Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

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

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.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a GA. ~~~~

João Cancelo[change source]

João Cancelo (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Many articles still need to be made. Other than that, I think it has the potential to be GA within the next few weeks. ShadowBallX (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Neptune[change source]

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

Together, we can make this article good. Frontfrog (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, I think it is already good. I would think it right to promote once others have had a look. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There are many unsourced statements. Just a comment. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Logic gate[change source]

Logic gate (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Very simple compared to the English ver and gets the job done. Has pictures, captions, tables, et.c to get the point across better. Paradox Marvin (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • No, just no. This article is way too short, and it lacks a lot of information. It doesn't really explain what they are or what their uses are. Since you want to compare it to the standard English Wikipedia's version, that version has several more sections that describe the history and development, applications, similar tools, etc. that this version does not. This is a hard no for me. ~Junedude433talk 15:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Article not fleshed-out and does not contain a single source. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think this is too far from GA status to be considered here. For one, it has no sources, which means it could not be made a GA in anything like the current state. --IWI (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  (change conflict)   Comment - A good article is supposed to be some of our better-best work, not just something that just "gets the job done". Every article should "get the job done", but good articles need to do more than that. And as IWI states, there aren't even any sources, so it's hardly job done. Just a comment. --Belwine💬📜 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • NO! Obvious. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Black hole[change source]

Black hole (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Pretty obviously a good article on a difficult science topic. Also, it's in an area where we have far too few GAs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I think its a good, to very good start; I added a section on properties of black holes, all at the end. We need to look at the sectioning a little (for example 'Primordial black holes' is a candidate to be merged somethere, it's just a sentence). Hinging on the fact that black holes have only three measurable properties, it would perhaps be good to mention Karl Schwarzschild, who also did some pioneering work on black holes (shortly before his death, he died in 1916, after being wounded in the first world war, 2 months after returning from the front, of an autoimmune disease of the skin). Anyway, good start, may need a little cleanup work though.--Eptalon (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Good start for sure and I would love this article to be promoted to GA however there are some sections of the article that are unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to ask: do others find the moving image as irritating as I do? Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Should the blackhole classification by Schwartzchild radius be included? (see EnWP article) It does make sense of the intuitively strange feature that small black holes are much denser than large black holes, to the extent that really large one are less dense than main sequence stars... Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    Adding the pieces of information (5 classes, AFAIK) would certainly be interesting (And the section 'Supermassive black holes' would be demoted one or two levels, as they are one of the five). I don't know where the classification is from, to me it looks arbitrary. A black hold with the mass of the moon has a Schwarzsxchild radius of about 1/10th of a millimetre? (Called 'Micro black hole')? I think this depends whether scientists agree on these values/names/definitions, and wether we findf a publication that mentions them. If we haven't already, taking and simplifying the 'Open questions' from EnWP would probably also make sense...--Eptalon (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure my physics is up to editing this article in detail. I know it's not! I proposed the page for GA, not because I had much to do with it, but simply because I thought it merited the promotion as it was (barring any simple changes). If that's not so then we're going to have difficulty in promoting any articles on physics. The thought occurs to me that it might be sensible to ask one or two people from En wiki to help us here. I really don't want us to get into the position where only, say, biographies of politicians are going to be promoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not a physicist either. I don't think the idea of the project is that only specialists can contribute. Especially with GA-level, this shouldn't be an issue (at VGA-level we could discuss about completeness). Would leaving out the classification (as there are doubts) allow us to promote, provided all other issues are taken care of?--Eptalon (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to add sources to sections which at present have none. I think the general text is good for GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Now all main sections have sources, but not all paragraphs. Can editors look at the text to see if any statements need more support. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Arthur (2020)[change source]

Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia. This article is in the en.wiki and did cause some damage, so it is notable.
The article must be fairly complete. This article is almost 25,000 bytes long.
The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. User:Darkfrog24 helped me simplify the article. If you look, there are also quite a few revisions.
The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. This article has multiple interwiki links and is filed in appropriate categories.
The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). This is true, the last few revisions were simplification and grammar fixing.
All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. Important terms are linked to their respective articles. To the best of my knowledge, there are no red links.
If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. Of the three illustrations, 2 are pictures of the storm, and one is its path.
There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. There are no templates, nor does the article need them.
Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. There are 38 references.

