Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 6

Started in January 2010

Gilbert Thomas Carter

The above article was one which I had originally created on the English Wikipedia (from a one-sentence stub), and then copied over to this Wikipedia (on a user page) and then simplified.

Could other editors please look at it and let me know:

1. If anything needs to be improved for this Wikipedia
2. If it would be eligible to be a Good article? If not, how could it be improved to that level? (I doubt if it would be close to a VGA, but advice on getting it to that status would be most welcome!)

Thank you -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It has a lot of red links and has a few complex works, but it seems nicely written overall. I don't think it's ready for good article yet, it still needs some improvement, but it has a lot of good effort put into it. A few well-selected images would be a great help, I think. Classical Esther 02:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will work on it during the next few weeks! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Needs a bit of work to get it into simple English. The readability figures [1] are a bit unreliable, probably because of a lot of the place names and titles, which would explain why some tests put it at Grade Six, and others at Grade 11. The Flesch reading ease is 51%, 70% is excellent. Some individual words that will need simplifying or linking include:

colonial, appointed, separation, native, organising, colonists, abuses, punishment, tribe, promote, accompanied, permission, independance, promised, promoted, surname. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Started in March 2010

Bill Ayers

I'm looking for some help with this article. I started it a couple of days ago and am essentially finished and feel that it is relatively complete. The average readability score is 9.2, but I feel that may be due to the amount of quotes which cannot be simplified. Any comments on further improvements is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never really done any kind of review before, so I hope this will be helpful!

• There are over 20 red links. Most of this pages are going to need to be created in order to reach at least GA
• "Weather Underground" is linked twice. It should only be linked once.
• Date formats are mixed in the references (e. g., numbers 47 and 48).
• Many refs (e. g., 6, 9, 10, 12) need author, year, publisher, or ISBN.
• Websites should probably use the {{cite web}} template.

That's all I found for now. Megan|^talk_changes 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks! I'll get to work on those soon. :) Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 03:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Dodd

I'm looking for thoughts on Bobby Dodd. I transwikied this from the English Wikipedia and spent awhile tonight trying to simplify it. I believe it has the basis for a good article here. It is already a good article on the English Wikipedia, and I think it can fit our standards as well. Obviously there are a lot of red links to fill at this point. What are other thoughts right now in regards to prose and content, though? Any help, either through comments or through editing the article, would be wonderfully appreciated, Either way (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit of self-reflection on it: not feeling that great about the "legacy" section (which needs to be renamed, for sure) overall, some of the ideas need to connect together better with transitions, and I feel like the prose might be too "praising" of Dodd at times. Right now this article is mostly just a translation of a work I had not seen before tonight, so hopefully as we work with it more, we can fix those issues. Either way (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of it reviewed. Pmlineditor ∞ 06:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Started in April 2010

History of the United States

I've been working on it for awhile, and when I'm done, I'm going to nom it for GA. Yes, I know has no references; they are coming, along with history since 1960. There are a few things I'd like some community input on before I'm done:

• Lead: Could someone expand it. I'm kinda clueless on it
• Organization: You likey?
• Simplicity...is it simple enough? It scores 9-10, but that's because, IMO, there are a lot of proper nouns in addition to a lot of 850 and 1500 words (It should be noted that on the big wiki, it scores off the readibility charts).

Thanks, Purplebackpack89 20:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good. I will see what I can do about the lead and the readability scores a little later. There are a few things I found that should be fixed:

• Some of the sections, like "Expansion, Industrialization and Slavery, 1815-1861", should not have all of the words starting with a capital letter. It should look like "Expansion, industrialization and slavery, 1815-1861"
• Many of the pages in the "See also" section are already linked in the article (e. g. "Abraham Lincoln", "American Civil War", "American Revolution", "George Washington", "United States", and "United States Constitution"). These should be removed.
• The {{cite web}} template should be used for websites in the "Other websites" section.
• The {{cite book}} template should be used for the references in the "References" section

