Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review)
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. ~~~~

History of Kansas[change source]

History of Kansas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article effectively details the major parts of the history of Kansas. It covers the history of major things in Kansas not just for basic political history or for wars, but also for things such as Farming and Sports, which are important to the state's identity. Everything is appropriately linked and cited. Any more improvements that could be made would likely just be links and possibly more references if need be. By this point though, I think it's a worthy GA candidate. ~Junedude433talk 00:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't see any reason why not it seems like a high quality article, certainly worthy to be described as one of the best articles on here. Really no improvements at all that are a big deal. IWI (chat) 20:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a well-written article that meets the GA criteria. I suggest promoting the article.--BRP ever 23:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale[change source]

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been significantly improved, and gets its point across simply and effectivly. Wyatt2049 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend merging the "Examples" and "Scale and Damage" categories. There are also many more examples you could give. I would recommend adding a history section so readers can understand how the scale came to be. There is also some criticism of the scale which should be included so as to make the article unbiased. Keep it up, and it can get there! ~Junedude433talk 18:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the article is not ready yet. The sources need to be formatted and the Scale And Damage section is still complex imo. The ENWP article contains some history about the scale, which should probably be included too.--BRP ever 23:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Lawrence, Kansas[change source]

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

The article rivals the standard English version in terms of length, but it's written from the ground up. It is properly referenced, has plenty of pictures, and it has a lot of information. Compared to the only other good article about a city, Lenzburg, this one is much better in quality, length, and information. The only real thing that could be done to make it better is if a few other people helped rephrase some things as I was the one who wrote most of it (and a page shouldn't reflect only one voice). If nothing else, I would like to know if there's anything I can do to make it better. ~Junedude433talk 15:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me, I would say it is possibly even a VGA. I would have to read it over a few more times to make sure it has breadth of coverage but first pass I think its definitely a GA and possibly a VGA once the remaining redlinks have stub articles created for them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I created pages for the Jericho and The Immortals tv shows. There wasn't an article for the book The Immortal, so that may have to remain red for now. Appreciate you looking it over! ~Junedude433talk 19:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
      • There are a few places I'd probably play with the wording a bit, and at least one bit of redundant information in the History section. On the whole, though, I think this is great. I'll try to play with it a bit over the coming days.
Ironically, there are some things named in the article that seem to scream out for new links. I'd hate to kill the chance to make this VGA by adding such links, though. How do we avoid this problem? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
By linking them and writing the articles, at least stubs. The requirement for both GA and VGA is "All important terms should be linked," so the links are probably needed anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if there are any terms or places or things that "scream out" for new links, just link them. I can then see which things you're talking about and simply write a short article for them. That way, I don't have to guess. ~Junedude433talk 18:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Very Good Article indeed, thanks for the effort, really appreciate such good content, However, I see several paragraphs which are unsourced, I don't wish to clog here by listing nor tagging there to ruin the article but can the nominator run through every paragraph to make sure all things are sourced. Hold first and once it's done, support from me. --Cohaf (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Went through everything. I don't think there are any more paragraphs without sources. At most, there may a lone sentence somewhere that I overlooked, but I went ahead and added more references for all paragraphs without any. Thanks for pointing that out! ~Junedude433talk 02:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the work, appreciate it. Can we have a source that Pioneer Cemetery was the first cemetery of the town, fix ref 7 cite error as well as in the media section, there is still unsourced paragraphs. Small note, the 2 newspaper mentioned may be good to have their articles if they are notable. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I went ahead and fixed ref 7, created pages for the LJWorld and Change of Heart, went ahead and even created an article for the Haskell-Baker Wetlands, and I changed the claim about Pioneer Cemetery. I couldn't find a source that directly said it was the first cemetery, rather that it was a cemetery that was created in 1854 (the same year Lawrence was settled), and it has the earliest graves of the early Lawrence settlers. It basically implies it's the first, but I couldn't find a source that outright makes that claim.
I'm not really sure what other unsourced paragraphs you're referring to as every paragraph I see either has at least one source (or if it's a multiple paragraphs with one source, it's all from the same source, i.e. the section about the demographics from the census), or it was information that was just immediately previously stated. I think by this time, you should mark which paragraphs you're talking about. That way, I can identify them and try to fix them. ~Junedude433talk 18:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
"In August 1885, the newspaper the Lawrence Daily Journal started. In June 1895, the newspaper the Lawrence Daily World started. In 1911, the Lawrence Daily Journal and the Lawrence Daily World joined together, and they became the Lawrence Journal-World. There is also a student newspaper by the University of Kansas. It is called the University Daily Kansan. Change of Heart is a street newspaper sold by homeless people." This paragraph is what I mean. Sorry if I am not clear. Or else I really can't find much. --Cohaf (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Added references for that paragraph. I guess I had thought that linking the newspapers to their respective articles would have basically been good enough. Hope it looks good now! ~Junedude433talk 17:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Consider this a review to make sure there isn't unsourced materials. I will say sources are good and reliable. I'll pass the source review. Thanks so much for the good article. @Junedude433:.--Cohaf (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Any time. I want this article to be the template or standard for other city articles here. I just feel that Lenzburg's 2008 promotion just doesn't cut it anymore. Also considering how many other articles I've had to create to allow this one to have so many blue links, I plan on expanding other Kansas-related articles to make it a blueprint on what to do for other states/countries. Or rather, what a properly fleshed out part of an encyclopedia should look like. ~Junedude433talk 13:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I did a some simplifying and copy editing. I'll go through the rest of the article later. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I went through the rest of the article. I did some more simplifying and added some links. Let me know if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Auntof6: I'd hate to sound impatient, but it has been one week since the last comments. Not much else has changed. Cohaf has also become supportive of the article's promotion. ~Junedude433talk 14:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Just to remind you, it does take 6 named editors saying yes to promote. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've only taken a quick glance, and only found "minor" issues:
    • "Reading ease" - For example the section "After the civil war" - The subject is about building an university somewhere; they can't decide where to build "the" university (not "a university")- in short use of definite/indefinite articles; may be an issue in other sections as Well.
    • We have many small sentences that can be joined easily, without readability suffering: "In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt came to Lawrence. He gave a short speech. In 1910, Roosevelt came to Lawrence again."...
    • There are a few red links in the references/biibliography section. Personally, I would remove them, unless they are really well-known. We are simple WP. We don't need an article on every publishing house.
    • Radio and TV stations are likely to change and should go to an annex article.
    • Avoid sections made of only 1-2 sentences.
    • Railroad: more then when there was a train, I'd write where it went. Compare en:Lyon#Transport for an example...
    • The very few remaining red-links can probably go to SEWikrt.--Eptalon (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
      • As far as combining sentences without affecting readability, be cautious about that. Our goal is not only readability, but making it easy for readers who may have trouble with compound or complex sentences. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I didn't know exactly which to make compound or complex, and I noticed that simple sentences dominated. I was kind of hoping that nominating this would also spur some other contributors to help point out or improve any minor grammar issues to make it more readable. I don't always know what is better to keep as simple sentences and what to make compound at times. ~Junedude433talk 13:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Really great work. I agree it is worth promoting. Desertborn (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ☑Y 'Article promoted, congrats...--Eptalon (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Four color theorem[change source]

Four color theorem (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think I started this, or contributed a lot to the article. Yes, its a subject about matehmatics. As far as I have seen there are a few red-links (about math-related concepts, mostly graph theroy), and almost all names mentioned are red links. What is the general impression, esp. concerning the fluency/readabiliy? - Yes, I know it is about mathematics, so simplifying the language will be dificult in certain places...--Eptalon (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eptalon: I think this is a good start to a tough subject to simplify.
I see you've been away from the article for a bit. Give it a fresh read now. Some things will prove obvious. (Example: "Proving that four colors suffice turned out to be significantly more difficult." I'm sure I'd change "suffice", and probably also "significantly".) Then ping me. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I agree that it is a good start considering how difficult the subject is. I went ahead and simplified a few words to help out. Some words are easy to notice as being unnecessarily difficult. Specific mathematical terms can stay - I don't really think anything can be done to avoid that, but there are non-math related terms that could be changed. For instance, "required" could become "needed"; "significantly" could become "much more", and so on. Good start, and I think with some more editing (and fewer red links), it could certainly be a GA. ~Junedude433talk 00:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Introduction is very well-written, there are some red links and some things as pointed above that can be improved but other than that it's probably one of the finest and simplest description of the theorem one can come across considering how difficult the subject is.-BRP ever 23:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to say this article is not interesting, but it absolutely certainly is not simple in language. I'm afraid that rules it out as a good page. For a start the page gets absolutely lost in the woods when it tries to give practical examples. As to vocabulary, "contiguous" is one of the rarest words ever used in ordinary texts in English. For all practical purposes the only simple word to use is "touching" and with the (already present) proviso about points, that will have to do. It is better to say "this gives some idea, but for an exact wording see...". Sorry, there are good intentions, but I would rate it very difficult for our readership. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Oxygen[change source]

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

I know that this article is not quite at GA status yet but would like some feedback on how it could be improved. I have been translating it from the enwiki over the last week. IWI (chat) 21:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a first step would be to get rid of red links. In my opinion, link to a person (name) is not as important as a link to a concept. Some links (such as liquid oxygen), can be split. As we are on the page about oxygen, we only need a link to liquid. Otherwise, I think the page is a good start. I fainly remember from Chemistry, that IUPAC (IIRC) defined a color for flasks of Oxygen (blue?). It would be worth mentining this, probably in the into...--Eptalon (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
With respect to red links: Leave the ones to people alone for now; they can always be swept up at the end. (Exception: Once or twice, there are duplicate red links to the same person; the ones after the first can be removed.) Let's see what red links are left for non-biography links and work on those. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Esperanto[change source]

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

This a detailed yet simple article describing the language Esperanto. It is well sourced and i believe it deserved to be a good article. (talk)

First of all, please create an account, it makes communication easier. Secondly: Yes, the article is a good start. I do however think that esperanto-related redlinks (such as "esperantujo") will probably need creating (a short explanation is enough). If you don't use esperantujo, but rather: places where E. is common, you probably also get around fixing the few Esperanto-related red-links. There are other planned languages; I don't know if you want to mention Ido (which is based on Esperanto, but about 50 years younger), or Occidenntal/Interlingue, which takes the idea, bur uses a different vocabulary, or Interlingua. No idea if they are worth mentioning; Esperanto is probably the most successful of the "planned languages". Will have a closer look if other editors comment as well...--Eptalon (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

List of U.S. states[change source]

List of U.S. states (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A concise and clear list of the states with a map and simplified explanation. The list itself was based on the enwiki version (an article that was featured, meaning it is probably the ideal way to present it). I can’t see says it could be improved further, besides possible simplification. Also, it was the most viewed article last month for some reason, which I’m not certain why. IWI (chat) 21:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we ever settled whether lists can be considered for good status. Last discussion I see is Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_good_articles#Should_lists_be_allowed_to_be_nominated?. That being said, I don't think that this article would be "good" worthy. It is 2 sentences plus the table. The featured list at the English Wikipedia has multiple substantial paragraphs. Only (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Bare bones list and this isn't remotely close to being a GA (or good list or whatever). Hiàn (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
We can discuss about the possibility to have "good lists" (personally, I don't believe lists can become good, because there's too little room for variation). Nevetheless: I'd expect the list to have sortable headers (there's a template for that). Probably the last states to join the union were Alaska (bought from Russia, in the 1860s, and Hawaii, who joined in the 1950s or 1960s). There may also be some joiners from the wars with Mexico. Anyway: There hasn't been much chang in this listing in the last 50-odd years. Also it is probably difficult to explain why Hawaii is a US state, and for example, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or Puerto Rico are not (even though they are US territories). In short: I don't really see a future for a good list, there might be for an article that explains the different statuses of different US controlled territories. --Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. Just for the record:
    • The last states to join were, in fact, Alaska (purchased in the 1860s, but not admitted as a state until January 1959) and Hawaii (annexed in the 1890s, but not admitted as a state until August 1959).
    • The land now occupied by the states of California, Nevada, Utah and Texas; most of Arizona and New Mexico; and portions of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming; resulted from wars with Mexico. The earliest of those states to be admitted was Texas, in 1845; the last were Arizona and New Mexico, in 1912.
    • Why the others are not states is a longer discussion.
  2. As @Only points out, English Wikipedia does not have "good" lists. (Most of its lists that aren't junkworthy are at least as good as this one.) It does have featured lists—what we would call a "very good list" here. The criteria for that status are far more substantial than what is contained in this list. And we do not even officially have "very good lists" here.
This request should be closed. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Can be expanded via en. The content now is simply inadequate for a very good list if it exist. The territories and first few paragraphs should match en in terms of depth. Sources should be more adequate also. --Cohaf (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Right now, we don't have VG lists anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. Several comments above suggest that the article (list) doesn't fulfill the GA criteria so I am closing this as not done.--BRP ever 13:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Fred Rogers[change source]

