Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 7

Archived requests[change source]

Joe Biden[change source]

Joe Biden (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article merits inclusion. I was the last to do a big edit on it, and that was months ago. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The article is simply one big lead with no references, citations, sources, or external links. Very poor MoS. I also spot several red links. This article needs major improvements for it to be a GA. To see examples of what a GA should look like, see here. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sectioned it and eliminated all but four of the red links (although having a few red links is not a killer for a GA). There are links to Biden's writings on Commons, although having external links is not a requirement for a GA. I know what a good article looks like, and there is no need to patronize me. P.S.: There have been numerous concerns that you are too hard on GAs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs)

I apologize if I offended you, if you thought I was patronizing you. I normally edit at ENWP, and trying to write a GA is sometimes difficult. Rewievers at w:WP:GAC try to find any legitimate way to oppose or fail your GA nomination. :( —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 00:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the big Wikipedia is tough. I've been working on GA myself...Lincoln on the big one AND the little one Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left an in-depth review on the talk page. In very short terms: article needs regrouping/extending, a lead, in text-refs, and an in-depth look at the tenses used. Not impossible, but probably a lot of work. --Eptalon (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed weeks ago Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who tuned in late, here's what has happened: The thing was up for vote, but then Goblin thought it would benefit from more time here, so it's back here again. Thoughts? Reviews? Shots in the back? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. He got rid of the voting system, so this is the new 'vote'. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. (Displeased/Voted against him doing that). Does this mean Biden gets a new clock, or does the three weeks start from 23 days ago? I'm going to be bold myself and say probably a new clock. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the clock continues. The article has had ample discussion time and "voting" time. The easiest thing to do if you want more time would be to re-submit it in a week or so... And clearly it's not a GA yet too. Gob lin 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

More time is given. That's me being bold. And please elaborate or review as to why it's not a GA yet. I would note the

Fixed tags on most of the reviewers' comments Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. No point. If this article doesn't get sufficient backing by 3 September then it fails. Good news is that you'll be able to make appropriate changes and re-initiate the PGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we haven't had a comment or a review in awhile. Do you think it's up to snuff now that I fixed your review comments? And what is the illogic behind my assertion that since the process changed, it should get a new clock? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well work harder on getting reviews. I'll get back to you on whether you've fixed my initial issues soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a decent article. There are a few too many redlinks now that infobox is in place for me to support it as a GA, but it's not far off. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I have no real problems with this article becoming a good article now. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Note: This article is now showing promise for GA status, so well done on fixing the concerns raised. However, it doesn't currently have consensus for promoting to GA and the time period is up. Now then, I don't particularly like the time periods, but I don't agree with indefinitely running nominations either. So, i'm at an end as to what to do with this. I'm moving towards a "close-and-re-list-in-a-week", but feel that that would probably be utterley pointless and just a waste of everyone's time. At a very quick glance it doesn't look that far off VGA, so another option would be "close-and-re-list-as-VGA". Final option that I see would be to extend the time limit (but then setting a precedent for all other noms) for a week or so. But as I say, it would precendent-set. I know in the past the first option was used the most, so that would probably also be the fairest. I'm gonna think on it and come back later - please continue to comment, and/or close/decide for me. Ta. Gob lin 17:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

It's up to you, Rambler Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm saying this article now meets GA criteria. What BG7 is implementing (correctly) is a consensus-based view on promotion. Right now anyone that was ever interested in SEWP seems to have disappeared entirely. Earlier on today I saw five edits in two hours on Recent Changes. Perhaps we are all fighting a losing cause. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has too many bare refs. I'll work on fixing those. Pmlineditor Talk 09:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And

Fixed Pmlineditor Talk 09:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: As I mentioned above, this article is so close, and I really, really want to be writing "closed as promoted" here. But i'm afraid it's now a couple of days past the three week mark and a consensus just hasn't formed, so I would feel uncomfortable promoting it. My suggestion is to work on it some more as this article could become VGA material with little work, and then list it there sometime next week. Don't see it as a wasted effort (it most certainly is not!), just see it as a) unlucky and b) a chance to make it even better than it already is. Thanks for your time, and if anyone pops along and thinks a consensus has formed then feel free to promote. Regards, Gob lin 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! Please, leave 24 hours before removing from the page![reply]

List of Slipknot band members[change source]

List of Slipknot band members (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Don't be quick to judge me. I know it looks just like ENWP's version, however if you look closely I have simplified a chunk of the article. Basically, its directly copied and broken down into simpler english. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 12:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is a list, not a true article. It looks great :D, but I don't think it can be a GA. However, we have had proposals for VGLs, so maybe you can nominate it there?? Pmlineditor Talk 12:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys only have WP:GAs and WP:VGAs. What happened to Wikipedia:Very good lists? —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 12:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I know. However, there was that thread at VGA about a VGL. I'll give you a link. Pmlineditor Talk 12:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, its seems there was a general consensus to start VGLs, however no action has taken. That's weird. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 12:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I know. It just died down. Well, a bold move of restarting it? Pmlineditor Talk 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're asking me, I'll start it off. But don't have a bored admin come deleting my edits. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done See WP:VGL. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 12:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) You created the page? Good job, though I meant restarting the conversation. ;) Pmlineditor Talk 12:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Discussion seems to have stalled on this one, so there really is no consensus at all for a promotion. Furthermore, as Lists were never really discussed by the community we have no set criteria for them, and therefore they cannot really be promoted imo. Thanks, Gob lin 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Tropical Storm Ana (2009)[change source]

Tropical Storm Ana (2009) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article would look pathetic at ENWP, but it meets the criteria for GAs in this wiki. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article lack so much information that's in the enwiki version? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the last time I tried to write articles with good quality, you were bitching around how it was unsimple and always adding {{complex}} tags when it was clear as daylight in simple english. I am refering to Tropical Depression One (2009). I thought this is your idea of an article in simple english. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be polite. "Bitching around" is not a good phrase to use. Pmlineditor Talk 07:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop being ridiculous. This article is not comprehensive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Not Promoted: A consensus has very much not been formed, and discussion seems to have stalled too... Gob lin 17:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Braille[change source]

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

I discovered this article a few days ago, and have since edited it heavily.It is currently about 18k in size, which should be enough to make a good article. The main problems I see so far is that referencing is currently non-existent, and that the EnWP article is similarly bad (in that respect). Parts of the article may also be hard to understand, simplifying here and there may be helpful. Anyway, I thought I'd list it. --Eptalon (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No references and complex language, as you even mentioned. Articles that do not approach the GA criterion should be listed at WP:PR, please. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed: currently article is too far from being made into a GA, esp. since EnWP article is in a similar state, and cannot provide a source for improvement--Eptalon (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[change source]

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

Failed GA nom, I'd like a review to take it to GA. Pmlineditor Talk 12:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history section of Germany is incomplete. Germany's role in the world history and european history was very big. The middle age is missing, the Nazi time is for the Germany article too short. The economy section of this G8 state is too short. Just after an overview. Barras (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part about demographics of religion in the people section might be better in the religion section. In the people section it mentions "There are at least seven million people from other countries living in Germany.", but it doesn't really mention the population who aren't from other countries. In the culture section it only mentions people who are important in culture and about the language German in the past. Economy is kinda small for it to have a whole section. Fafas (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that all my previous issues have been addressed? If so, I'll review the article again. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Not Promoted: Article is still quite a way off GA standard, and there is little or no consensus for a promotion to GA standard. Try fixing any outstanding issues and then re-list. Gob lin 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Music[change source]

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

I'd like a review, I feel I can get it to GA. :-) Shappy ^talk 02:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance: no inline references, lead is too short, odd formatting in the Baroque section. Please use PR in future if you simply want a review. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of stuff needs referencing, the maintenance tag needs fixing, jazz and pop get sections, what about R&B, rap, etc? "How to enjoy music" - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I think it's a bit way off right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article talks about the history of Western Classical Music but doesn't cover history of music in other places. Needs references. And many sentences need retouching like "It is not known what the earliest music of the cave people was like." Fafas (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left a more serious review; Perhaps to put it in short words: not now. I fear when the concerns have been addressed, the article will have doubled in size.--Eptalon (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Not Promoted; Article is clearly a long way off GA status, and there is no consensus whatsoever to promote it at this time. Work on the concerns raised by others, and when you've met those consider re-submitting it. Thanks, Gob lin 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Joe Biden[change source]