Megan|^talk_changes 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mary II of England

• I would like this article to be a GA sometime in the future. :) It failed last time because there was not enough community consensus to support promotion (and too many changes after it was proposed). Therefore, it would be very helpful indeed if someone would be so kind to put up a quick review. Thank you, —Classical Esther^talk 02:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Braille

• Mainly needs sourcing; idea would be to get it to VGA, in about three months. Unfornunately, I don't have the sources for it. --Eptalon (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is there so many redlinks? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Desiro

I've been working on this a lot and was just a sentence before I started. I have been copying some paragraphs over from en, and as you can see, its not the best looking en article in the world. :p Any suggestions on how to make the format look a bit better or just to make the article better in general would be most appreciated. mccon99 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some things that need fixing:

• This article seems a bit complex. The average grade level is about 11.5.
• There are quite a number of red links. I counted 11.
• Many of the sections do not have references (like Germany, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, and Switzerland).
• Other sections (like Bulgaria and Malaysia) need more refs.

Megan|^talk_contribs 00:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I tried looking for more refs, but can't find anything. The first two comments anyway, I will fix. Thx much! I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Started in May 2010

Hepatocellular carcinoma

I would like to have this article reviewed. Immunize (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Right now the article looks complex. It should be put in more simple language. The references should also be cited using the {{cite web}} template. Either way (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I use the {{cite web}} template? (I am a vandal-fighter, and not a major content contributor on the enWikipedia, so these content issues are new to me). Immunize (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite web. It tells you how. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What Griffin said. It shows you how to use it on the template page. Either way (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it superior to how I referenced my articles? When I have added content on the main wikipedia, I never referenced with those templates, I just used <ref> </ref>. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You want a review, you get it. The cite web template provides parameters to assist editors and readers such as accessdate, name, publisher and more. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because you did not use the template does not mean you shouldn't have been using it. Yes, the <ref> </ref> is a quick fix, but {{cite web}} is the best way to go about it since it gives readers and others information about the source beyond just the URL. Either way (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Immunize, I told you several times back at enWP to use those citation templates. Perhaps you should review your talk page archives. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding something about its epidemiology might be good. On the broader issue of content strategy, you see we don't even have terms like epidemiology in the wiki! One way to improve an area is to search for absolutely essential topics, and work on them as a priority. I promise you many will be lacking, or just v. brief stubs like epidemic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Started in June 2010

Truck Tent

I want to review this article but last time I tried I accidentally blanked the template. Can someone help me?

Outtjp7 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Outtjp7

World War II

I have tried to change some difficult words in English Wikipedia into easier ones, as well as rearranged the article myself. I would like to know if there were some mistakes I didn't figure out myself. Thanks. --Horus (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you do the references? If you did then I would like a few internet based sources really, as I, probably like many others, don't have access to all those books in order to check the facts. If you didn't then that's fine, I'll add some in a bit. Apart from that, the work you did was very good! The article is a lot simpler now, well done! in In some places you got your tenses mixed up a bit, but I can go through and fix them :) FSM ^Noodly? 18:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I mainly change from the English Wikipedia article. Since most of refernces are books, I also can't check any fact like you. ---Horus (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

List of chess terms

I am hoping to have this up on WP:PGA soon and would like to hear from the community if its ready. Thanks, Ι-ση // _{ταlκ ραge}^ψ 19:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Betty White

This is my first attempt at simplifying an article from English Wikipedia. Would love to get some feedback. Viciouslies (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You did a good job simplifying, but there are quite a few redlinks (including categories). πr² (talk • changes) 16:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Started in July 2010

The Lightning Thief

This was imported from EN, where it is a GA. I would be interested in putting it up for PGA if the community thinks it is sufficiently simplified. The only GA criteria I can see that it may not meet are # 6, 9. Please tell me what needs to be improved. PrincessofLlyr ^talk 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The simplification is wonderful, but there has to be some more references. There are also a few red links that would be better fixed. Overall it's a very well-written article, and I'll see to a long review on its talk page soon. :) Cheers, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 03:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you suggest what should be referenced? IMO, the number doesn't matter as long as it is sufficiently sourced. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This is a well-written article with, clearly, plenty of potential. :) Here are a few immediate concerns I could find in a quick scan:

• Refs number 2, 3, and 27 are dead.
• Quest, counselor, trident, hooves, and protagonist should be linked or explained in parentheses.
• They promised of not having any more children since they were too powerful. <-- the sentence reads a little awkwardly. Could this be fixed?