Fred Rogers (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article has been a project of mine over the years. Mr. Rogers through inspired and brought joy to many children across generations and when the film Won't You Be My Neighbor? was released, it unleashed a renewed appreciation, mourning, respect and love for Rogers. The article has been expanded, well sourced, simplified, and no red-links at all. Rogers is not only a hero of mine, but a hero to many and I believe it is a tribute for Rogers' article to gain a GA status for other readers to read his rich work and legacy. Any comments or concerns will be addressed and I will fix them as I did when Reagan, Sanders and Corbyn were nominated. Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Charming and well-written article about a genuinely good person. I was pleased to read about this man, and would thank our colleague for writing it and suggesting it for GA. I fully support its promotion! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's close, but it could still use a little simplifying: not so much in vocabulary, but for sentence length and structure. For example, the second paragraph in the "Death" section is all one sentence. It's OK for a paragraph to have only one sentence, but that sentence should be broken up. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Auntof6:: I shortened sentences. Take a look! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Definitely close. Still, look at paragraph 3 of "Early Career": I'd (almost) never create a compound sentence using a semicolon to separate clauses on this wiki. (That's relatively advanced structure.) And look at paragraph 2 of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood": You have a sentence containing a list of verbal phrases, which then concludes with a subordinate clause. I think you could do either one of those things in one sentence here, but doing both might be too much. But keep up the good work! StevenJ81 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Fantastic article so far, and it might just be me, but could the second sentence of the personal life section be clarified? Specifically the bit about him being a vegetarian? Hiàn (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A bit better, I've reworded it but I'm not sure if that's the message you were trying to convey. Hiàn (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any potential issues, that's a support from me. Hiàn (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

☑Y Closed as promoted. As all the concerns have been fixed, the article is promoted.-BRP ever 13:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oxalaia[change source]

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

I've been working to get this page to good article status and I believe it now fits the criteria, overall the Simple English Wikipedia needs a lot of work on its dinosaur-related articles and I'd like to help out with that, this should be a good step in that direction. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 18:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There are complex sentences that need to be divided. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I Split them up, how do they look now? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 21:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
You divided paragraphs, not sentences. The issue is complex sentences. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I looked up other good articles on this wiki and I see what you mean. Made the changes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Anything else left to be fixed? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 22:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

