Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

Good articles and very good articles are some of the best articles on Simple English Wikipedia. They have certain criteria that they must meet before they can be considered as a good or very good article (see Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles and Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles). If someone notices that an article meets most or all of those criteria, they may list it on the Proposed good articles or Proposed very good articles page. The article is then voted on, and if enough people agree that the article is good or very good, it is promoted to that higher status.

However, sometimes a good or very good article is changed in such a way that it no longer meets the criteria, or new information may become available about the topic, making the article incomplete. In such a case, the article should be demoted from good article or very good article status.

Process of demotion

Demotion of a GA or VGA can be done in this way:

1. A named editor notices that the article no longer meets the GA or VGA criteria.
2. The editor lists the article on this page and adds {{pvgademotion}} (for VGAs) or {{pgademotion}} (for GAs) to the article's talk page to show that it is currently being reviewed and improved.
3. Major contributors to the article who helped it become a GA or VGA are notified, along with a note at Simple Talk to let the community know about the proposed demotion.
4. For two weeks following the discovery, the article can be fixed to again meet the criteria. If there is agreement that the problem has been fixed during this time, there does not need to be a re-vote; a named editor can remove the tag from the article, and put the {{vgood}} or {{good}} tag back.
5. If the problem is not fixed, the article will lose its status after the two-week period. When the article once again meets the criteria, it can be re-nominated for GA or VGA status and will follow the full promotion process from beginning to end.
6. When an article is demoted, the associated badge in its Wikidata entry should be removed.

Proposals for demotion

List proposals here, newer ones at the top. Each proposal should list what needs to be fixed. Within two weeks from being listed, an article listed here must be fixed to again meet the criteria, or have its higher status removed.

=== Article name ===
{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be demoted. ~~~~ 

Blackpool tramway

Blackpool tramway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

As much as it 'pains' me to list an article I worked on here (knowing that when I do get the time sort it out it will take forever to get it re-promoted...), this one currently falls way short of the mark. I've not had the time to give it the substantial updates it requires since it was written in October 2009, and I'm not going to be able to in the forseeable future. Much has changed since this time, and factually it is no longer deserving of a spot as one of 'our best'. So, reluctantly, listing it here. This is really only a formality to avoid cries of 'ERMAHGERD' were I to just do what I'm best at doing, and IAR/BOLD'ing and demoting it myself. Cheers, Goblin 22:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

Can you please tell us how much it is outdated? Are there many outdated information or nowadays even wrong information in the article? Just asking, because it might be ok to "only" demote it to GA status. -Barras talk 09:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Nothing in there is 'wrong', per se, but rather just outdated. A demotion to GA could well be acceptable, though I think everyone knows that I am generally against such demotions... Anyway:

• The 'History' section basically stops in the mid-1960s, and is far from comprehensive. This should really have been an issue when the article was promoted, but I didn't highlight it. It basically misses out many of the important developments of the 1970s and 80s, and the decline of the 90s.
• The 'Blackpool tramway today' section completely ignores the upgrade works over the past two years, and the status of the newly-re-opened and upgraded tramway. It is also questionable how much is relevant to the article still, and much should probably be shuffled into other sections.
• More should probably also be made of the tramway's fleet and infrastructure. It had been my intention to create some separate articles on some of these, however I never got round to it, and am unlikely to do so.
• Finally, there are also numerous 'small' tweaks that, imo, add up to make this article very much not a VGA any more.

Cheers, Goblin 10:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

• I agree with Barras here, it would be better to just demote it to GA status. It's okay that its 'outdated', especially since you seem to be willing to update it once you are more available to do so. According to WP:GA? point #2 states that a GA should be "fairly complete" and the article is fairly complete and not comprehensive. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 14:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I should probably clarify that the likelihood of me being able to update the article in the near future is very unlikely. Far too many IRL commitments to dedicate time to articlespace at the moment. It is 'fairly complete', though, but as I say I'm against 'half-demotions' and would prefer it to simply go all the way. Goblin 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!

Well, since you are the original author and the one who took care of the article for quite some time, and considering that you think it should be completely demoted, I think we should demote it completely. -Barras talk 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

At present, we do not have the option of demoting to GA, and I think we should change that. Considering that we scarcely have time to manage the present proposals for GA, we should not add to the burden. I think it's crystal clear this meets GA standards better than mosr GA articles. Routine should be to demote to GA; a special case should be made to double demote. I have in mind, too, that we want to make a gap between GA and VGA. If we do that -- and some important users have not yet voiced their opinion -- then this will not be the only VGA to be demoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A purely clerical note, process should not be changed for any 'in progress' proposals, meaning that, even if process changes are created, this proposal would still come under the previous policy. Any chance of a link to the ongoing discussion btw, I've lost it... Goblin 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

It's at Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, that would make sense... Goblin 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

• Since no one really argued against demotion, this article is no longer a VGA. Demoted -Barras talk 14:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles
• Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles
• Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
• Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles