Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:PAD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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, he or she 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[change source]

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 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[change source]

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. ~~~~ 

Violin[change source]

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

This VGA has been lacking proper citations with the history sections needing more citations, the construction and playing sections are not even sourced, the music section is depended on only one source and out of the thirteen sources that the article has (which I think is a bit low seeing at the quality of article and how it lacks sources) two of them are deadlinks. Overall the article needs some major citation improvement, perhaps expansion on the history section and some more reliable sources for it to be VGA. Seeing on the state of the article I don't think it should even be a good article seeing the citation work needed and chunks of the article is not referenced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I agree with the demotion. While the basic outline is there, each section is lacking in sources and content. I don't this is a bad article, but VGAs are supposed to showcase our best work, and this is not our best work. ~Junedude433talk 16:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - sadly this one is not up to scratch for VGA nor GA at its current state. --IWI (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Sadly, but I agree, demote to normal article. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I did not look at anything in the article, but two notices that said 'needs sources'. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Closed[change source]

Lenzburg[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Result: Demoted to regular article. Chenzw  Talk  16:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Lenzburg (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is the oldest GA on this project still standing, and it shows. There are multiple problems with this article. The most noticeable is its lack of references. The entire article has only eight references, and most of the sections have no references at all. There are plenty of statements made that are unreferenced, particularly in the History section.

Another issue is its leading sentences in each section are not particularly neutral and are rather subjective. "The area has a long history," but how long is long? "The main place to see in the town is the Lenzburg castle," but who's to say that it's the main place? What even counts as a "main" place at all? "Lenzburg is an important economic centre," but by what metric? According to whom? What scale? Is it important locally? Nationally? Globally? "Lenzburg is a good place for transportation," has the same problems as the previous example.

Many sections of the article include passive voice and (improperly punctuated) compound or complex sentences. For instance, in the Places of Interest section: "It was built in the 11th century and has been added onto several times," and "Some of the city wall has been kept and is now under protection." The History section is full of these.

In general, the article feels lacking. I understand that GAs don't need to be as comprehensive as VGAs, but this article is missing multiple sections that have become commonplace in city articles. It is missing a section for the demographics, education, and notable people. Other than the lead, I can't find the population of the city anywhere. What's the makeup of its inhabitants? Switzerland is a country that is lingually diverse, but what about this place? Are there any schools, universities, or libraries in this city? Or is everyone simply self-taught somehow? Was there anyone noteworthy that came from this place? Surely, there must be someone from here. Even if we ignore the lack of sections, the sections that are there aren't impressive. The Economics section is too short, and it doesn't provide much detail. What industries is this place known for? If this is such an "important economic centre," I would expect it to elaborate as to why and how it's important.

Other issues include the redlinks in the article, words that should be linked (i.e. all of the municipalities listed in the Geography section), and the fact that this article is outdated in some respects. There has barely been any edits on this article in the past 8 years. While the standards of this project have improved, this article has not. ~Junedude433talk 02:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support demotion - There are simply too many issues here to be fixed. Some drastic work would be needed. This article is nowhere near to being a "good article". In fact, I can identify many articles that are not GAs that are much better than this one. Certainly not an example of our best work. IWI (chat) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m pinging User:Peterdownunder here as he was the main contributor that got this promoted to GA nine years ago. IWI (chat) 02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
That was a long time ago, I don't even remember working on it. If it no longer meets the standard then it should be demoted. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support demotion - Too many issues in this article especially in regards to sourcing. Major overhaul needed to get this article into shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment.It is a city of about 10.000 people today, there's a castle; there was a Roman settlement (name unknown) for about two centuries. Between 15 and 20 tombs fromthe Neolithic have been found in the area nearby. Modern history: the probably two most prominent employers are ABB (Asea Brown Bowery) and Hero (which lives from canned food, and is a name, at least in Switzerland). It takes 20 mins to Zürich, by train. Note: that most references are likely in German. --Eptalon (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joe Biden[change source]

