Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:PGA)
GA candidate.svg

Good articles are articles that many people find to be better than other articles. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria.

This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles. Please only put one submission in at a time.

Articles that are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles that are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly. If there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

Archives[change source]

Proposals for good articles[change source]

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

Meet the Woo 2[change source]

Meet the Woo 2 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe the article is well-written and has a lot of high-quality sources used. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shoot for the Stars: It's too complex. The Flesch reading score is 60, on the border of standard and fairly difficult. [1] According to that score, it's even a tiny bit more difficult than the English Wikipedia version. It has a lot of complex expressions and words used in a difficult way. Lights and freedom (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom Thanks a lot for the feedback. Looking back at it, it does look like it is still very complex. I tried putting the article up for peer review, but it just redirects here. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sugar[change source]

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

Has enough sentences, and has about 3,500 bytes. It has many references and it definitely belongs to stay on this wikipedia. It’s got GA status on the English Wikipedia as well. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 05:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not ready. There are many complex sentences. For example, here is just one, "It is harvested by a machine or by hand, and cut into pieces and is moved to the processing plant where it is milled." There are many more like it. Re-read each sentence and make it simple. --Gotanda (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nowhere near. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russia[change source]

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

Enough short sentences, many images and many sources. A sensitive topic nowadays but very important (in English Wiki this article has GA status). And Russia is really rich country to explore. Frontfrog (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks pretty good overall. The history section (mainly the first half) needs more sources. It would be good if someone from Russia or has lived in Russia could evaluate this. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there are a lot of complex words still in the article. Looks great content-wise, but I'll try and help replacing the ones that I spot. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Needs a lot of work Complex vocabulary and sentences. Here is just one example: "Extending from eastern Europe across the whole of northern Asia, Russia spans eleven time zones and has a wide range of environments and landforms." Not ready yet. --Gotanda (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yellowstone National Park[change source]

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

I can scarcely believe we don't already have this as a GA!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my comments on the Talk page. I agree that this should be a GA. This is the kind of encyclopedic content that should be a VGA on the front page. But it isn't there (yet). --Gotanda (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Went ahead and made some changes to try and simplify. With a few more changes, I can be more confident in its promotion. For now, I will weakly support, pending additional edits. ~Junedude433talk 19:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I simplified Bison, but Other predators, Fish, and Birds all still need work too. It is getting closer but still not ready. Can be simpler and needs some editing after simplification to make sure there is a good organizational flow and enough context. --Gotanda (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’d agree with this. Is cited and everything looks good. There are red links for sure, but 8/9 is still very good. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 05:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Megadeth[change source]

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

There's a couple of red links left, but at the moment I think it's good and comprehensive enough to propose. Looks like it passes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. A lot of cited, relevant information, relevant images that are captioned, and plenty of sections. DovahFRD (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a lot to work with here. It can also be much simpler. I went through the lede and simplified step-by-step. There are comments on each simplification in the edit history. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just wanted to update this. The page has gotten a lot simpler since the nomination, and some other issues have been fixed as well. I think it is in a much better state now than it was a month ago. DovahFRD (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AGS-17 "Plamya"[change source]

AGS-17 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is comprehensive, detailed, has sources and citations. Simple writing and nothing really complicated, and it meets most of the criteria, no red links, it belongs in wikipedia, linked to other wikipedia pages, has citations from journals and books, no templates like {complex} and such, misses no major fact, has illustrations that are labled properly and its pretty much complete. DawnTheFirst (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. There are currently no good/very good articles about weapons, so AGS-17 would help diversify their topics. I'm not sure that the article meets the criteria currently, but I'll try to help over time. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thanks for the help. I'll attempt to add references, add more information and generally make it way more comprehensive. DawnTheFirst (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The writing is not quite simple enough. For one thing, there are compound and complex sentences that need to be divided. I just simplified the lead to give an idea of what I mean. There are also words that need to be changed to lower case. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are complex words that can be replaced IMO. Like manufactured --> Made, produced, I think similar alternates can be sought for many other complex words. There are shorter sentences that should also be simplified like, 'It was first seen in service in 1971'. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in this page.--BRP ever 12:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concrete[change source]

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

As I explained elsewhere, this is the work of many editors, and has historical and present-day relevance. It's been a good page for a long time, and it should be recognised. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be far too short to be a GA. Lallint (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While Lallint says this is too short, looking through it quite easily passes most of the GA criteria. Passes 1, 2 (it is over a few kilobytes long and goes into a reasonable amount of detail), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Although, I do think there should be a few more references for an article of this length. --Ferien (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't think it does pass criteria two. "Additives" is more of a merge of history and additives, and I think both of them could be elaborated. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I have trouble deciding on this one. On one hand, I approve of the article and think it covers all the essential aspects of the subject. On the other hand, it's a bit short, only 3.1 kB of readable prose. It was suggested before that good articles should have a minimum of 3.5, 5, or 6 kB. So I'm not sure what's missing, but maybe expand it a bit? Lights and freedom (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the general information, I think this page is sufficient. However, I believe more information needs to added and better referencing should be done for it to be one of the best work of the community.--BRP ever 12:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atom[change source]

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

A lot of people have helped with this article, and I think it's now ready to propose for good article. I think it meets all of the requirements, except that it should be simplified some more. There is a "complex" tag, which is technically disqualifying, but this can be removed if others find it unnecessary. Also, I would like to know if it goes too far in depth in a topic, and if it misses any important content. It would be great if we can get this essential topic to GA. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I should like to know what the word "almost" in the first para is referring to. What are the exceptions? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I originally wrote that almost all matter on Earth is made of atoms. There are a few other things like neutrinos, which are constantly passing through everything, and of course the particles in physics experiments. David spector has recently added that almost all matter in the universe is believed to be made of atoms. Which is not believed to be true, as dark matter is believed to be more common. Maybe we could say all "normal matter" and explain the details somewhere else? Lights and freedom (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, an article only has to deal with its topic, and neutrinos are not part of atoms (they pass through normal matter). I don't think these are real exceptions. The page only has to deal with atoms as we know them. Dark matter is just an hypothesis to explain an observation. I don't think it is relevant to the topic of the article. I want to get this page finished because it is educationally useful to secondary school physics. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross Please inform me if this edit resolves the issue. If not, feel free to change it. Lights and freedom (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree. If this Wikipedia is in simple English, the topics covered should be simplified, too. I realize that some of its audience are adults of advanced education and intelligence for whom English happens to be a second or third language, but there are also others who can benefit both from simple English and simplified content, and they should not be neglected. Dark matter is one of many advanced and/or speculative topics that could be covered separately, so as not to be a source of confusion. David spector 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word "almost" is no longer in the first para, because it really wasn't referring to anything which would contradict the sentence. So as far as I'm concerned, the article can should be promoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Farn-Sasan[change source]

Farn-Sasan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Fits requirements 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9, in my opinion. It is fairly short but it is thorough on all of the relevant information on the topic with a wide variety of references. I will be done with requirement 6 by tomorrow. What(other than requirement 6) should be improved? Thanks, MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 04:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There is a lot of work that needs to be done. First there are a ton of red links that needs to be changed into blue. Also, there are a lot of fixes and improvements when it comes to wording and flow of the sentences that needs to be done. Third sentence in the page reads "He is only because of the coins he issued", which doesn't make much sense.--BRP ever 07:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BRPever What doesn't make sense about that sentence? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 12:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MrMeAndMrMe He is only ??? because of the coins he issued. What is he only because of the coins he issued? -- *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 12:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whoops. Didn't mean to forget a word. Fixed. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have improved the wording and flow of the article. It now makes significantly more sense. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also consider mentioning the things that should be fixed on the article talk page. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe that I have fixed the issues given. Only thing now is that more than one person needs to edit the article, in my opinion. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a very ordinary page. I don't think there is anything about it which is not bettered by 100+ pages. It's just egocentricity to put up an average page for GA. I'm very much against us putting up ordinary pages for discussion here because they leach time from a few editors who are already overworked. (I've deliberately not noticed who put it up for consideration) Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. People don't have to review GAs. There is no obligation. There isn't as much coverage with Farn-Sasan as some other people, but there still is a very large amount of information there. Good Articles are not based off of size, they're based off of in-depthness and remember that good articles are there so people know if the article is something that they should trust. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 15:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm going to go on a limb and say I kind of agree with Macdonald-ross. I agree in terms that this article does look like a very ordinary page, while yes there's no "size" recommendation/requirement, if an article that has ample and extremely thorough information that article in turn would be relatively long (not massive, but pretty decently long). On a side note, I'm surprised it's even a GA on enwiki with it's short size per their GA standards seen on their main page. I can't see myself supporting an article for GA status that, according to the nominator, doesn't have much coverage. But I'd also like to say that I believe this nom was done in good faith and I don't believe it to be egocentric. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alright, have a mod close it. I'll work on it for a couple months or so, but I suppose it's not that ready yet. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Size is not a criterion for classifying an article as good. According to WP:GA?, p. 2, "The article must be fairly complete. Usually, articles should be a few kilobytes long, although shorter pages may also be nominated". The "fairly complete" is something that needs to be analyzed individually in relation to each theme. In the case of King Farn-Sasan, unfortunately there is not much record about his history. So that point has to be based on the amount of material available, based on what is known about him. If all possible information are available on the article, then it can be considered complete. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @A.WagnerC That is a fair point. Do you have any critique of the article? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MrMeAndMrMe To me the article looks good considering that on enwiki it is classified as GA. But history is not an area of study I have an affinity. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe I'd say the article is ready for promotion, the discussion has been cold for 4 months, and it's around the same length as on enwiki, which is classified as a GA. Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 21:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is absolutely nowhere near the standard for GA, and should not be promoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What guideline does it not meet? It meets all of them to me. Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apologies for any rudeness implied, @Macdonald-ross, but this is not constructive nor helpful at all. Please elaborate as your previous issues with said article were already addressed. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't have a ton of time to look through this and check every criteria but having a quick read through, it reads simple although perhaps the reason Mac opposed is because it does look really similar, at least at first, to the enwiki article...even if the language used is completely different.--Ferien (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not as if I was saying the article is poor. I'm just saying it doesn't impress me as a page we should put forward as being special. Think about the implications of "There's no book about him". Good grief! It's scarcely possible to find any historical figure who hasn't had a book written about them!!
I don't think it's possible to do much better about a person who article is virtually bereft of all that a biography would normally contain. It's not that I criticise our editor, I just don't think it a a good choice for a G.A. You have to know something about a person's character and what they did which was notable. The text has guesses where one expects supported data. There are only coins! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It technically meets the requirements as far as I can see, but a topic about which so little is known should not be the subject of a good article. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: This certainly meets the GA criteria, especially with the low standards on GAs on simplewiki. It is the same size as its enwiki article, which is also a GA. However, comparing to other simplewiki GAs, this seems to pale in comparison. Where on enwiki, the GAs are complete articles, here most GAs are short, but not this short. This just doesn't seem to compare to the other GAs, but that isn't too important in my opinion. Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 12:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The whole idea of G/VG pages is at stake here, because promoting it will look (and is, in my opinion) silly. Just think about "the only thing known about him is the coins he issued". And you want to make this a GA? It would look like we've lost all sense of proportion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposals closed recently[change source]