Joe Biden (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: September 30, 23:14 UTC
Recent failed GA nomination. Most or all of the prior concerns are resolved. There had been talk of nomming it for VGA, but a straw poll said it should start back here first Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this article is barely over 1,000 words, while the enwiki version is almost 7,000 words? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there has to be. A 10:1 word ratio between enwp and simwp seems to be acceptable for GA...for example, Hitler's simple English wikipedia is 1200 words, whereas it's 24,000 words on the big boy; Wernher von Braun's simple English is 762 words (shorter than Biden, and way shorter when you consider that Biden has a bigger wikitable and twice the refs), but his English Wikipedia article is about 7,000. Both Hitler and Von Braun are GAs here. Also, it's worth noting that about 35-40% of the text in the Biden article (~2,500-3,000 words) is about his career in the Senate, and gets deep into painstaking detail in many areas. I believe this article to meet and exceed criteria both criteria #2 here and criteria #3ab if it were on the big boy Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this before. "Simple" does not equal "minimal". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying you have questions with regard to criteria #2? I personally feel that criteria #2 is met in both spirit and literally, since it's over 3K and covers all notable aspects of Biden's life. I would also note the overall complexity of large portions of the English article Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The length is irrelevant. I'm saying it's impossible to summarize the lives of the world's most notable individuals in a few paragraphs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure what you're saying, but I would think if you have a question on comprehensiveness in terms of paragraphs (which falls under #2), that length would be important. Are you saying you don't think this article is not up to GA? Because it was really close last time, and virtually all the concerns on the reviews have been fixed Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not questioning comprehensiveness in terms of paragraphs. With all due respect, I think you're missing the point unfortunately. I'm just asking that the article be comprehensive, which means it includes all important information. This article does not currently meet this criteria. It has nothing to do with length. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH! So that's what you meant! Why didn't you say so? Can you give specific examples of information that isn't included that should be? (If you can't, your point should be discounted). Remember that 1) it exceeds the 3,500 character threshold, and 2) all the problems of two past reviewers have been resolved Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the length. That it meets the arbitrary character threshold we've set is irrelevant. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say it's not comprehensive unless 1) It doesn't meet the length requirement (and it does); or 2) You can give specific examples of why it doesn't cover the topic, other than "it's only this long, so it can't". Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I'm saying this article is not comprehensive because it's missing sections of information that the enwiki version has. It's simple, really. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You never said that. Give specific examples and 'place them on the talk page so that other editors can place them there or explain why they're not there. If no specific examples are given, you argument has no weight. Also, remember that SimWP is not EnWP, or even a simplified version of it, and that quite a few GAs are way way shorter than other articles. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC) P.S.: By my check of the Biden EnWP article, all headings and the majority of paragraph subjects have found their way into this article[reply]

I must echo Julian's concerns. This article is nowhere near comprehensive. If it's specific examples you're looking for, look at this article's coverage of Biden's career in the Senate. It goes into very little (if it even mentions it at all) detail about his different roles in the Senate that he has held (Judiciary Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, etc.). Compare the en.wiki version to this and you'll immediately see what I'm talking about. GAs are supposed to be "useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equaling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia." This is nowhere close. And this is just one example, there are many others. Regards, Javert (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The length isn't a problem for, as long the article meets our current criteria. It is not important how many words are used for the article, it is important that all important facts are included. Please remember that this is now a GA and not a VGA. I didn't read the article now, but if all important things of this person's life are in this articles, I have no worries. Barras (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barras brings up a good point. The comprehensive requirement and that useful quote aren't GA requirements, they are VGA requirements. I believe all important aspects of Biden's life to be covered. Also, it clearly mentions in the article that Biden was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and what those committees do. IMO, it would be very, very difficult to write that without getting hit with a complex tag. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So write it in simple language. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89, it's all very well to continually embolden your responses but you need a consensus to get this article promoted. So far, there seems to be zero consensus that the article is good enough, for various reasons. It doesn't mean it can't ever be good enough, it just means you need to work with other editors to make it better. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barras seems to be OK with it...and Julian/Javert a) I just said that that was practically impossible/a violation of WP:NOT, and b) you're still using a VGA paradigm, instead of the proper GA paradigm. Rambler, have your earlier qualms about the article been addressed? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whose previous concerns have been addressed. New reviewers have new concerns. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does matter. Any user, new or old, can comment on this. And Julian, your comments are irrelevent because you are applying a VGA standard instead of a GA standard. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can read, you don't need to bold all your comments, thanks. That said, GAs don't have to be of poor-quality just because we don't feel like adding more info. GAs are "good articles", and at the moment I can hardly consider this article "good". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, PBP89, suggesting that a reviewers' comments are "irrelevant" is pretty damned rude. I'd take a step back from this now if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using GA standards only, how is this article not good? Rambler, have your concerns about the article been addressed? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being rude, but have you read my comments? "GA" stands for "Good Article". All official criterion aside, this article is not "good". It is missing loads of important information. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also sorry for being rude but this hostile, rude and badly-approached cross-examination is too much. Good luck with the article, it's not bad, but not good yet. I'm moving on to other things for a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is rude and hostile to except substantiated facts of broad, grandiose claims, without with the claims carry no weight? :::IMHO; 1) It isn't missing loads of important information, or for that matter any important information, 2) A claim like that needs to be substatiated by a review that says what important information is missing, and 3) It is necessary to use GA criteria, and only GA criteria. Remember that just because this article is shorter does not inherently mean that it is missing loads of information (which I believe is your point). Also, Rambler, are your concerns piggy-back onto Julian's, or different? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC), who has been the subject of[reply]

