about ancient Greece. Oregonian2012 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't had time yet to do a thorough review but I noticed that there is no real Greek on the article. Perhaps it would be good to add it. I study the language and I may be able to assist you with this.
  • In the what was a Palaestra section, the first sentence is exactly the same as the first sentence of the summary. Perhaps you could re-word it. "A palaestra was a building where wrestling was learnt and practised." DJDunsie (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just had time for a quick look. The coverage of the topic seems good, but it could be simpler. There are quite a few passive constructions. Active subject - verb - object sentences are easier to read, especially for second language learners.
  • Regarding vocabulary, I linked a few terms or made simplifications. Please see the change summaries in the history. But there are others that need work. Below, BNC means British National Corpus and numberK is the frequency list, so 5K is the band of word in the 5,000th most frequent. Analyzed at Lextutor. It is best to rewrite or rephrase to eliminate these unless there is a good entry on Simple English Wikipedia. Just linking to wiktionary definitions is less helpful.
  • BNC 5K epidemic (links to incorrect medical definition-rephrase please) scarcity (rephrase, please)
  • BNC 7K vendors (rephrase, please)
  • BNC 8K depicted (rephrase, please) presided (infrequent and idiomatic rephrase, please)
  • BNC 14K lewd (rephrase, please)
  • offlist (beyond 20K) goosing (links to the animal goose, not the idiomatic use-rephrase please)

 Done Simple entry created, Goose (prank).

Extended to 29 August 2012: Sticking a 'formal' extension on this one, as it should have been closed a few days ago. I've applied it from today as it wouldn't be fair to apply it retroactively. Although discussion here has been sparse, changes have been made to the article relatively recently. I'll try and leave some comments in the next day or so, too. Goblin 10:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

Comments

  • According to BE 1500 lecture rooms, solely, operated, firm, foundation, axe, meaningful, curative, necessity, scarcity, elaborate, presided, depicted, herm, required, frequent, affection, revolt, lewd, casually, curb and worshipped are not simple words.
  • The first sentence in the first section is the same as the lead and should be re-written
  • Symbol, evaporation, god, erection and poetry needs to be linked in the article body
  • "Vitruvius does not mention the undressing room (apodyterion) but there certainly would have been at least one in every palaestra." sounds very orish to me, does the source really states this?
  • "practiced in the nude." needs to be rewritten
  • "homosexual play" what does this mean?
  • Shouldn't Category:LGBT be included in the article? or something similar?
  • After all of this is fixed I don't mind to support its promotion. Best, Jonatalk to me 13:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by proposer. Goblin 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

Crash Team Racing[change source]

Crash Team Racing (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have expanded the article from my sandbox and checked it against BE 1500 and did minor copy-editing. The article is a GA on enWP and that's where all the content came from (including all sources). I have also conducted a readability test if anyone is interested. Best, Jonatalk to me 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My non-indepth review is this:
  • Too many redlinks
  • The opening paragraph is Boring
  • More pictures would be great
  • Opportunity is there for further simplification -long sentences with clauses, developed and created could be changed to made

and AAARGH there were 2 small errors I fixed but they should not have been in an article you are proposing. --Tbennert (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my best on the sentencing issues. There are now only 8 redlinks which I think its okay. I removed the rambling of its many re-releases since the article body covers it anyways. I found two more free images related to the game, hope that helps. Best, Jonatalk to me 13:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick review of the lead:
  • "The game's story focuses on the characters in the Crash Bandicoot series." Seems kind of obvious; either remove or add some other detail to this sentence.
  • "Video game critics gave very good reviews for its gameplay and graphics. However, the audio had a mixed review." These sentences could be improved. Perhaps something like "The game received very good reviews from video game critics. They praised its gameplay and graphics. But reviewers gave its audio a mixed review".
Also, these DAB links need fixing. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Direct is not a simple word either, not sure how else to present it. Also  Fixed the dablinks. Best, Jonatalk to me 18:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All  Fixed Jonatalk to me 15:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article still feels somewhat too complex; at least, more complex than it could be. I don't want to go through just yet, but my advice would be to go through yourself and examine words, to see if there are any simpler ways to describe things (while making sure that it still makes sense of course). For example: "Doug Perry of IGN stated that the game was "rock solid" in its gameplay and graphics"; "stated that" could be "said". - 208.107.101.189 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be this section removed from this page? The candidature is already over. --«NewWikiBoy» (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as stale. --@intforce 05:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basseterre[change source]