  • Result: Demoted to regular article. Chenzw  Talk  17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article not updated and some sections are lacking information. Compare article to Bernie Sanders who has been up to date about the 2020 primaries and his Senate career his longer and well sourced than Biden's (even though Joe had a longer career). Vice President section could be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems alright, the Bernie article is better doesn't mean Biden should be demoted? It needs improvement for sure but this seems quite complete an article (as compared to the rest). See no reason to demote.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Not trying to attack or anything... but you think this might be a bit a partisan nomination considering your userpage talking about wanting Bernie to be a president? -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I disclosed that it wasn't partisan, what I meant was that Bernie's article is more up to date with the 2020 primaries and Biden's isn't. I put all my beliefs aside when here on the Wiki. Plus I think his Vice President and Senate sections should be longer than they are. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Then why not Bernie Sanders article be nominated for VGA instead?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Camouflaged Mirage: If you guys think Sanders' article is up to VGA standards then good, I was actually waiting 'till after the primary season so that the article has all the updated information. What I'm getting it at is that:
  • What did he do before his senate career? Doubtful he graduated from college and jumped straight to the Senate.
  • Biden's Senate career section is only two paragraphs long. For a man who's been in the Senate roughly 30 years, don't you think it should contain more information? (Sanders has been in the Senate for thirteen years yet his career section is more fleshed out). Ronald Reagan (even before going from GA to VGA) his entrance into politics had its own section. Reagan's first presidential run in 1976 has its own section. Jeremy Corbyn, who is a GA, has a fleshed out MP section. Bottom line is that Biden's Senate career section resembles more than that of a stub article. I mean Hal Holbrook's career section is longer and its not event a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • His run in 1998 only has a brief mention. His 1988 run should at least have its own section.
  • Some references are dead links.
  • How come his 2008 campaign trail section is in the same length as VP? Shouldn't his VP section be more fleshed out?
  • 2020 run should be more updated like include debate performance, how he went from front-runner to behind Sanders and then back up to front-runner? His primary wins and losses?
  • The article's lead could be expanded, look at Sanders, Corbyn, even Fred Rogers and Ronald Reagan's lead back when it was a GA had longer more detailed leads.
  • Note: His personal life and honors section is pretty good. The article is written well, as in non-complex wise. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I am still not convinced these require demotion. GA means that this is one of the best in simple, which is still true by now. We had lots of GA that's need updating, but they are still the best articles here. Also per Gotanda below. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: These discussions seem quite variable. If Hermann Göring remained at VGA with similar issues, then hard to demote this article. --Gotanda (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: At most an update needed tag on the article is needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101:*In which case the article no longer meets the GA criteria and should be demoted. These demotion discussions have become very subjective and no longer follow our own requirements. "There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. Some of these templates are {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them." --Gotanda (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: the point that I'm getting it before it went all political is that this article needs and update and the Vice Presidency/Senate sections could be beefed up more. I added the update tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Like what Gotanda said above, if the article is identified as requiring improvement (and even tagged accordingly), I see no reason the article can keep GA status per WP:GA?. Whether other allegedly worse off articles were demoted or not is not particularly relevant to this demotion discussion. Chenzw  Talk  05:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not commenting on this particular case, but any drive by editor can thrown on a tag. Whether or not that tag should be there is an important thing to consider. On a few of our GAs/VGAs in the past editors have thrown up tags that weren't necessarily valid. So to demote because a single user putting a tag on is something we have to be careful of. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Djsasso: The template was added because the article needs to be updated. Regardless I've add expand section templates to his Senate section, VP section and 2020 run section because they need more info. How are you going to tell be a section with two paragraphs is enough to sum up a near 40 year career in the senate. His role in the Clarence Thomas hearing nearly basically has a mention. His VP section could also be expanded with the specifics that he did to fix the Great Recession and his role in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The bottom line is that this article has limited amount of info. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • On compared to yes. Remember our articles are never going to be the novels that articles are. I think people are forgetting that. Yes the topic should have a good coverage of the topic, but we don't necessarily go into every detail the way an article on would. That being said, I am not against adding more information if there is more to add. -Djsasso (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Djsasso: I understand. I am not saying Joe Biden's article here should match the length as English Wikipedia. What I have been saying is that the article does need more information. Its common sense that a man's 40 year career cannot be summed up in two paragraphs. When I nominated Bernie Sanders, Ronald Reagan and Jeremy Corbyn, everyone said that their career sections should be expanded accordingly to Simple English. I highly doubt had this article been nominated a year ago it would have passed because there are just short sections. How come Sanders' senate section is larger then Biden's (Sanders has been in the senate for 13 years and Biden was in the senate for 40). The article is good yes, but I do not feel that it has enough information to maintain GA status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, people are always going to ask for expansion. Always, everytime. The question is whether or not expansion is always warranted. Sometimes overly detailed sections will actually detract from a subject rather than enhance it. Two different people who had different careers for example one might have more notable things happen in their term than the other. I don't know if that is the case between the two you are comparing or not as I haven't taken the time to really dig into it. I do know that prior to being VP even though he was in the senate he wasn't really all that well known a senator compared to Bernie. Bernie has been in the public eye a lot more than Biden was. You can't really compare two articles in that way. The key factors for being VGA and GA are all about the quality of the writing and the simpleness. Yes obviously comprehensive is one of the criteria but the other points are far more important. -Djsasso (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also err on the side of needing to expand the article. I also wouldn't argue that Bernie was more high profile than Biden was in the Senate. The overwhelming majority of people had never heard of Bernie Sanders until he decided to run for president. The sections for Biden's career, given how expansive it is, is far too short. If this remains a GA, it will need a serious overhaul. ~Junedude433talk 00:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Junedude433: I wasn't saying that Bernie was more high profile, what I was saying is that how come is Sanders' senate career section longer than Biden's when Sanders was barely in the senate for 20 years in comparison's to Biden's high prolific senate career. I agree that Biden's article needs an overhaul --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: I was actually responding to Djasso's statement that Bernie was in the public eye for much longer than Biden. I disagreed with that assessment. ~Junedude433talk 16:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