I don't "piggy-back" anyone. I'm here for making this place great. Right now your hostility is such that I'll be focusing on other people's efforts here at PGA and PVGA. Stop pushing criteria in my face and I might be interested in helping. This isn't a "tick in the box" exercise, it's a case of gaining my support. Right now, you're far from it. Others may be keen to help you. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is necessary to use GA criteria, and only GA criteria." - No, we're not going to promote poor and incomplete articles because we're hung up on bureaucracy. Instead of arguing the difference between GA and VGA, why not just work on the article? It's obvious this discussion isn't going to go anywhere, so as TRM says, best of luck. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, this article is not poor and incomplete. Nobody has given me a single example of how the article is incomplete or how it violates the agreed-upon criteria for a GA. And I cannot improve the article any more unless I get specific examples from you on what "important information" is missing (IMO, there is none, unless you count that his first wife was from Skeneatles, New York as important information). Honestly, Julian, I am peeved that I have spent a few hours improving this article and making it good, and in a matter of seconds you say that it's terrible without substantiating your claims. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@TRM and JC: Instead of posting and arguing "how bad" or "incomplete" this article is, could you not post a detailed review on the articles talk page. This is the normal way we use to promote an article. Otherwise, your posts are waste of time. Instead of arguing here it would be much better for Pbp89 to get the article reviewed, that he sees what needs to be done. Thanks Barras (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's impossible to point out every missing fact. We could give samples, but that leaves the nominator with only a brief idea of what needs to be done. Some good old fashioned research is needed here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barras, as much as I respect and agree with your approach, I will not be harassed and talked to in bold letters all the bloody time. I have other editors, as you well know, who respect the fact that my time is precious, and as such my comments on their work should be approached with respect. I'll spend some time shortly on this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm pretty sure, that a "new" user in this process would like to see what you mean. So compare the article to enwp's and look which major things are missing. We don't help pbp89 with always the same comment which tells him that the article is inclomplete or something. I don't want to lose an editor, because he thinks that he's disadvantaged or something like this. Please: Before you post new comments, review the article. Otherwise we don't help the user. Barras (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what I just said "I'll spend some time shortly on this article". Not to mention the fact I already have. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't find there to be a need to continue past the first sentence. "Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is an American lawyer and politician from Wilmington, Delaware." - Biden is the Vice President of the United States, not a regular lawyer. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that "He is the current Vice President of the United States" appears in the very next sentence. I considered flipping VP and Wilmington, but I just didn't sound right. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all the bloody time ; I'm sorry, but when you point out other people saying things they shouldn't, it doesn't mean you can. Just review the article or drop it, all of you. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, how is "all the bloody time" rude of uncivil? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yep, it was an emphatic use of bold characters, and if you'd bothered to read above, you'd see (1) I already have reviewed it and (2) I've said I'll do it again. Pipe down Yot unless you have something constructive to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but if you qualify something as blody, it sounds pretty rude to me. I'm just trying to point out all the 'talking' going on here isn't constructive, and our time could be used for better things. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Eptalon says, let's talk about how to improve it. I was sick of bold text. Ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Just an idea: can the comments that are relevant to improving the article perhaps be moved to its talk page? --Eptalon (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love that. So far I've got "lots of important stuff is missing" (though no comment as to what) and that the lead needs a slight tweak. I don't understand why Juliian takes umbrage at my insistence on specificy and my adherence to the criteria. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, but I am not going to spoon-feed you the work that needs to be done. Do some research, hack away at the page for a while, and when you're done, I'll preform a more thorough review. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I've been doing that for weeks. Don't use a tone that acts like I am a baby. If you have legitimate concerns about the article, you should review now and/or make necessary changes now. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job then. That doesn't mean there isn't more work to be done. And by the way, "spoon-feeding" has nothing to do with being a baby in this context. It's a common term. Now please stop overlooking the point I've been making all afternoon. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am concerned over the fact that the en version is way more comprehensive than this one but let's be clear, this is Simple English and GA. So we should be clear that we're not talking about the best article any of us has ever read. It should, however, be noted that the en.wiki Biden article also has four forked articles specific to Biden. To that end, a few further comments before I could support this here.
1. The fact he is VP is far more significant than him being a lawyer. The lead needs a reorganisation to reflect this.
2. Running for president (as you have in the lead) is a little misleading since he actually ran as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. You have to consider the audience reading this article may be completely unaware of these nuances of US politics.
3. His avoidance of the Vietnam War should be covered.
4. Biden's brain surgery should have a date.
5. Awards and honors are missing.
6. The en.wiki version has heaps more about his political career. We may need more here, but it's not so important for GA. We do, however, need to cover all major aspects.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3 and 4 have all been Fixed (though, with #2, it should be noted that you "run" for President even when seeking the nomination). 5 has not--it basically says Biden has some honorary doctorates. 6 gets to the point of contention Julian and I have had all week. I've taken the liberty of starting a talk page section about it. Oh, and one more thing...what are the forked articles? There's probably more if you count that Beau and Robert have articles on enwp, but not here Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can locate the forked articles yourself. has "Political positions of Joe Biden", "Joe Biden presidential campaign, 1988", "Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008" and "Electoral history of Joe Biden" - which means that there's even more than we first thought on en.wiki that isn't here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, most of the content of the forked articles is in Biden's enwp article, and the major aspects of are in. I might write a political positions section (but not necessarily an awards and honors section, because it has almost no relevent content, even in enwp). Of course, comprehensiveness is a VGA test, not a GA test, and comparing the simwp to the enwp article may not be the best way to apply that test. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please stop arguing the difference between VGA and GA. As I've said countless times, GA means "good article". Do you think an article which omits major facts of an individual's life is good? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, you're incorrect on this. 1) You're obviously applying a VGA standard to a GA 2) You haven't been able to point out a single major fact that's missing from the article, and instead are relying on the idea that it must be incomplete. Rambler made a review above, and I fixed most of what he wanted. Can you come around to supporting it now? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a broken record. Frankly I don't care what standard I'm applying. I don't want recognized articles to be incomplete. That's all there is to it. I'd be happy to provide examples of missing info, but as I said above, the onus is on you to do proper research. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your suggestions, so I can do the research and get this thing the GA it deserves. Standards matter. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Does anybody have any comments on this/suggestions for what this article needs? Nobody's commented on this for four days Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns added. While they can be fixed, I fear that it is the article doesn't have much information to be a GA atm. Pmlineditor^Talk 15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Von Braun's GA-status article is almost the same amount of wikitext, and in addition has fewer refs and no wikitable. Also, comprehensiveness is not a GA req Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again: not being incomplete is a standard for being "good" typically. Since you appear to refuse to listen to the concerns others have raised, unfortunately I'm not inclined to follow-up with this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, you gotta follow the standards as written, and nothing more. I did listen...I just feel that is indeed complete, and nobody has been able to give a specific example of what's missing. If they did, I'd add it. Your argument boils down to "it's shorter, so it must be incomplete no matter what". I again cite the von Braun article. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's light. So he's VP of USA, but you need to expand his pre-VP career significantly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not light, it's about 1KB more than the threshold, and considerably longer than Von Braun, also a GA. A completely unfair double standard is being applied, if this isn't a GA, von Braun shouldn't be either. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? We're not talking about von Braun - please focus on this article and only this article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as Not Promoted: We're going round in circles now. I generally thought this article had VGA promise, but only with work going into it. It's becoming clear that those wanting to help are only getting frustrated as the nominator is not accepting and fixing criticisms, and so at this stage the only option I see is a no-consensus/deadlock close as not promoted, with a recomendation not to re-list for at least a month or so and to go through a Peer Review first. But of course, this is not compulsory. Regards, Gob lin 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