This article meets all of the criteria and is well and simply written. Please consider it, as I have put a lot of time into improving it and getting it to this wiki's standards. Thank you for your time. CodingCyclone (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"see also" "external link" --> These are signs of copy paste from enwp, please simplify the page completely before nominating, thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed those. If you can, are there any other things I should change? Thanks. 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
No. We don't use other articles and outside links. We use related pages and other websites. Please read MOS again in depth, this can't be accepted as normal article, let alone GA. It's not easy, but we are significantly different from enwp, will leave some links on your talk, read them carefully and happy editing first before GA. CM-Public (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There are many examples of links to enwiki within the article. All of these need to be changed to local links, and if none exists then it has to be created. --IWI (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Readability scores[change source]

  • The Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score is 71.4 - (70.0+ = Fairly easy to read)
  • The Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 6.6th grade
  • The Gunning Fog index is 7.3 (fairly easy to read)
  • The Coleman-Liau index is 8
  • The SMOG index is 6.9 (Seventh grade)
  • The automated readability index is 5.6 (10-11 year olds; fifth and sixth graders)
  • Overall readability consensus - Grade level: 7; Reading level: fairly easy to read; Reader's age: 11-13 yrs old (Sixth and Seventh graders)

(note: used this website and copied the main text of the article. I ignored the infobox, table of contents, the section and sub-section titles, and the references. I also deleted the artifacts of the references (i.e. [3], [9], [23] etc.))

I read through the article and, while I think it is rather short, it is pretty complete in its information. This is one of those types of articles where there simply is not much information to include. I think the simplification is pretty good considering the topic. I still have mixed feelings about it though. It meets the requirements, but it doesn't really feel like a Good Article to me, and I don't really know why (probably the length). If other users feel that this is a Good Article, you can consider me a supporter, but it may be tough to convince the others. ~Junedude433talk 15:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The first paragraph does not run smoothly. Even if prose scores well on readability tests, it still needs to read smoothly. There's not much substance in the article, really. Notable, but not particularly interesting to read. I think it's not going to make it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oxygen[change source]