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

I have only edited the article 2 times, but I think it should be a good article. It is long enough. It belongs in Wikipedia. It is fairly complete. All illustrations are related to the article. --Lucky102 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could use some simplifying. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one reference in the article. Please source most claims/statements made in the article which can be disputed. Also, as Auntof6 suggested, it needs simplification. I suggest you review this guideline.Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena[change source]

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

I have made huge adjustments on this article since its last proposal. Hope it meets the requirements =) Best, Jonatalk to me 15:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:AJona1992 a massive amount of work done by you, which is indeed praiseworthy. A really fine article, after your adjustments and revisals. I'm not sure what other editors will think or say but I just simply admire your effort/s. Bets regards, Hamneto (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Hamneto[reply]
I'm still getting used to things here and I haven't read all the way through but I also think the article looks very good. I think the lede is a little too long but other than that great job. Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree on the lead. I might cut some of that out to its own sections if it isn't already covered below. It looks like the lead is about 1/4 to a 1/3rd of the article which seems a bit much. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my review is done, I'll Green tickY support this being a good article. Osiris (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good article but I think it needs to be simplified. There are too many sentences joined with and, but, because, then, etc. The conjunctions should be eliminated to create two stand alone sentences. Two unrelated sentences should not be joined with a conjunction for "flow". Keep it simple. Also, I added a couple of pics for context. Long paragraphs should be broken into two or more. This article would have a lot of appeal for teens and ESL students. It needs to be simplified to a certain extent.Oregonian2012 (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules Room[change source]

Hercules Room (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is an original article. I don't find it at either the French or English WPs. Would like suggestions for simplifying. It's short but that's no reason to disqualify it from "good" status! Thanks -- and enjoy!Oregonian2012 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs expanding - it seems fairly short to me. It also needs references. Fix those two main points first, and then we can start to talk about actual content. Keep up the good work! :) Yottie =talk= 01:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I don't like padding an article in order to expand it. A short article can be just as comprehensive as a long article. Anyway ... I think the article contains just about everything there is to know about the Room. There's not much more to add. Oregonian2012 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that it's at Hercules Room (Versailles) instead of at Hercules Room or Salon d'Hercule? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only to distinguish it from other Hercules Rooms. I don't know if there are any yet ... Oregonian2012 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samson and Delilah (opera)[change source]

Samson and Delilah (opera) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Oregonian2012 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first thing's first: there aren't any inline citations... The lead should be expanded to provide a brief summary of each section. Osiris (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is  Done.
  • Inline citations are  Done.

I moved the pic of Saint-Saens further down in the article. I put an attractive pic of a nude Samson at the top of the article. I think this works better. Oregonian2012 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still largely unsourced; and with only two sources being being used, I think this needs some further improvement. Osiris (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cambridge[change source]

University of Cambridge (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It is a simplified version of the en.wiki article that I worked a lot on as well. I finished working on it and I think it could meet the requirements now. Thanks, --Mark91it's my world 11:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a very nice job with this. However, with all due respect, I don't think it's quite Simple English yet, either in syntax or vocabulary.
If you look at my sandbox, you'll see an article I've been working on (Shabbat). Look at the difference between the version Creol (talk · contribs) edited and the version before that. I found that quite eye-opening, and very helpful as I aspire to continue to contribute to this wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article (including history) is now published at Shabbat, but comment still applies.StevenJ81 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been little action since the nomination, and not much at all recently. Should we close this? Gotanda (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Nutt[change source]

Commodore Nutt (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Simple, well written, and interesting. Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criteria 3 and possibly 5. Goblin 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]
Result: withdrawn by nominator. Chenzw  Talk  04:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat[change source]

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

I have tried very hard to keep this article simple, but comprehensive. As far as I can tell the only requirement that may still be short is on red links. I'm working on those ... see the article's Talk Page for a list.

I would appreciate any help possible to get this article to GA status. Thank you in advance. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably give this a review over the weekend. Just had a quick glance through the sources. Very smart idea to provide Basic English translations of Biblical quotes. I'm not sure on this website as a source though. Who is Tracey R. Rich and why is she an authoritative individual on the Shabbat? Osiris (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your response and edits are very helpful. But I think I'm going to have to write a definition for "loaf". <grin> And thanks for your comment/compliment on the BE translations of Biblical sources.
I don't know that Tracey R. Rich is any more (or less) inherently authoritative than anyone else who (like me) lives this on a daily basis. Do understand that Judaism is, in great measure, a religion heavily saturated with scholarship. Just because someone isn't (or is) a rabbi doesn't make him/her more or less inherently authoritative than anyone else.
This site is researched and arranged in a lucid, fairly simple way, and people in the Jewish community do make use of it. That's why I used it. Does that help? StevenJ81 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see that it is used a lot. Because this is PGA and it appears to be a personal website, I would still have recommended replacing it with a higher quality source, but I'll defer that for the moment. Overall the article is very simple, and well written. There are a few paragraphs that are unreferenced. I think it's normally customary to avoid imperatives in Wikipedia (viz., "see Jewish prayer services for details"), but if you're going to use one the link should obviously lead somewhere. The other redlinks on the page, including "loaf", are fine in my opinion. Osiris (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for your kind assistance and support.
I take your point about Judaism 101. Certainly if I ever want to take this to VGA I will find a different source, and over time I will try to replace that source anyway. Reasonable?
I took out the imperative and its redlink. I'm going to write a stub section in the next few days for the article service of worship that will give that target some reasonable Jewish substance. As I mentioned at Talk:Shabbat, that subject really requires an article, but that is a later project.
I'm not sure what you think might be unreferenced, other than the section on Havdalah:Ending Shabbat. (That I will fix.)
 Done Added source for Havdalah. 20:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the lead is unsourced, but I would have thought wholly uncontroversial and obvious (WP:BLUE).
  • The introductory paragraphs of the sections on Celebrating Shabbat and Guarding Shabbat are unsourced, but they only describe what follows, which is sourced.
If I'm missing something I'm more than happy to fix it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Although I think you should probably subst: that {{User:StevenJ81/Korentemplate}} transclusion or move it to the template namespace if you think it's going to be used on lots of pages. Osiris (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't know if that citation template would be used by other editors or not. I'll use it plenty in Judaism articles. Is that enough reason to move it into template space?
That said, I learned over the course of this little exercise that subst: doesn't work inside reference tags. Did you know that? So I have a couple of choices as to how to handle this:
  1. I substituted the Korentemplate on its own page and now have a pretty bare-bones {{citation}} template sitting there. I could copy and paste that code into this article.
  2. I could revert the Korentemplate page to its {{cite book}} version, and then copy and paste that code into this article.
  3. I can leave the transclusion alone in this article (leaving either version of the code intact on the Korentemplate page).
I'm inclined to favor #2, but would appreciate your advice. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah just copy the {{cite book}} version in there. That's fine. Osiris (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done StevenJ81 (talk) some time around 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Osiris (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Archive: Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) made a point objecting to the procedure around the closure of this nomination. He chose to do this without reverting the promotion itself. That began a discussion off the topic of this nomination. Based on the discussion itself, I have moved it to the following location: Wikipedia talk:Proposed good articles#Discussion on future GA/VGA process. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles/Archive_13&oldid=8898634"