IMO, this article clearly meets all GA criteria

Subject in Wikipedia Y
At least 3.5KB Y by almost 1KB
Revisions Y
Categories Y
Minor changes Y
No redlinks Y
Illustrations Y
No templates Y
References Y On average, 8 for every KB of text

This article has also been reviewed, and the concerns have been fixed. It may not be anywhere near VGA, but it clearly meets GA. Thoughts?Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground 2009 Stock[change source]

London Underground 2009 Stock (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Re-nomming this as I feel it's now up to scratch. There's still a few things on the TP that i'm going to do now, but please add more and comment in general :). Regards, Gob lin 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

You have notes. Talkpage. Do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively happy with this article now. I'd prefer the number of significant figures in the conversions to be consistent but otherwise I'm happy this is GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think this is down to the templates, i'll have a look in closer detail when i've got my Tramway Magazine out. Cheers, Gob lin 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

No major concerns. Ga worthy, not quite VGA yet :) Good to go. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit uneasy with using Flickr and forums as sources, but otherwise it looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a fine GA to me. Pmlineditor^Talk 08:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted to GA. Chenzw Talk 10:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France[change source]

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

A former GA, demoted to regular status, I think I've adressed most of the issues and am giving this another shot. Another review could be good to find the remaining problems. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you have addressed all of my concerns from May then let me know, I'll happily review the article from scratch again. I just don't want to go over it to find old problems again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look over, and I'll let you know. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of pictures, not much substance. I'm not supporting this right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: There's little or no consensus to promote this article, and little work seems to have been done to it. Sorry, not now. Gob lin 07:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