Bradley Winslow[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.
Bradley Winslow (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I created this article, and is leaps and bounds ahead of its enwiki article. I made sure that it had zero red links, and has a pretty clear citation style. I think it meets GA requirements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (I accidentally didn't mark 2 of them as minor edits), 6, 7, 8, and 9. I'd say it's ready for GA, except for some simplification.--Lallint (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wonderful article so far. I have done some simplification, linking and made a bit of it less monotonous. In the future, consider not using euphemisms as you did in "admitted to the bar". So far I think you just need some more simplification and it should be fine. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 17:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I couldn't really think of any other term for it, the term "admission to the bar" is a specific term that doesn't really have much else, and i linked to it's respective article (which I created) Lallint (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe:Could you (or someone else) link specific parts that should be simplified?
Also, I'd bet those enwiki suckers are frothing at the mouth, how we have a better article than theirs on an obscure war colonel who died a century ago! Lallint (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For "admission to the bar", I changed it to "was allowed to practice law". In sections such as Later Career, words such as "declined" could be fixed. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe:  Done Lallint (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe Could you do some sort of list that could specify which requirements it needs to meet, or specific changes that need to be done / specific sentences that should be rephrased? Lallint (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, is there some way that the images could be placed somewhere so they don't seep into external links? Lallint (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Admission to the Bar" is a specific term for barristers qualified to plead cases in the High Court. "Practicing law" is the term for solicitors, who may not (in general) plead cases in the High Court. Solicitors deal with clients, and instruct barristers. These terms may be used differently in different countries, so this note is just a rough outline. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was he a member of a political party? Lights and freedom (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every source I've checked doesn't mention any parties, just that he was in the New York State Senate Lallint (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint: I found this source: [2] which says "General Winslow is a stalwart Republican"; apparently written during his lifetime. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice catch! I thought that source was just a copy-paste of differing articles / sources, so I didn't read the whole thing because everything I read was already covered by another source. Good to see that source has something unique about it (in fact, that very source is the whole reason I found out about Winslow!) Lallint (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom I mentioned it in the article, and used the source provided at the bottom on the mentioned source Lallint (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint Great! Well, it is copied from one source (Our County and its people), but it looks like you already had that source. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom Also, a ton of sources mention that he attended Falley Seminary in 1851 and 1852, but that school is a girls-only school? Lallint (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint From History and Reunion of Falley Seminary, page 29: "The Fulton Female Seminary was incorporated [...] 1836. This was changed to the Fulton Academy [...] 1842, and opened to both sexes, and again changed [...] 1849, to the 'Falley Seminary of the Black River Conference'." I'm actually quite surprised, I didn't think there were schools for female clergy in the 19th century. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom Great, I mentioned that in the seminary's article. Is there any other things that should be mentioned in the Winslow article? Lallint (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom Could you put some recommendations for the article on the talk page? Lallint (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom One improvement that I recommend is using author-date cites more Lallint (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint I can't think of any other changes that should be made. I don't know if there are other books that talk about him. I think it's a good article, although it's shorter than most. I will wait for more experienced editors to respond. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom This source (Page 203) has loads of information about his military career, but I'm unsure if it's fit for the article. Do you think it would be fit? Lallint (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint I do think adding that material would be good. Right now, the article lacks specifics in some parts. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom All of it or just some, could you do that thing where GA reviewers state specific things that need to be fixed but instead of looking at the parts that need to be changed you look at the source and tell me what content should be added from said source? Lallint (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross You seem to be the only person who has contributed to this discussion who is still active on simplewiki, would you say the article is ready for promotion? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 18:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lallint: Here are a few things:

  • He was a member of the Black River Corps in Watertown. Many members of this corps joined the 35th New York Infantry Regiment. (p. 202, bottom right)
  • In October 1861, he captured Lieutenant H. J. Segal of Stuart's Cavalry, near Falls Church, Virginia. (p. 203, middle left)
  • Do you want to mention the battles of Cedar Mountain and Rappahannock Station in 1862? Maybe you decided to only mention them on 35th New York Infantry Regiment. It seems Winslow's regiment mostly just came at the retreat. (p. 203, bottom left)
  • I think Second Battle of Bull Run should be in the text if it's in the infobox.
  • He left the army in December 18, 1862, not 1861. The disease that caused this was said to be typhoid fever (p. 203, bottom left)
  • This sentence is probably too long: "On April 2, 1865, during the Siege of Petersburg, while trying to capture Fort Mahone, Winslow was shot below between his lower left ribs by a Minié ball, which passed through his body and came out on the right side near his spine."
  • In 1868, he became a brigadier-general in the (New York) National Guard, head of the 16th Brigade. (p. 203, bottom right). From nygenweb he served about 6 years.
  • From nygenweb he "conducted" the Northern New York Republican (a newspaper) after leaving the state senate. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom I have made the edits requested above, I will publish them once I create the pages that the article links to Lallint (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom I've made the edits, should it be changed? Lallint (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint Looks good! Lights and freedom (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say its ready for GA. Lallint (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom There is one more source that has ten very cool details (Just read it, you'll know which ones I'm talking about) that I think would be a really cool addition to the article from the New York Times, unfortunately it's on the Opinionator section so it is not a reliable source. It does cite sources, but I'm unsure how to access these sources or which sources are the ones that include the details Lallint (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It was an easy read for me except the last sentence in 'Early career and military career' section which reads "He chose not to and returned to Watertown, and became a lawyer again." I think changing it to clarify might be a good idea. Maybe something like 'He chose not to continue'. The rest is all good as far as I can see.--BRP ever 00:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BRPever I've reworded the sentence to "He left the army instead and returned to Watertown, and became a lawyer again". Would that be better or should it be something else? Lallint (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I think it's better.--BRP ever 00:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BRPever Would you say that the article is ready for GA promotion? Lallint (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I see no problems.--BRP ever 01:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BRPever Could the nomination be closed, or does there need to be more consensus? Lallint (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lallint I left a message on Simple Talk. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel this is way to short to be a good article. It needs a lot more context. It also shows an uncertain date cs1 error (CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty) {|date= parameters that hold whole dates (has a day, a month, and a year) between 1 October 1582 and 1 January 1926 inclusive.} - SDee EN:Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_39#metadata_dates_rfc - This may not be a full on error. But I do feel a lot more can be said about Mr. Winslow (as a history buff) he did play some major roles during the civil war. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb This is the USA after the 1750s-80s, so they would definitely be using the Gregorian calendar — that shouldn't be a problem. If you're interested and have time, you could look for more info about Winslow. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom I didn’t nominate the article so I shouldn’t have to find the information to make it a good article. It is long from being a good article based on our previous GAs. As far as the Gregorian calendar, it comes up as an error that needs to be fixed based on the requests that I mentioned. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. A GA should be error free and have no red links and no error cats. The expansion should and usually is the responsibility of the person who worked on it and nominated it. We can and should provide feedback. Look at Saturn. Lots of input on the talk page and on the GA nomination. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 05:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb Yes, what I said about adding more info was only a suggestion. The other thing might be more complicated, so I'll ask on your talk page. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb The RGA criteria 1 says that it needs to be fairly complete and more than a few kilobytes. It is certainly more than a few kilobytes, being 11, and it doesn't need to be long, just mostly complete. This is an obscure topic, so very little is known about him, but I made sure to check every book that mentioned him for any information so that the article can have most of the available information about him included. I'd say that it does meet the GA criteria, and even if there may be a few things missing, I'd say the article is mostly complete. Lallint (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is one thing, but I don't think it should be added to the article, it just really interests me for some reason, his coat that he wore during the war was auctioned off in 2011 for $5000. Lallint (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross @Lights and freedom @TDKR Chicago 101 I'd say the article is ready for promotion, this "unadded information" PDL speaks of is nowhere to be found, and all the information I could find by scowering all pages of google regarding him have been picked clean and added to the article. Lallint (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint: FYI, the article is more than a few kilobytes long, but it is only around 7 kilobytes. Remember that article length is determined by the text of the article; you don't count references, categories, infoboxes, images, related pages, other websites, etc. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 Would you support this articles promotion or are there issues? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've introduced a concept called "paragraphing", which I think is sometimes under-rated. Seriously, try not to present the reader with overwhelming blocks of prose. Remember that many or most of our readers are schoolchildren in an era where their reading is mainly done on screen. It's a much-better-than-average article, and you are to be congratulated for it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see I may have to say it in full: it is not so easy to read from the screen as it is to read from a book. The details of typography were worked out for print, and taken over into computer screens. There is a loss of legibility which translates as it being easier to read print than to read from a screen. This comment assumes the reader has suitable condition for reading, which might or might not be the case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross Thank you very much for your work on the article (I mean that sincerely, seeing someone improve something I take great pride in is always great to see), I was always thinking the article looked a little too cluttered, but splitting up the paragraphs didn't cross my mind somehow. Would you say it's ready to be promoted? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 20:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more thing, I would also like to move the images so they are above the references section, but in order for them to fit they would have to be sized down to a non-normal level. Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 20:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doing that would only increase the slabs-of-prose-problem. Illustrations are more important than people think, and to put them last suggests that you don't appreciate their role in motivation. Our readers are mainly schoolchildren (although I'm conscious that WP does almost no readership research!). Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross Is the article ready to be promoted? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 17:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross what about now? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 21:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I am sure it's good enough for GA now. I don't agree with PotsdamLamb that it's too short. The placement of the images is okay; it could only be changed if images were moved to the left. I'm not sure whether that is a good idea, but I don't necessarily oppose it. Great work here! Lights and freedom (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2022 (U*TC)
  • Support I'm happy, too. Just check about the word "mayor". US usage may be different from English usage, but I think the usage is Mayor when a specific person is meant, whereas "mayor" is more generic. Check with a good American dictionary. That aside, congratulations! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Did a read through it. While some things aren't especially simple given the subject matter being heavily military, I'd say it's about as good as I could reasonably expect. ~Junedude433talk 19:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Result: promoted - Seems to be general consesus that this is ready to become a good article. So I promoted it Eptalon (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Georg Philipp Telemann[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.
Georg Philipp Telemann (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Telemann was a gardener, poet, publisher, and most importantly, an extremely prolific composer. He was regarded by many as the leading German composer of his time, yet his popularity waned after heavy criticism of what people regarded as his emphasis of quantity over quality. His music has seen a resurgence since the middle of the 20th century. I think this article meets the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th GA criteria. As of writing this, there are still three red links that I will hopefully get to soon.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 03:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the article is adequate, the article itself could do with a lot more information. Very little of his life seems to be welly-documented, some small pieces of information that could be there is not. Also, one of the images are not captioned so that would be a thing to look at. I would also like to see some more interwiki links, such as in director. My final critique is the lack of references. While the amount of references is enough to pass for reliable, much of the entire page is published by one source: Oxford University Press. The section on Hamburg, for example, has only two sources. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe A lot of good Telemann scholarship is in German (see Georg Philipp Telemann und Seine Zeit and Telemann in Hamburg, not even previews are available). In fact, the book by Petzold I cited is a translation from German! Steve Zohn appears to be the leading English-speaking Telemann scholar. Another book of his about Telemann should be available through the Wikipedia library this June/July. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 03:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't think that this is necessarily a good thing, though. Exclusivity means that fewer people can access the story and anybody without the Wikipedia Library is unable to see this book. (And of course, Wikipedia is free and so I would think that it's most likely easier if we would not use our biggest source as a paid thing) MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point. However, I don't think that using paid sources should be the biggest concern. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did some expansion. Haven't touched on the Hamburg section (yet). I opened a discussion about the citation style in the article's talk page. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 23:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::::::I feel this is way to short to be a good article. It needs a lot more context. It also shows an uncertain date cs1 error (CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty) {|date= parameters that hold whole dates (has a day, a month, and a year) between 1 October 1582 and 1 January 1926 inclusive.} - SDee EN:Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_39#metadata_dates_rfc - This may not be a full on error. But I do feel a lot more can be said about Mr. Winslow (as a history buff) he did play some major roles during the civil war. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PotsdamLamb I have to disagree, Telemann was a very important composer of the Baroque period, well respected up until the 19th century. Yes, there are parts where it can be longer, but I haven't had time to work on this article. Also, where is this error coming from? I'm not seeing it. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fehufanga That so went in the wrong discussion. It is supposed to go above. I will strike it and move it up. Apologies. I should really have my coffee before logging on. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fehufanga This should have clued you in Mr. Winslow (as a history buff) he did play some major roles during the civil war lol PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb Ah, that's alright, I didn't really notice that part, I just nthought you were comparing this to the other nomination. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 00:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nopers! PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see any major problem with the article. There are few music related terms that should probably be linked after creating page or explained in the article itself, but other than that, I think we can promote this one.--BRP ever 06:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Result:Promoted - There is general consesus that this is a good artcle. Such articles are not set in stone, so if anyone feels like explaining terminology better, they still can do that. Eptalon (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Bob Dole[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.