- I realise this is not specifically mentioned in the Good article criteria, but there are a lot of words in that text which even I struggle with, as a speaker of English as a second language. I don't believe that the text would be suitable as a GA if people learning the language would struggle to read it. DaneGeld (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article could be any simpler, but since I'm a native english speaker I might be a bit biased. Can you give me some examples of these words? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@DaneGeld: That would be covered by requirement #8: no tags on the page, and no tags needed. However, be aware that complex words are allowed if they are linked to articles (because presumably those articles explain the topic in simple language). --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying @Auntof6:, but I'm talking about the ability of another non-English speaker or learner to read the text. Clicking the link is fine, but when you have a lot of links, that can very quickly slow down your experience. What I'm proposing is split links. @PaleoGeekSquared: - You have words like "carnivorous", which you could link as [[carnivorous|meat-eating]] and "spinosaurid", which you could link as [[spinosaurid|crocodile-like dinosaur]] (I am aware you have that text already). You are perfectly fine to link to the articles you already have, but you could use simpler terms to manage those links, as I've shown.
The article is brilliant, but it's the complexity of reading the words I'm concerned about, not understanding them. I hope you understand my concern :) DaneGeld (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I can understand your concerns about words like "carnivorous". However, you see terms like tyrannosaurid, allosaurid, dromaeosaur, spinosaurid, etc. on several dinosaur articles on this wiki, I think they should stay for the same reason User:Auntof6 mentions above. People read wikipedia for information, and we can't expect them to know all of it right away just by reading one article, if someone is curious on what a spinosaurid is, they should go to the respective article to find out, but I don't think it should be removed from the lead section of an article as it's a bit of a crucial element. A short explanation is given in the article for that anyways: "A crocodile-like dinosaur with teeth designed to grab and hold slippery fish". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There are some claims that I feel should be clarified; I have tagged them for now, and will take a closer look later this weekend. Chenzw  Talk  03:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I forgot some references from the original article on en.wikipedia, thanks for bringing that to our attention. They should be there now, as well as some additional ones from the Spinosauridae page. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 05:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6 @Chenzw (Pinging some of the reviewers for the article). I'm here again to mention that the english wikipedia version of Oxalaia (see here[1]) has been through many major expansions and fixes as well as a Good Article review. Therefore the simple english article is now rather incomplete in comparison, this review will have to be put on hold until I or someone else can expand it and add the appropriate content. PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is near being a good article. If this is a good article, then we have at least 5,000 better. Separate from that, it seems worth remembering that the genus rests on just a couple of bony fragments, meaning that there is a limit to what can be said. As fossils, Baryonyx and Spinosaurus provide more and better-based information. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've finally come back to try and finish up on this. The equivalent article at en.wikipedia is now featured and I have all the relevant information needed to expand it here.[2] I tried my best to exclude overly detailed content by comparing with other GAs here, but it should probably be given a look at from people more acquainted than me to writing simple articles. (Pinging reviewers @Macdonald-ross:, @Chenzw:, @DaneGeld: and @Auntof6:) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Remember that if certain complex words appear in a number of articles, yet don't really quite deserve articles of their own, you can always create entries at Simple English Wiktionary for them. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
☑Y Closed as promoted. COngratulations everyone...--Eptalon (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hugo Lloris[change source]

Hugo Lloris (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this is a page that absolutely deserve to be a good article, is well-written, there are many fonts, external links, images and templates. Please control the page and improve it more. Thanks! --FlameStorm199 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Pretty good article so far, but the article needs simplification, and clarification of self-contradictory sentences. Hiàn (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Also - the page is uncategorised and needs categories, there's direct copy-pasting from without simplification and attribution. Hiàn (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
A lot of unchanged wording from En wiki; many sentences too long and complicated (tho' also many simplified). It's not a bad page, but not one we should promote. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

☒N Closed as not promoted. No response from the nominator, and most of the raised issues were not fixed.--BRP ever 11:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Angaturama[change source]

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

This page deserves to be a good article because it is long, well written, has lots of sources and images and just deserves to be a good article. --Centrosurus (talk) 12:29 October 02, 2018 (UTC)

The article was recently changed from redirecting to Irritator to being a complex article with a lot of unsimplified text copied from en:Irritator. In my opinion, the article should be changed back to a redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and have changed it back to redirect. It was the very reverse of what we regard as a good page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

☒N Closed as not promoted. The article was changed into a redirect, and there is no response from the nominator. Thanks--BRP ever 11:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]