I think it might be able to become a GA with some good work. :) Kindly, —Clementina talk 10:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I'll fix those references as soon as possible. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I've fixed #3 and 27 and most of #2, for which I'm having to find different references. PrincessofLlyr ^talk 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation

I did a clean-up of the page.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 09:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think PR is only for articles. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

France

The article used to be a GA. However, it didn't meet the more recent standards. I would like to know what need doing before I can submit it at PGA again :) Thanks, Yottie ^=talk= 16:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Started in August 2010

History of the United States

I PRed it when the content was mostly done a few weeks back. Since then, I've added references to 1865, with references since 1865 coming down the pipe in a week or two. When that's done, I will GA it. In the meantime, I'd like your thoughts. Purplebackpack89 18:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In principle, this should be put forward to PGA. The remaining issues are mostly to do with details rather than substance. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Marilyn

I think this article can be a VGA, given the amount of information on the subject. I am aware of the red links, and am working on them now. Any comments are greatly appreciated on how the article could be improved. Thanks! Battleaxe9872 ^文/ _テ 01:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looking pretty good. The things I saw are mostly simplification problems: "circulation" (appearing first in the second paragraph of the lead) and "Hurricane Hunter reconnaissance flight" (last para of first section). Also in the lead: "Marilyn is the cause of thirteen deaths..." - later in the article past tense is used. I'll continue looking. PrincessofLlyr ^talk 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

This article was imported from English Wikipedia, and there is a featured list. Your comments. Nataly8 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its good, though its still a bit complex. I see it has a lot of red links in its reference links.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will complete them. Today. Nataly8 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nataly8 (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)

Like the last one. Featured in English Wikipedia. Your comments. Nataly8 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite a bit of redlinks.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 21:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The article it's featured in English. Now, what about the red links: Today (11/8/2010) I wrote about the actors and the directors of the season, so now the article it's OK. Nataly8 (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)

Help with simplification. Any ideas? Nataly8 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few red links. Could you work on those? Hazard-SJ ^Talk 06:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Nataly8 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dates. Have a look at our Wikipedia:Manual of Style about the way to write dates. The should be written as March 17 2010, or 17 March 2010 (depends on whether you are using English or US English) - but never as 17th of March. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nataly8 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)

The similar promblem with the other 3 above. Nataly8 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you fix the red links problem? I notice that some of them are recurring on the other such articles. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 06:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, no problem :) Nataly8 (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nataly8 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs a bit of simplification, but looks good overall. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

A good article in English Wikipedia. Your comments! Nataly8 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Too many red links to be a GA here, though. Could you fix them? Hazard-SJ ^Talk 06:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Will be fixed :) Nataly8 (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

some complex words: concluded, reconquer, inadvertently, premiere πr² (talk • changes) 11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Complex words - you need to have a good look at the Basic English word list. This lists 850 simple words. These should be the basis of all your writing. You should only use a more complex word if it is really necessary. This is not easy to do and is part of what makes writing for this Wikipedia so interesting. This message to you has been written in simple English, with no complex words. Keep working at it, it gets easier with practice. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