More information is definitley needed if it is to stay as a good article. It is not exhaustive enough. Comparing to other articles or other Wikipedias is futile; the article is not up to date. IWI (chat) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The article does need a bit of an update, however there are parts that have been updated. Some sections need major expansion, try comparing this article to Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, or Bernie Sanders and it would be easy to tell. It does have lots of sources. However, a lot of them are dead links, unreliable, not well formatted, and sections needing citations. There are also very few red links, or none. I think the article can keep it's GA status, as long as cleanup templates are solved and issues are fixed and it gets expanded. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that Djsasso suggesting it is a biased nomination was unnecessary, and is most certainly not assuming good faith. It is clear this article needs an update, so there is no reason to suggest bad faith. IWI (chat) 22:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It was a fair comment, a demotion request slapping a big negative tag on a page right in the middle of the primary which was still being hotly contested at the time by someone who very clearly puts on their page they support the other guy. It is very much a fair assumption considering how the tag makes the subject look bad right in the middle of running for the nomination. It also wasn't clear that the article needed to be demoted. Still not sure it does. It can definitely be expanded, the question is whether it has to be to avoid demotion. -Djsasso (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The tag does not make the subject look bad, only the article. I can see why you might have thought that it was a partisan nomination, but regardless it is clear the article needs an update. The article having a tag on it is nothing to do with Joe Biden himself. Nobody is going to be influenced by a tag on Wikipedia. If the article isn't updated, it needs demoting. Let's just keep to the content not contributor thing from now on. IWI (chat) 11:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the article is on the subject thus makes the subject look bad. And I was commenting on the nomination not the nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but an assumption based on the contributor who made the nomination. Anyway, let's put this behind us now. IWI (chat) 12:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Here are my reasons for this proposal. The article needs expansion to detail his large 30 year senate career, his VP career and details on his 2020 run. A section that explains what Biden did between his post-university years and before running for the senate. An perhaps a bit of an update, example article does not mention in his awards section on how on his finals days as VP, President Obama presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. A section what Biden did in his post presidency (2017 through 2019). Bottom line the article is not fleshed out with enough information to remain a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, the article just doesn't look very fleshed out. Not worthy of GA without a major reworking. I would support demotion.--Yottie =talk= 16:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victoria line[change source]

Victoria line (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Should be demoted from VGA to GA. The process has changed since 2009 and more could be written about it. Certainly a Good Article, but very good? I'm not so sure. IWI (chat) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Article is good for GA, but for VGA? Not so much. The article has sections that lack citations and (I'm no expert) the future section should be checked if it has updated information. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@TDKR Chicago 101: I mean there are cn tags in the article, these would need clearing before it could be considered a GA. I also updated some outdated numbers. Other than that it is fine, but not a VGA.
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Bottom line is that the article is not VGA material. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, put succinctly. IWI (chat) 23:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Well I've cleared all the {{cn}} tags and simplified some fairly difficult text. Now it is good enough for GA. Before it was not. IWI (chat) 16:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree, good enough for GA, but it needs adding to to return to VGA status. Given how long it's been since the conversation has started, I suggest demotion now. --Yottie =talk= 13:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Result: Demoted to GA. Chenzw  Talk  16:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crich Tramway Village[change source]

  • Result: Demoted to GA. Chenzw  Talk  04:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is essentially made-up of History of the museum, Methods of tramcar operation, tramcar fleet and a timeline. Article has been tagged with some lack of source citations with 4 out of the ten total sources cited being dead links. I can't even see this article being suited for GA status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, this is about the level at simple wikipedia that we considered an article a VGA. I would just fix the dead links. Most of the rest of the article hasn't really changed since it was promoted. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
All dead links have been fixed and pretty much anything that needs a source has a source. Not sure I see the problem here. The needs citation templates that were added by an IP weren't things that we would require a cite for so they were removed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: What I was getting at is that this featured article is essentially three sections and a long list. Perhaps it should be demoted to Good Article. Personally I feel the article is not good enough for FA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Remember, short articles can be featured as well as long as they cover the topic in full. So the question is, is there a major portion of this article missing? -Djsasso (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I am aware of that but with our current standards it does not meet that criteria. Present nominations go through a heavy process to make sure it has sufficient citations and sources. Look at Bloc Party, it was a lengthy article with good enough info and it went from VGA to GA (which is what I think should happen here). Well for starters the article is not updated. It is a museum and the article should be reflected as such maybe moving the article title to National Tramway Museum. It should touch on specific exhibitions as seen on English Wiki. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it does meet our current criteria. If anything our process was much more detailed in the past than it is now. Now people just seem to demote if they don't like it without any thought to actually making changes to the article to maintain its quality. Bloc Party is different, it was missing a number of albums and a big chunk of time from the bands career. So the two are not really equivalent. -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree in that it needs more information. Much like on the standard English Wikipedia, it basically glosses over all of the different kinds of tramcars. If the museum is dedicated to this, I would expect to learn more about its exhibits than simply "it has a bunch of tramcars from all over the country," and leaving it at that. I don't feel that this article is particularly comprehensive. I guess I look at this not as a matter of "can this stay promoted?," but rather "should this stay promoted?" My belief is no; it should be a GA. ~Junedude433talk 00:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't fell super-strongly about this, but I can see why others have thought it should be demoted. It makes a number of slack suggestions as to the history of trams which are not sourced. As a child I remember trams in London, and I think some of the general points made are superficial. I can see that the construction of the road in the museum does not bring this out. Anyway, for me I think missing sources and vague comments in the general sections should mean demotion to GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Per TDKR Chicago 101 Support Demote to GA status, huge chunk of article just the history/timeline --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pages[change source]