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

I nominated this article a while back. I have cleared the non-person red links and would be open for ideas on how to improve it further. IWI (chat) 20:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If possible, get rid of the red-links in the footnotes/citations? - There's generally no need to link authors, journals or publishers...--Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Will do. IWI (chat) 21:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Apart from two that I can't change, I have done it. Is there anything further that can be done. IWI (chat) 21:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Uses: Metallurgy: Making steel, welding, cleaning wastewater, Zinc–air battery; food additive E948, Carbon dioxide which is added to almost every drink? --Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes the uses could be added to. I will add your points thank you. IWI (chat) 21:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I have added an "industrial" section to the uses and also created a "compound" section. The enwiki doesn't mention E948 so I've left that out. I breifly mentioned CO2 being used in drinks, but the uses section is really for how oxygen is used on its own. Thoughts? IWI (chat) 14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You said that you cleared all of the non-person red links, but I found plenty, particularly in the infobox. I just created pages for two of them: the p-block and the element category. Please try to create pages (they can even be stubs!) for all of the red links. ~Junedude433talk 15:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Junedude433: The infobox is not technically the article. In the new sections that I created after that comment there are some red links that need clearing. IWI (chat) 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Regardless, I don't think an article should be a GA unless all red links are gone. I know that it might not technically be part of the criteria, but unofficially, it should be. ~Junedude433talk 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Junedude433: You are right, I will clear them. IWI (chat) 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you TDKR Chicago 101; can you see any possible improvements? IWI (chat) 20:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You're all nowhere with this one because you haven't asked (let alone answered) the difficult questions. Look at reference #2: what a joke! You haven't asked or answered why the Earth has so much oxygen. Ask yourself where it comes from. Oxygen is very reactive. Why doesn't it just react with everything else and disappear as a gas? (It's all here on this wiki, but not on this page). What does it benefit us to eliminate red links and leave all the real issues not just unanswered, but unasked? (though I would accept that much so-called science taught at school level is similarly defective). Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
True, that reference is not good. It looks like this was added recently by another user. I thank you for pointing this out. I will remove the reference. As nobody had pointed out that this was something that should have been included, I hadn’t considered adding it. More should definitley be said about why the Earth has so much oxygen. I wrote what is currently on the page using much of what is on the enwiki article, and thus some information is on subpages over there. IWI (chat) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This proposal appears to have lost traction, pinging the editors who have been involved in this: ImprovedWikiImprovment, Eptalon, Junedude433, TDKR Chicago 101, Macdonald-ross. Chenzw  Talk  15:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment:Yes, I'm sorry about the bad reference. I wouldn't normally leave any reference in the lead, but the problem was that my edit was contradicting the previous "consensus" by changing "all life" to "most life". Then I couldn't find where respiration was covered later in the main body of the article, so I popped over to anaerobic respiration for a reference from there but the only reference was a broken link... I guess I just gave up at that point and left the problem for the next day (which never came). I apologise for the inconvenience.
"Respiration" occurs seven times in the article and "breath-" also occurs seven times, so I think that a section covering respiration is needed (enwiki has too much on this subject, in my view, but it is hard to know where to draw the line). Full disclosure: checking back through the revisions, it appears I was the one who introduced the erroneous "all life" in the first place, when I changed it from "animal life"... back when the article was proposed, it said "most life", as it does now (and I'm not sure that's correct, thinking about fermentation). Anyway, if someone who understands biology could summarise the essentials in the body of the article, the lead should take care of itself.--GrounderUK (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm troubled by the balance between the intro and the body of this page. The intro is long and sources are only placed in the body of the article. That is OK, so long as the body carries the weight adequately. However, there is still an obvious looseness each time the unusual condition of the Earth is mentioned. Oxygen is a very unusual constituent of a planetary atmosphere, and I think it needs to be asked and explained what it's doing there. Children take it for granted, but a scientist cannot. The sources are all on this wiki, but not in the intro, and only partly on this page. I mean, Venus has a CO2 atmosphere, doesn't it? One thing I can suggest is the page Great Oxygenation Event, which deals with the arrival of mass oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Incidentally, I notice we don't have a simple category called "oxygen", nor one called "carbon dioxide". We should. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
On this topic, see Air as well as Great Oxygenation Event. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
And Atmosphere of Earth#History of Earth's atmosphere. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • To find a better balance, we should aim for at least 4-5 sentences per section/heading. Look at the EnWP article (which is a featured article), to get some ideas of what to take. --Eptalon (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    I think this one's a fail. I can see too many sentences which are overlong and unclear. It was pretty ambitious to propose it, but, being sort of acceptable is not enough. Sorry. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. :) --IWI (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez[change source]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became an unexpected political celebrity following her upset victory back in the 2018 midterm primary. She has since then been a very vocal U.S. Congresswoman calling for a Green New Deal and reforming America's immigration laws. From bartender to the youngest woman ever elected to Congress her political career has been unorthodox, but accomplishing nonetheless. The article has been expanded with no redlinks and good amount of sourcing with sufficient simplification. As a result, I feel that with the article's good shape it would be an excellent addition to our community's Good Articles. Of course some work will be needed but as my Reagan, Sanders, Corbyn and Rogers nominations went, I work best when given specific areas where improvement is needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for this fine piece of work. I support the passing of GA. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Bit of work to do on this one. Have added some comments on the talk page. Will add more later this week.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I tentatively support this one when it becomes a bit more simplified. Everything else checks out pretty well.~Junedude433talk 02:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Junedude433: Any specific areas that needs simplification? This will help me find target regions that need work --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed the sections Early Life and Political Views need the most simplification but I'm not at all skilled with that thing but it's good to have a shot Dibbydib (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dibbydib:: Thank you for your input and I'll definitely take a look! What areas did you find specifically that looked off or not simplified? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have only given a quick look, and I think it is in generally good shape. One of the issues I found (which is not in the criteria) is the following: When using references don't link authors or publishers. It only adds a red link, and the need to create an article, when this ever goes to VGA status. As to newspapers: we do have an international readership, so except perhaps for the top 5 to top 10 US newspapers (by circulation), the reader won't recognise the reference. The added information value is very small. As I don't know the US media market, I can't tell you which of the links to keep, and which ones to remove. What I am trying to say is: It is very likely that a link to an author or publisher only generates extra work, and adds little to no information.--Eptalon (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This still needs quite a bit of simplification. Here is one example of idiomatic language that loses meaning without context, "She said that 80% of her campaign worked out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind the eatery's bar." In the original article that this is pulled from, there is more to explain what this means. Here it is complex and unclear what exactly "the campaign" means or what it means to work out of a paper bag. --Gotanda (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: I gave the sentence some context and reworded it. Thank you for this specific example. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't really address the idiomatic uses and is still unclear. In addition, now it is presented as a quote but this is not a direct quote from the cited article. There is still lots of low frequency vocabulary used that needs to be simplified. Fart, mockery, sham, clout, sophomore, ethic, stunt, premiere, and more. Many of these come in from quotes. A vocabulary profiler such as [1] can help you identify all of the low frequency words that need simplification.
Paraphrasing rather than quoting is more work, but is simpler. for example:
  • policies that "...most closely resemble what we see in the United Kingdom, in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden."
  • policies that are like those in the United Kingdom, Norway, Finland, and Sweden --Gotanda (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: Ah I see, thank you for the specific example and I'll start fixing the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: Made a few adjustments now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: Please see my recent edits. Some of your recent changes drastically change the meaning when you are trying to simplify. I may get to your other recent edits, but please review them again yourself. --Gotanda (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: - I am currently reviewing the article. Keep an eye on the article's talk page. --Yottie =talk= 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: Normally, I prefer that citations are not made in the introduction, but only in the body of the article, however the article looks good. Good job. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's been simplified enough for it to be a GA. I can support it as long as you continue to update it appropriately. This is about a living member of Congress, after all. However, based on your other articles, I don't really have any doubts that you will continue to update it. Good job! ~Junedude433talk 00:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you @Junedude433: I always keep tabs on Corbyn, Sanders and now AOC. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is ready because it could be much simpler and I have questions about the editing of passages. The very first concern I raised has not been addressed. If anything the changes made it less accurate. The expressive and idiomatic passage about operating out of a paper bag hasn't been simplified. The changes have made the quote from the article inaccurate. See the ref, "“For 80 percent of this campaign, I operated out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind that bar.”" See the article, ""80% of her campaign worked out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind the eatery's bar"". Quotes must be exact. This is changed and actually changes the meaning significantly. The article relies too much on quotes. This over-reliance makes it more complex and the quotes need checking to see if others have been edited from the originals as well.
The other concern I have is just general simplification. A few examples, but there are many more:
  • "Their plan called for adding the "social cost of carbon" that was part of the Obama administration's plans to fix climate change." What is the 'called for' here? "Social cost of carbon" is not explained at all.
  • "In May 2020, Ocasio-Cortez was picked by then-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to lead his climate task force to help his campaign talk about climate change related problems and solutions." Long, passive, and includes complex vocabulary. Yes, presumptive is linked but it isn't necessary; expected works. But this is a typical example of what needs work. Every long sentence needs to be broken down.
  • "On August 10, it was confirmed that she would speak at the convention on the second day on August 18." Vague passive. Who confirmed? AAA announced that AOC would ....
  • "She said that sees social media as a "public health risk."" Idiomatic use of sees for thinks.
  • Many more throughout. --Gotanda (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: I shortened some sentences and addressed the issues above. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
TDKR Chicago, I can see that you care about this subject and are highly motivated to get this promoted, but you have not fully addressed the issues and in some cases recent edits continue to make the article less accurate by changing the meaning when simplifying. At a rough count (ctrl-f for quotation marks) there are about 50 quoted words or passages. Sometimes, like emphasizing the nickname Sandy, that is fine and good. But the continuous use of quotes is not very encyclopedic in approach. Simple summaries are much better. Next, some of the new changes are just inaccurate. In trying to fix the bag passage, you now have her taking buttons out of a bag. That is not in the cited article. Why is this bag so important? Next, you simplified social cost of carbon to an increase price for carbon usage, but that is not what SCC is. SCC is "The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate, in dollars, of the economic damages that would result from emitting one additional ton of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The SCC puts the effects of climate change into economic terms to help policymakers and other decisionmakers understand the economic impacts of decisions that would increase or decrease emissions." It is used to make investment decisions. It is not a carbon tax or price increase. Previously you reversed the meaning of deficit spending. The repeated errors and changes in simplification make me question the accuracy of the rest of the article. I think this will need a thorough and careful check before any promotion. --Gotanda (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@Gotanda: No no I am trying like with my other noms its just that your comments confuse me, sometimes the quotations are okay but then its not okay to have quotations? I did, and you can compare to older versions of the article, that I have shortened sentences per your comments. With the quote with the bag and the campaign has been an issue before where I've had comments to either keep it as it is, then simplify quote, then reword it and then to just remove the quotations altogether. If quotations are an issue I need specific examples (as I work best with specifics as I accomplished with Reagan, Sanders, Corbyn and Rogers). I'm pretty proud for the Sandy sentence as that was another issue raised. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The bag passage. First the quote was long and idiomatic and therefore complex. Then, you tried to simplify it, but you changed the words and the meaning while still keeping it in quotation marks. That is not how quotations work. They must be word for word the same. And, as you changed it several times you have changed the meaning. No buttons are mentioned in the cited article. Removed for now. What remains is Her campaign was small. If you think it is important to say that she operated her campaign from a bar where she worked, write that.
ls I wrote above, the one word like AOC, Sandy, or socialism are fine. I gave you a specific example above. I can give you more, but really most of them. But when paraphrasing it is important not to change the meaning.
"putting their whole lives and everything that they had on the line for the protection of their community" (Putting X on the line id
"You can't really beat big money with more money. You have to beat them with a totally different game." Again, "big money" is short for money in politics. Game is metaphorical. Simplify in a paraphrase.
Then, a whole string of quotes about her win. I guess that is to show how surprised people were. Just explain that. One is definitely not necessary. Time called her victory "the biggest upset of the 2018 elections so far". It is 2020, quoting something so far is not needed that far in the past.
There was a longer quote which now just ends in "media failure". JUst paraphrase the whole thin and use simple active verbs. Also, commentator is not so simple. Many commentators saw how no one paid attention to her primary campaign and called it a "media failure."' Suggest: Many writers said that the news media failed because it did not pay attention to her campaign.
This sentence has gotten a bit mangled by trying to simplify within quotes rather than paraphrasing the whole thing. She began her career with a popular social media, following "as much social media [followers] as her fellow [newly elected] Democrats [put together]." Your passage now has AOC following many people, but that is not what the article says. Suggest going to the report cited by Axios and just using the numbers. AOC had X. The 60 other new members of congress had Y total.
I don't have time to listen to a podcast to verify the next one about public health risk. Seems to again be metaphorical. Was she talking about literal public health or the condition of discourse in the country. Suggest She believes that social media is a very bad for politics. but not sure if that is what she said or meant. A text based ref would be easier to check.
That is a whole string of them. But there are many more. --22:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
So, to summarise the above (which I did not write): the idiomatic use of language may mean this is not simple English. Why? Because it requires a fairly deep understanding of phrases which are not to be taken [=understood] at face value. You see in this apparently simple sentence how the work "taken" is not simple. That runs through and through this article. I think there is no problem with occasional metaphorical phrases, but this article is absolutely full of them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've been struggling to find a way of describing what is wrong with her language. In principle, it is good to have quotations. Yet I'm sure we are right to think they would not be understood by a learner of the English language. What she has done is to phrase everything so as to manipulate the listener by using key emotive terms instead of basic-meaning terms. This is typical of many politicians on the campaign trail, but her case is really extreme. More neutral-worded assessments from independent neutral sources would help, though I can well believe they are hard to find in this case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally (but very notably), the case against Donald Trump rests on the use of figurative (or really intended) language. We can expect this issue to be prominent in the impeachment trial. Hitler is a good example of really intended future actions being read as metaphorical. Stalin's refusal to believe reports of German preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union is an example of misreading even practical preparations. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: So to simplify this feedback (the first one): there's some rephrasing to be done on her quotes. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the content is good, and improved. I am concerned with the figurative use of language only because it is so often misread. Many Germans were shocked to find Hitler actually meant what he said. They thought he was speaking figuratively! In the last resort our pages are meant to be literally true. We have to be in favour of literal meaning because it is the primary use of language, and what children learn first. I think we may have not said this explicitly when we were discussing Simple English some years ago. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
A quick check shows our criteria pages for GA and VGA do not mention this (above) issue. They should, I think. But as they stand, you can reasonably claim that they make the grade. For me, personally, I think we do need to say something like "metaphorical meanings are explained in simple terms" or some such. And we need to say it in the rules for GA and VGA. In conversation even a silence can be very meaningful! And not saying things in a treaty has the consequence that parties to the treaty believe that which is not prohibited is allowed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
If we are using direct quotes we should not be rephrasing at all. If we are already paraphrasing then yes, use simple language when you are paraphrasing, but even here on Simple we are not supposed to alter direct quotes. It is literally the reason Simple Wikiquote got shutdown. -Djsasso (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Djsasso: & @Macdonald-ross: So I should remove direct quotes since they are constantly in need or paraphrasing or? Also aside from the quotation, is the article good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No need to remove them as direct quotes are fine. I might just be careful when I use them if it were me. Consider if they are necessary or just fluff. For example if a paragraph is talking specifically about something a person said that caused some sort of notable reaction then I would use the direct quote as it is important for context. If you are using it just to describe something they generally say, I would probably just paraphrase instead of a direct quote and then put a reference to an article with a quote that lines up with what you are claiming in your paraphrase. -Djsasso (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]