Bob Dole (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Dole's article has been a personal target GA article over the past year. The article is in good shape, has some good simplification, everything is linked (no red links), good citations, good images used and each sections have the right amount of cited info. I find that the article meets all GA requirements for promotion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's weird saying good job to someone who is clearly much better of an editor than me and higher up in the simplewiki chain, but good job. It's long, the citations are good, and as you mentioned, there are 0 red links. However, I think that it could be simplified more. Some sentences, e.g. "The Doles lived in a house at 1035 North Maple in Russell and it remained his official residence during his political career", seem to be too complex. Other than that, I'm supporting this articles promotion. Lallint (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint: Thank you for the kind words! I've done some simplification works and minor rework now. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At first glance, this needs to be simpler. Quotes such as "Let me be the bridge to an America that only the unknowing call myth. Let me be the bridge to a time of tranquillity, faith, and confidence in action" are not simple or helpful. Most of the quotes should be edited into simple paraphrases or eliminated. There are longer sentences that can be broken down into two, short, simple sentences. Some vocabulary is complex. --Gotanda (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gotanda: How about now? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simple needs more GAs and VGAs, so it is great that you are working on them. However, they also require a lot of work from other editors. You have Christopher Plummer nominated at the same time. Pick one please. Jimmy Carter and Jacinda Ardern were started and then dropped. It would be great to go back and finish those based on the input and time given to those two nominations. Finally, I recently went through the Jackie O article and fixed up numerous errors, especially with quotes. Some were just plain incorrect. Using quotes is a problem. Simplifying them is hard to do. Sometimes your simplifications lead to very different meanings. I looked over the last ten or so edits you made, and many of the simplifications are great. However, in changing the wording you now have Clinton causing the government shutdown. This is a significant change in meaning. Editors cannot give this level of attention to multiple noms, and our work on the previous noms seems to be abandoned. --Gotanda (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, I have always interpreted that one nom is allowed for GA and VGAs, the requirement to nominate one VGA or one GA only isn't clearly stated so if this is an issue maybe add it to the requirements. Secondly, I abandoned Ardern and Carter because of the very nominations. I saw that the feedback you gave and realized it was more complicated to fix the article for VGA/GA standards so that's why I didn't go back to them. Thirdly, I'm not expecting editors to fix the articles for me/give their entire attention to them, sure one specific example would be nice so I have a general idea what to work on is nice, but a general note is always appreciated. I am focusing on Plummer and Dole since I have also worked on them before. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen things that are complicated, maybe instead of Congressional, maybe said like Picture from the Congress and just break up some words, it might help! Yodas henchman (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No action on this in almost two months. The nominator has abandoned it. Time to remove from queue. --Gotanda (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result:Promoted - I looked at the article; in general, it meets the PGA criteria, so I promoted it. For the issues that are left: they can be fixed later. Note that this is only possible, because we are talking about good articles - with very good articles this would not be possible.
Eptalon (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Nineteen Eighty-Four[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.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well, it's well written and as far as I can see it is up to standard. Also, it's kept its relevance in the present day. A Party which uses control of television to present entirely one-sided propaganda and carries its control of information to unthinkable lengths... Of course, Orwell based it on the totalitarian governments which were fairly novel at the time. It has been adapted for television and radio, but I don't think that is important. What is important is whether we think this does justice to the book. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has mostly the same problems as Minecraft. There are entire unreferenced sections, could use more images, and could have a larger reception section. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 16:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is surpisingly well-written; contrary to other articles, the language is really simple. I don't know, should we mention, that the book has been compared to other similar books (Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, published 1932; perhaps The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, published in the 1980s?). I think its a very good start, and with only a little effort, we can make it a good article.--Eptalon (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with MrMeAndMrMe.
  1.  Done Duh
  2. X mark.svg Not done Reception is very short, Ideas could also use a tiny bit of expansion
  3.  Done 192 revisions as of now, seems like quite a lot of revisions
  4.  Done Probably another category could be added, but to me it seems categorized enough
  5.  On hold let's wait until the expansion is done for this
  6. X mark.svg Not done Seven red links, six of them are in the infobox. Not very many though, shouldn't take too long to patch 'em up
  7.  Done by definition, but I think at least one more image should be added
  8.  Done Unless I'm secretly unable to see Wikipedia cleanup templates, seems good
  9. X mark.svg Not done Plot, Setting, Newspeak and Ideas all have zero references
So i'd say that it is ready for PGA, but I think it needs more content and just a few less red links. Then, I'd say, it will be ready for GA. Lallint (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A very well-written page. I have gone through some of the paragraph and I find that it indeed meets the standard in terms of writing quality and overall. The plot and the setting sections have no references so some work there will definitely help. Other than that, I think it's already there.-BRP ever 06:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is one brief mention of the basis for this novel: “as a show-up of the perversions . . . which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism” — probably focusing on the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. This article should describe the ways in which the novel reflects these regimes. Animal Farm is a more straightforward allegory, but 1984 is more complex and its references should be elucidated. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just don't know why we all thought this was well written. I've only looked at the intro, and had to rewrite most of it. What can we be thinking? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
literally 1984, but yeah, perhaps this is on a long road to being a good article. Looks OK. Derpdart56 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I have not worked much on this one. It can be closed as not promoted. The book is increasingly important today, and I'm sorry not to have found enough time to work on it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: Not promoted. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Minecraft[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.