Mimicry[change source]

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

Seems to meet most criteria... Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a short comment on talk page. Basic problem I see is that it currently is too short for GA.--Eptalon (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too short? You are kidding. Barras (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a lot shorter before Barras. Now it's good. Fafas (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, alright... I didn't say anything ;) Barras (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a great article. A few too many images squashing text which should be discouraged, but generally not bad at all. I'll happily provide a sentence-by-sentence review if required. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, a great article, may need some work here and there. Has been a long time since I saw this quality of work, congratulations. --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of comments left on the talkpage, in particular there's a serious problem with a lack of encyclopedic writing style. But as I said before, overall a good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes have been made, based on pertinent comments by The Rambling Man. Note of changes on talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall the article is very good. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: A very good article all round, good work! It's one of the better articles to appear for a while, and i'm pleased to promote it. Congratulations! Gob lin 14:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Carom billiards[change source]

Carom billiards (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Interesting article and full of references etc. Advice to ensure we agree it's a good article? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating it so quickly. I only caught the nomination by following {{pgood}} Rambling Man added. It's a good article at Wikipedia and I have been working for the past few hours to simplify it for use here, but as a newbie here (I am an admin on Wikipedia with about 40,000 edits) I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of simplification. For example, it would not have occurred to me to change all forms of "like" to "similar to" or "enjoy", which I just learned from the examples page. If someone could go over the article with a more experienced eye, I would ~~appreciate~~ ~~like~~ enjoy that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs some more links. Barras (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the article and added a host of links. Anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph, second sentence doesn't make sense: "Some of the most well know and common today". --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by removing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked that section. The point was that there are many different distinct games under the umbrella term carom billiards and that the list was of the most well known ones. It had become a bit garbled.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any complaints here. This is a nicely illustrated, well referenced and comprehensive article. Congrats to Fuhghettaboutit for doing an A1 job on making a complex article simple enough for even me to understand. Great work. All the rest of us just tried to polish the edges. Great stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Congratulations! While there is only a couple of comments towards support and some may argue it's not a consensus, it seems it's all we're going to get and therefore there is no reason not to not promote it. Once again, a good job all round! Gob lin 23:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Hyderabad, India[change source]

Hyderabad, India (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Seems to meet the criteria. Would like a review. Pmlineditor^Talk 10:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just after an overview: The history section has only one link. Barras (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a few comments on talk page..--Eptalon (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding those references, is this long enough? Also, we need to stop overdoing the image thing, text should not be squashed between images, it looks awful. It's all very well to say "Deccan Charges" come from Hyderabad in the lead, but since it's redlinked, what on earth are they? Why is the language section under Geography? Place references after punctuation where possible. References should have titles, publishers or works and access dates as a minimum. Check your sources, are they all reliable? Screen India, thomex.com, world-gazetteer.com - they all need justification for use. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on this and will find reliable book sources. I didn't write the article, so I need to work in it to fix it. And I'm removing Deccan, cricket might be a nice game, but putting the name of a team all of a sudden isn't. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 10:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images and 2 bad sources removed. Going to expand. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than expansion, everything has been fixed. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a redlink; princely state and fixed a typo in the link for IT. Looks good. fr33kman ^talk 14:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Despite the low level of response, i'm personally satisfied that this article now meets the GA criteria, and am therefore promoting it. Good work PM. Gob lin 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

New York State Route 308[change source]

New York State Route 308 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I got tired of BG7's trains, so I'm proposing a nice road article to spice things up a bit. Joking aside, how does it look, aside from redlinks and broken templates? Just wanted to get a head start on this review. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose; it's not a train XD. Nah, seriously, i'll have a looksy later. And my latest PVGA is NOT a train... ;) Gob lin 08:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

Looks good. I've added some comments on the talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's been taken care of now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. This meets the criteria as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll review it; but it looks good enough to me now. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, meets the criteria I believe. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 14:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: The nomination is barely a week old, but there's no point dragging out what is clearly a good article and has achieved consensus here. My own look over it confirmed the views of others in my opinion. Congrats and well done Julian! Gob lin 14:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Presidents' Trophy[change source]

Presidents' Trophy (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Another little nugget. A touch of updating to be done but otherwise half-decent? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see how you all try to recruit me to start taking part here...put up an article I did. Should have let me know, I didn't notice that I hadn't updated it following the last season. -DJSasso (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it wasn't a recruitment thing, it was just that I found a reasonably good article so I nominated here. If you'd like to help out with getting it to Good Article quality, so much the better! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left comments on the talk page. Barras (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barras, I think all your comments are now covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit extended: Due to the lack of comments, this PVGA has been extended by one week, and will now close on October 31. Gob lin 18:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Support, great article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as promoted: Good work all round guys, there's a fair bit of effort gone into this with a GA as the result; well done! Gob lin 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Manchester[change source]

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

This appears to be close to meeting the criteria. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the template errors. Ref the Geography section. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After an overview, this sentence "Manchester has lots of arts, media, learning and shops." needs to be reworded. In the History section, it should be mentioned when the Manchester Ship Canal was built and about Manchester gaining city status as mentioned in the lead. Fafas (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. On another note, I don't think the article really requires 6 separate references to back up the assertion that it is the second city in the UK, but that's not really an issue. fr33kman ^talk 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a few comments. Barras (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address most of your concerns, Barras, let me know if my changes are okay and/or if there is anything else you would like done. :) – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit extended: Due to the lack of comments, this PVGA has been extended by one week, and will now close on October 31. Gob lin 18:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I left a quick comment on the talk page FYI. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still too many red links even for PGA. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 14:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Down to 19 redlinks. Still too many. Help with creating them would be good. Barras (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not promoted : There are outstanding comments on the talk page and several red links; so I cannot promote this. Please try again after fixing the concerns. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 17:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble (2009)[change source]

Royal Rumble (2009) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Just found this, looks okay. Comprehensive, referenced, illustrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. KingRaven44 (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to meet the criteria. fr33kman ^talk 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a few comments. Barras (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit extended: Due to the lack of comments, this PVGA has been extended by one week, and will now close on October 31. Gob lin 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Comment. The information in the table needs to be marked by something other than colors, so people who are visually-impaired can understand. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they almost all have words to accompany the colours, except the WWE alumni, which I'm just about to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see. Thanks for the fix/clarification! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good otherwise, but I'm left with the vague feeling that this article lacks any real meat. The only prose is related to "background" information, which, while well-written and perfectly sourced, isn't really highly relevant to this particular event. I note that the enwiki version has a couple more sections (Event, Aftermath), so do you think it's worth expanding this? If so I'd be happy to assist. Hope I'm not being a pain in the neck. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really much content to it. Though it probably still meets the criteria. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 14:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it meets our criteria, but if there is more to add (if there is anything important) so do it. Otherwise, it looks fine to me. Barras (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Although this article does meet the criteria, I feel that it is going to need "beefing up" a bit before it truly is a good article. I also think back to the recent incident about comprehensiveness in GA articles - we did not promote an article then and by promoting this one it would be unfair and a double standard. Sorry, but not now. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation of the community. KingRaven44 - "I think it looks good", Fr33kman - "It seems to meet the criteria", JC - "Looks good" (with reservation), Yot "meets the criteria" (with reservation), Barras "looks fine to me" (with reservation). So five "supports", three with reservation. Seldom have so many commented on a GA. And then it doesn't get promoted. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this should have been a promote. Improvements don't stop when an article is granted GA status, so any further issues can be worked out on the talk page. Otherwise I think there's consensus for this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand both sides. Can someone state if there is anything important missing that should be added quick. Then, we can perhabs promote this article. Barras (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns and will change to promote. My decision was based on the fact their wasn't much to the article. Anyway, Erare Humanum est, thanks for commenting. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 18:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Goebbels[change source]

Joseph Goebbels (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article looks good to. It still has a few redlinks. Perhabs a spell/grammar check by an other editor would be useful. All comments are welcome. Barras (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does look good, have done some copyediting and written a few new articles to remove most redlinks. Only 6 redlinks to go.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the relative brevity of this article, it seems complete enough for GA. No major concerns on my end. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as promoted: Article is in good shape and feedback has been positive: I see no reason why promotion cannot take place. Thanks, Gob lin 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Jean Balukas[change source]

Jean Balukas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a good article I wrote at w:. I have worked hard to simplify it for here over the past week. What do you think guys?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good at all, but I didn't reviewed the complete article yet. I left some comments on the article's talk page. Barras (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All talk page comments addressed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readability scores are good. Good article. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Great work, i'm pleased to promote this article to good article status! Keep up the good work :) Gob lin 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Common scold[change source]

Common scold (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a featured article at enwiki. I simplified it offline before posting. This is certainly not one of the newer crop of featured articles and wouldn't meet the really exacting standards shot for now but a it's a [morbidly] fascinating subject. Comments welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Looks good, well simplified --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Well done, you've done great work on this article; please keep it up! Regards, Gob lin 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroo[change source]

Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroo (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not quite as well developed as the past few I've listed here which had all been granted good or featured status at enwiki before I simplified them, but it's a fully cited and structured article and I believe it meets in spades the tacit tenth WP:GOOD criterion of fuzzy cuteness .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No major concerns. The only thing I'd like to see is the using of {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}}, but this is not a reason why this shouldn't be a GA. --Barras (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit short - are they marsupials? No mention in the article. Also nothing about breeding, life span etc. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Promoted. Well done. Gob lin 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Mount St. Helens[change source]

Mount St. Helens (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Already failed a GA proposal once, for lack of votes. At first looks, article looks well-written, might need one or two refs though. I'll leave it up to the community...--Eptalon (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in paragraph 8 - see Talk:Mount St. Helens --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Liverpoolfan567 ^{Send me a message} 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Not Promoted: Little work has been done on this since the nomination was made, and looking through it it is still not in GA shape. Sorry. Gob lin 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Typhoon Tip[change source]

Typhoon Tip (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Just got done creating this (content based on Enwiki's version). It has some redlinks and is likely to be rough 'round the edges but I think it has some potential. All thoughts are very much welcome. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks gone! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week due to lack of input Gob lin 23:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Review left on the article's talk. --Barras (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad at all. I'm in support of this becoming a GA. FSM ^Noodly? 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Promoted: Sorry it's taken so long, but brilliant work! Keep it up. Gob lin 15:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

London Underground 1967 Stock[change source]

London Underground 1967 Stock (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Nominated a while back but not promoted over it's length. Now that requirement has gone i'd like to re-submit this for consideration as a Good Article. Gob lin 11:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Would it be possible to structure it with a couple section headers? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll look into it now. Gob lin 17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Done Gob lin 09:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

Better - thanks! Just one more thing, I wouldn't mind the lead being a tad longer. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is again the ref problem I mentioned already on the last proposal by you. Several times after each other the same ref. This should be fixed.
,[1], and something appears and also in different ways "[1]," or ",[1]". Please fix this and keep consitent.
Some of the redlinks should be created.
The rest looks fine to me. --Barras (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of redlinks, have your other concerns been met, guys? Gob lin 09:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

There are still 10 redlinks in the article and the first template looks very red as well (this is not that important, but some more blue would look better ;) ) --Barras (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as long as all of Barras' concerns have been resolved. Nicely done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now. Well done. I think it's a good GA. --Barras (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. иιƒкч ? 10:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created a category so that it isn't redlinked. Looks great. TheWeakWilled (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted. Looks as though it meets all criteria and has support from multiple editors. EhJJ^TALK 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F. Scott Fitzgerald[change source]

F. Scott Fitzgerald (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Fitzgerald should have a good article. I hope with some tidying up this'll be ok. Anatole Laval (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some references. --Bsa dow ski1 08:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bit short. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would help a bit if the Lost Generation article was transposed to SEW. I'll try to do some work here. We're talking about one of the greatest writers in history. I'd like to see Fitz have a 'good' article here, even if WP doesn't. Anatole Laval (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs lots of work. At first glance, I see that the article lacks a substantial amount of info, needs more citations, and requires a stronger lead. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit short. Maybe write a bit about his impact on modern fiction, or where his novels have been featured in popular culture? FSM ^Noodly? 21:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly double in size; for this do not look at the works listing, as it adds little to the overall article. Add a little bit on his influence on other artists ("Jazz?"). Rewrite intro, add refs. --Eptalon (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted; Sorry, but I don't feel that enough work has been done on this to make it a Good Article, nor is there any support from the community. Nonetheless, please keep trying and come back soon! Gob lin 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Atom[change source]

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

Been doing some work on this for a while. A pretty core article, I mean they are fundamentally important to the entire universe. I appreaciate it's not entirely comprehensive when compared to the En article but some parts of that were very complex, and I found it hard to translate the ideas into Simple English. However, I still think it's pretty much up to Good Article standard. FSM ^Noodly? 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the intro, and copyedited here and there;What I saw was that at some points, the article was unencyclopedic (complex mathematics and equations - This is in the eye of the beholder). I think someone should go over the article and copyedit it further (Another example: Being able to "see" atoms probably serves little. No one is going to combine two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen into a water molecule - This probably needs more explaining.To get three liters of water, two liters of hydrogen, and one of oxygen are needed.)--Eptalon (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left some short words, but will have a deeper look in it tomorrow. Currently, just after an overwiev, I think there are still some things that needs to be fixed. --Barras ^talk 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left today some more comments on the article's talk page. Many issues needs fixing. There are important things missing. I didn't had a look at the articles related to refs and so on. There is enough to do for now. The article is not ready for GA status. --Barras ^talk 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Not Promoted: Sorry, but not now. There are several un-fixed issues and I don't feel the article is in GA shape - nor do users above. Regards, Gob lin 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]