Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:PVGOOD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Very good articles are the highest status of articles at Simple English Wikipedia. In order to become a very good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles.

This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the VGA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pvgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed very good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{pvgood}} tag replaced with {{vgood}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Very good articles and are placed in Category:Very good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{vgood}} tag removed.

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

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for very good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comment. This process should not be taken lightly, and 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.

In order to make sure the article you are proposing meets the required size, use this tool. Please notice that the text size is important, not the wikitext size.

Archives[change source]

Proposals for very good articles[change source]

To propose an article for very 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 VGA. ~~~~

Lawrence, Kansas[change source]

Lawrence, Kansas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article for Lawrence certainly fulfilled the GA criteria, and I think it goes well beyond that. The article is very well sourced, formatted, has loads of content, (many of the pages it links to also aren't stubs). I think that it has potential to become a VGA. I think this should become the goal for any big city that would have a lot of content, instead of the usual articles we see that are barely a few paragraphs. I think some people may just need a bit of a guide on what a VGA for a city would look like on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I think this will help. ~Junedude433talk 22:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks very good! You did a lot of good work to get it to this state. I can see a couple of things I would improve. One is that I see at least one word, sector, that could be simplified (preferably not linked to Wiktionary). Another thing is that there are some more terms that could be linked, including temperance, the architectural styles that aren't already linked, urban development, household, the names of people and businesses in the 20th century section... There could be more, I can check better when I get my laptop back from the shop.
By the way, good and very good articles can be flagged in Wikidata so that they're highlighted in the languages list on other Wikipedias. I just took care of that for this page's good article status. We should be sure to update that if/when the article is promoted. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and linked to some of the pages you mentioned. However, I couldn't find the word "sector" used anywhere in the article. Could you please specify where you found this?
I also want to push back a bit on the 20th century section about the people and businesses. Many of those people and businesses are not relevant or important enough for their own articles. They were all local companies that never really expanded and didn't last very long. The people that did something more than just open a business or something are already linked. I put in as much information about them in the Lawrence article because I didn't have enough info (and didn't feel they were relevant enough) to justify making their own articles. The standard English Wikipedia also doesn't have articles on them presumably for the same reason. I may go back and create articles for some of the people mentioned during the 19th century though, but the 20th century didn't have many long-lasting, major events - just small snippets. ~Junedude433talk 20:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, if you think they aren't important enough to link, just leave them. I do wonder, if they aren't important enough to link, are they important enough to mention? But I'll leave that to you.
I don't see "sector" now, either. I don't know where I got that. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I think they are important enough to mention as a brief paragraph in a general article, but I don't think they are important enough on their own to justify an entire article about them. They made enough of an impact on a specific city that it's worth mentioning about in that city's article, just not enough on their own. This is especially true if they aren't even around any more.
On a somewhat related note, I am having a non-native English speaker friend of mine look through the article for anything that they didn't easily understand, so expect a few more simplification edits. ~Junedude433talk 22:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL comments[change source]

Before I start, I should just admit upfront to being a radical purist. I'd literally never include the word "scientist" in an article because it doesn't meet BE 850. Obviously I am not going to hold this article to such strict standards, but I am mentioning this because I will looking for high standards in meeting WP:COMPLEX. Also, since I have never participated in this process on enwiki, this is technically the first FA I've ever reviewed (well it's called VGA here, but you feel me). For future reference, these comments are direct at this version of the article.
  • While contractions are informal, they are not necessarily simpler. Please change these.
    • The word didn't appears 4 times.
    • couldn't and wasn't are both used twice.
  • Sometimes you use a big word when a shorter one could easily do:
  • On September 20, they made a constitution for Lawrence. You can say wrote.
  • Words you are free to delink (though you don't have to): women, children, law, disgusted, swimming
  • You should possibly consider linking: gazebo and charter.
  • Finally, the external link to The Replay Lounge's website needs to be removed.
Other concerns:
  • The lead is fine, but it wouldn't hurt to be expanded. Just skip this though if it seems like I've thrown too much at you. Like I said, it's fine at the moment. :)
  • The "Notable people" section is completely empty. However, you have to two options when dealing with this:
    • Summarize the main list article with people that generally always get mentioned from the town.
    • Delete the section header and move the links to the "See also" section (this is just what I would do).
    • Either way, the hatnote for List of University of Kansas people should be a {{Further}} rather than {{Main}} since you can't have two main articles like (I think).
That was obvious all pretty much the negative stuff. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the stuff you did right here. This is probably one of the best articles on simplewiki I have ever read here. You could not have found a better candidate for reviving this process with! It's prose is incredibly well-formatted and structured in the true simple-wiki style while not sacrificing anything in terms of quality.
Further, and this is important, it is comprehensive in its information. I seriously learned a lot about Lawrence, Kansas by reading this. I'm not left wanting (and even if I was, I'm giving the immediate location of further resources). This was a great effort so far, and the passion and dedication certainly shows throughout the article! Please keep making more like this (I'll collaborate on doing Hartford, Connecticut with you!!!!)
@Junedude433: Please address any of the above points at your pleasure! :D –MJLTalk 08:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: First of all, a very big thank you for leaving such detailed feedback! I had always hoped I could get a second pair of eyes on the article for simplification. This was basically the first real attempt of mine to do simple English, so I was just guessing for some of this.
I followed some of your advice for changes. I simplified boulder, cancelled, and changed "made" to "wrote" (don't know how that one never came to mind). I also delinked The Replay Lounge, and got rid of the contractions. The only thing I may push back on would be "discrimination." This type of discrimination isn't necessarily just simple "hatred against" but instead discrimination as used in a legal sense, that is denying someone a job, housing, etc. The law said nothing about making simple hatred (or hurtful comments or anything) illegal, just involving things like employment. I feel like "hatred against" isn't quite the right way to describe it. Considering this, what do you think?
I can't guarantee I can put as much passion into Hartford's article as I can with Lawrence's, I can make some improvements. My goal with this is to make a standard what a good city article should look like. This is so that if anyone else wants to make a city's article really good, they have a template to follow. I would be more interested in doing the same for a state. The two articles I have set my sights on are Kansas and History of Kansas. ~Junedude433talk 20:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Junedude433: I would say that I was in the wrong on the discrimination word replacement count. That's a well articulated reason!!
It is more than fair for you to move on to other Kansas topics. Connecticut is all me then lol –MJLTalk 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Very good article indeed. I made some minor copyedit, but there is one awkward sentence (double the) I'll leave to you:

In 2005 the The New York Times said Lawrence had one of the best music cultures in any city between Chicago and Denver. ...Aurora... (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. ~Junedude433talk 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan[change source]

Ronald Reagan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is my first GA nominee to become a GA and frankly seeing at the current VGA I feel this article is at a very high and well structured article for VGA. I've worked hard on it and the article is in tip top shape. Of course I believe there is adjustments to be done be make this a VGA, but seeing I have more time on my hands, I'm more than happy to tackle those suggestions to make this article a VGA. The article has been simplified during GA review, is well sourced, well formatted, has many sources and content and is a GA. I do believe this article has potential to be a VGA which is why I am nominating it for VGA status. Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article is generally a good candidate; I have only had a quick glance. What bothers me a little is that there are many rather short sections, especially in the presidency part. We might consider regrouping these, for example add a section health, where we mention the different health issues: the hearing aid, the differnt forms of cancer, and perhaps Alzheimer's (not sure). I don't know, but I think to a certain extent it is normal that hearing gets worse with age. Most US presidents assumed their office at age 50+, or even 60+ (with the exception of Obama, and JFK, don't know of any others). Somewhat reminds me of glasses: Almost all people with a higher education wear glasses. In that context is it worth mentioning that XY wears glasses? - I leave it up to others to discuss. But as I said, I only had a quick glance, and did no in-deph analysis. --Eptalon (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, the section on marriages shouldn't go under his acting career. Maybe a separate personal life section? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eptalon: & @Auntof6:: So either expand (add notability) to the health section, got it! Marriage part had been added towards it's own section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. The section on marriages should be moved down after the main details of his life. Some comments about the honors section:
  • The first item, about getting a Marine recruitment letter, doesn't seem like an honor, so I removed it.
  • I did some simplifying.
  • The term "unveil" isn't simple, but I'm not sure what to replace it with.
--Auntof6 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Auntof6:: I simplified the honors section although I do not know where to place the marriage section. I thought before his political sections began because it would be in chronological order. Where would you exactly recommend putting it? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably after the death and funeral section. I noticed something else: there's a section called "Secret FBI agent". It seems like Reagan was an informant, not an agent, so that section should be renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Auntof6:: Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I created a health section down where his Alzheimer diagnosis is described. Section as is is still a little short (doesn't really solve the issue raised, but improves on the previous state). I moved the old health section there. Is there anything else that can be said about his health? --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I've expanded the health section. Is it good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the section looks better now. --Eptalon (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I often find that I am repeating myself. At GA level I commented:
"I think all the ways of representing pronunciation (such as IPA) are useless, and get in the way of the intro sentence, which affects readability. Do you see them in newspaper of magazine articles? You do not, and with good reason. If pronunciation of a name is really a problem, it could be addressed in the text. In Reagan's case there is no problem. What I mean is, a name like 'Featherstonehaugh', which is pronounced "Fanshaw", needs explaining. Reagan's does not. Intro sentences and paras are absolutely critical".
I still think so. Now something more general. I was living in Palo Alto for a period period when he was Governor of California. He was vigorously opposed by the lefties (nothing new there!), but amazed everyone at how well he did the job. Something rather similar happened with his presidency. It was strongly opposed by the liberal elite, but he ended up, as you say, a most popular president. One of the explanations was that he had picked very good people in his governments, and let them get on with it. This dynamic of moving from being perceived as someone without the background of political experience to a widespread acknowledgement that he had something special is perhaps something which deserves more prominence in the article. I see one or two books in the En page "Bibliography of Ronald Reagan" which look promising as possible sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper or magazine article, IPA is very important for us. Especially for us at simple where the readers might be ESL readers. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Macdonald-ross:: So add content in regards to his bipartisanship during his presidency despite Reagan not being liked by Liberals? I'm on it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Problem with the "short sections": We still have the issue that some sections are rather short. Is it reasonable to expect that no matter what, we do not have any sections/subsections shorter than, say 5-6 lines of text? - The ones I see as problematic are (amongst others) "President of the Screen Actors Guild","Secret FBI Agent", "Failed Presidential Campaigns", "First term, 1981-85".What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eptalon: I've expanded the SAG section, FBI section and added more info about his 1976 and 1980 campaigns. In regards to the first terms and all the sub section, basically everything after First term, 1981-85 until Second term, 1985-89 are in regards to his first term and the events are sorted out. Of course some sections are going to be smaller because that's how it is, but they still belong within that first term. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]