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

I think this article fits some of the requirements. It is somewhat in-depth, and has relevant information. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, not at all ready.
1.  Done Yup, of course it follows this.
2. X mark.svg Not done There is no significant mention of reception, which could be mentioned.
3. X mark.svg Not done The last few edits are from vandals and reverts. The last edit you've made was last month, and that was also reverting a GFE. I don't think this counts.
4.  Done Yup, that looks good.
5. X mark.svg Not done, the last few edits are reverts from vandals
6. X mark.svg Not done, There are multiple redlinks
7. X mark.svg Not done, while the two images are fine, more could be provided
8.  Done, no problems, though more citations could be provided, see also 9
9. X mark.svg Not done The entire gameplay and community sections, which take up pretty much the entire article, has not a single reference. Needs lots more references to qualify.
Yeah, this needs some work before it'll qualify to even be PGA, much less GA. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could an admin close this? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 16:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
alright, sorry for the wait. --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with MrMeAndMrMe

1. Too much unreferenced content.
2. Some references are not formatted. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A quick glance and I noticed sections without references. That's a no-go for a GA, maybe work on adding some reliable sources first :). A positive note is that most of the sections (currently) looks good with information IMO, maybe add a reception section per MrMeAndMrMe. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: Not promoted at this time. --Ferien (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Willis Tower[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.

Willis Tower (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The architectural gem in Chicago, the Willis Tower's article has been properly expanded with simplification work (with the average readability consensus of 7-8th grade), properly sourced and has well fleshed out information of the structure throughout the tower. No red links and every source has been thoroughly vetted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Very good start, I think you are almost there. I made two or three minor changes. The only thing that I can say is that reading fluency in the second half of the article seems to be a little worse than in the first part (Please re-check with a native speaker?)--Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say starting at the section 'After opening'. But again: The only thing I can say is that fluencey seems to be less. I can't pinpoint you to things to actually change. Also keep in mind, I am not a native speaker, so my view may be flawed. --Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon: Gotcha. I've already reworked some sentences since your first comment was made. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, since the nominator have multiple proposals. Not only this is breaking the guidelines, it also stresses the system. We also cannot let him get away with this since it would be unfair for other nominators. Feel free to contact me once all but one proposal is removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I feel that this article might be less complicated than Ardern's for GA, so I think I'll withdraw Ardern's GA nom and focus on Willis Tower being promoted to GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well then, I would archive the section for you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: Unless you think otherwise? Which one do you think has the best shot? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you should choose it for yourselves. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @BRPever: & @CactiStaccingCrane: I appreciate and really thank you warmly for your Ardern GA comments and edits, but Willis Tower I feel might have a better chance (less controversial in terms of article quality) at getting GA promoted. Whenever you can could you give it a look/provide comments? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes I will! However, you still have 3 more proposals, 2 at PVGA and 1 here. You should get rid of two of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks @CactiStaccingCrane:! I think having one at VGA (Kennedy) and one at GA (Willis Tower) is not bad let alone should hinder a nomination. Having two under each (VGA: Carter & Kennedy and GA: Willis Tower & Ardern) I can see why that'd be overwhelming. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's a bit of info at the top of this section that said You may have one nomination open at a time only. I think that this would apply to both proposals as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane: I took it as one nomination per status like one nom for VGA and one nom for GA. The full thing says "To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. With this context it is saying one nom for solely GA status not both VGA and GA which is why I think one nom here (Willis Tower) and one nom VGA (Jackie Kennedy) should be good. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I has given my opinion about this here CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No worries! Are we all good in having Willis Tower for GA and Jackie Kennedy for VGA? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think yes! However, do keep in mind that more proposal meant the reviewing process is slower. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane: Yeah, I've gotten use to that :( However as long as I get some feedback and keep this nomination from going stale (getting some votes/feedback) I'm okay with that! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon @CactiStaccingCrane, I went through the article and came across no major flaws. It seems to meet all the GA criteria. Do you guys still have any concerns? If not, I will go ahead and promote this one. If there are any concerns, we can discuss them here. Thanks-BRP ever 03:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BRPever: Thank you for your feedback and edits. I'm open to fix on any issues and get this article promoted soon! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No major concerns, although I gonna do some minor touchups. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: & @BRPever: Thank you very much for this feedback, I cannot express my gratitude for you both! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: Consensus to Promote. The discussion has been open for over three months now and it looks like all the concerns have been already been resolved, so I am promoting this one. Minor changes if/where necessary can be made to the page at any time, and major changes can be discussed on the talk page before adding it to the article. Thanks -BRP ever 00:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Sentō[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.

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

The article is about the most popular bath in Japan. I created the article and Darkfrog24 did the main work. Add authoritative sources, many illustrations, no red-links, a pretty simple language. Frontfrog (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this article meets our criteria. It's about a culturally important thing. It's got a balance of sources, good images, good text, gets to the point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ran the text through a reading ease gizmo [3]
  • Flesch Reading Ease score: 75.4 (text scale): fairly easy to read.
  • Gunning Fog: 7.5 (text scale): fairly easy to read.
  • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 6.2: Sixth Grade.
  • The Coleman-Liau Index: 6: Sixth Grade
  • The SMOG Index: 5.9: Sixth Grade
  • Automated Readability Index: 4.8: Grade level: 8-9 yrs. old (Fourth and Fifth graders)
  • Linsear Write Formula : 6.8
Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have either removed or found different sourcing for all the facts attributed to Cool JP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per my comment at Coldplay nomination: I think you aren't intentional about this, but nominating many articles to PGA and PVGA are not a good thing to do. You should only have one nomination open at the time. I suggest you close this nomination since it would takes a ton of time to make it good. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that there are only 1 proposal, I honestly think the article is pretty good for GA. Lots of information has been extracted, and show an almost complete picture of sentō. Overall, I would support this proposal for GA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a really good start. However, I think with an article around that size, that there would be a few more references, so in short I don't think the article is ready yet, but keep up the good work! --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@つがる The article looks properly sourced. In topics like this, which is generally just facts, lengthy reference lists is usually just plus. Are they any statements that you would like to see more appropriately sourced?-- BRP ever 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, perhaps I am being too picky here, I don't object then. I just thought it would be better to have a few more references. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: Concensus to Promote. After the discussion that lasted for more than 3 months, there doesn't seem to be any remaining concern against promoting the article. On the contrary, there are several comments in favor of promoting the article.-BRP ever 00:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Kabuki[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.

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

I’ve looked at this article and found it interesting. I meets all of the requirements for a GA, however, at the bottom was a dance navigation box that could be eliminated since it is almost red. It started as a school project in 2009 and has developed since then. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 08:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Maybe need some more sources but in general it's a wonderful article. Frontfrog (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, it's a very interesting topic, but I'm not sure why it is being proposed. It is virtually unchanged for the last six months. Is the proposer saying it has been of the standard all along? The whole point of the discussion is to improve the articles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I looked at it today. There's a lot of work needed of the copy-editor type. One example: "Shōwa period" was present without the nihongo flat thing on top. And when the thingy is in, it links OK. Without, it doesn't link. Obviously we can look at it from the point of view of non-Japanese speakers. It uses American English spellings for what is an international topic. Anyway, there's going to be lots of detailed copy-editing needed here, so it awaits someone prepared to do it. It cannot be promoted without that work. Macdonald-ross (talk)
One change needed is to delete the dance box for a theatre box. It should be obvious that kabuki is primarily a form of theatre. In any event, large boxes should be set closed rather than open as they tend to distract the reader. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Who will undertake to edit this article if PotsdamLamb left SE Wiki? Frontfrog (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm giving the copyediting a go, but the section on commonly used kabuki words has no sources and I can't tell what's going on with it. To be clearer: The information does not make sense, and without a source to click on, I can't fix it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I read it and I think it can be longer (especially in history section). And need to add references. Then the article will be easier to promote. Frontfrog (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Forgot to say that I added information in history section and sub-headings. Will be add sources some time later and info. I'm still a little busy. Will be glad if someone help with expansion. Frontfrog (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it won't work.... Frontfrog (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the idea is a good one, however the article still needing some work. I am still working on Kimono, after that I will fix the Kabuki one, --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found many problems with the references:
  • Kabuki. Independent administrative agency Japan Art Council. Retrieved on 7 July 2009. too vague, where is it? Is it a website, or a place you can visit? What exactly is Kabuki? Is it the name of the place, or the agency's building?
  • Fukube, Satio, Hirosue, Mamoru and Tomita, Tetsunosuke. (2000). Kyougenziten. Heibonsya, Japan. too vague.
  • BIGLOBE encyclopedia. NEC BIGLOBE. Retrieved on 26 June 2009. citing another encyclopedia is strictly not allowed here.
  • SmaSTATION-5. TV-Asahi. Retrieved on 4th June 2009. I cannot verify this, but I assume that the author don't try to be deceiving.
  • Theater Guide Online. Theater Guide. Retrieved on 9th July 2009. super vague, per above
  • Encyclopedia. Heibonsya, Japan. (1996) above
  • Inside Japan. Kabuki no Ohanashi (Hibino, Saito). Retrieved on 20 May 2009. Probably ok, but I don't know what fact is it trying to support CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the reference section need extensive editing to be able to pass GA. Other than that, great job on your text and grammar! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn, check [4].

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.

Coldplay[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.

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

It's good written but has a lot of red links. Maybe it will not so big problem for future. Frontfrog (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • A lot of content is missing actually. we need to start by updating the article first. The recent albums and events need to be added, so I would suggest withdrawing this nomination and working on the article a bit more before bringing it here again.-BRP ever 14:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Frontfrog I think you aren't intentional about this, but nominating many articles to PGA and PVGA are not a good thing to do. You should only have one nomination open at the time. I suggest you close this nomination since it would takes a ton of time to make it good. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CactStaccingCrane I think Coldplay may be not promoted. But Sento and Neptune need to save. Especially Sento. :Frontfrog (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you should propose only 1 article at the time. After a proposal is finished, you can move to another one. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's only 1, then sento. Frontfrog (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, archiving the rest now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn, check [5].

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]