A GA in English Wikipedia. But we have to work on it's simplification and red links. Your comments! Nataly8 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Warning: This page is 58 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. I got this warning when I clicked "Change" for the page. I still think it is too large and hard to follow for people who don't know English well. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but if we want to complete and do an article good we have to wrote all the information we find. When I will finish with red links, I will start a simplification. Would someone want to help? Nataly8 (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know much about it, but I could try though. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I finished with red links. Nataly8 (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Far too long and difficult. Don't say 'it's a GA on enWP' (that is not relevant here). Do more work on the articles you bring over. They must be shorter and simpler. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Aang

A GA in English Wikipedia. Your comments! Nataly8 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Complex, please simplify. The Simple English Wiktionary has lists of simple words. —I-20the highway 16:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We have lists. (BE850) πr² (talk • changes) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Started in September 2010

Copper(II) sulfate

One of my chemistry articles that I tried to make very good. How does it look and is it easy to understand for a nonchemist? Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• You should do a redirect from Copper sulphate: however much you may dislike it, that will be what many users will type into the box. You must accept that many words are spelt differently, and that all versions need redirects.
• Assuming you want to put as much as this into the page, then you might consider using lists for reactions. They don't seem to work well as a paragraph of continuous prose. And no, it won't be easy for a non-chemist! -- that's such a common problem with science & maths in Simple. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OH, I forgot the sulphate. Since I hardly ever use it, I sometimes forget that it exists. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Started in November 2010

Nickel Creek

Does not seem to be a VGA to me but I want to see what others think. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Does not seem to be a VGA" to you? Well, we have WP:VGA? so if you could list your concerns against the various criteria, then we can start to address them. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem comprehensive enough. Other VGA's are so much larger. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned on WP:ST, this isn't the place for (V)GA reviews, please see WP:PAD. Goblin 20:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

ChemicalInterest, as I said, please tell me where it fails the criteria, precisely? Vague hand waving won't help. And see what BG7 said. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that it fails the criteria. That is why I posted it here instead of WP:PAD where I could be accused of making a point. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• It is less comprehensive than some of the other failed nominations like this one or that one. BTW, citeweb refs with all the data filled in are not a formal qualification for (V)GA.
• It has some {{citation needed}} templates in it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives in the United States

I think Conservatives in the United States is a good article. I lowered the reading level to 9th to 12th grade reading level. I also think it is at a neutral point of view based on the published sources. Maybe it's a very good article. Since it's about Conservatism in the United states, it should probably not include long passages on liberalism and radicalism. --Chuck Marean (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, this is a long collection of original research or repetition of politicized statements without a neutral point of view that is not properly referenced. I'd suggest replacing the entire content with a simple list of articles on politicians and others in the US who are conservative. Even that may be difficult to do as the definition of "conservative" is itself open to debate. Gotanda (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotanda said it best, but this sort of article will be thrown about a lot on this page. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 14:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To represent this:

"C. The century’s most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider “coexistence” with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory" as "in the 1900s wars were started by communists";

And to represent

"G. No superstition has more effectively bewitched America’s Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization" as "trying to rule the world is not a real job"

...is an absolute outrage. Original passages from ref 44, and as 'simplified' in Conservatives in the United States#1950 to 1980s. Do look at these comparisons between the text and the originals. The refs have been used as a cover for contributor's own ideas. There is a case for blanking the page, and restarting. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You'd better be careful before you get banned for hitting the nail into any more liberals' heads, Mr. Chuck. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OW! THAT HURT! Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) ^talk/_stalk 19:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This page has been under review for a while. I made a proposal to replace the content with something more neutral. Other users have pointed out some problems with the article here and on the talk page. I looked at some of the articles in other languages and the page in Spanish seemed clear, simple, and neutral. It also matched the the title of the article. "Conservatives in the United States" seems to call for an article about people who are conservative. I added a gallery including the pictures of conservative figures that Chuck had organized. Too much? See WP:BOLD! Gotanda (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that you removed too much of the content. Could we add a little more details? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chemicalinterest regarding the need for details. Merely making a list of conservative individuals overlooks the fact that conservatives disagree on some issues, and that there are different kinds of conservatives/conservative advocacy groups (i.e. some focus mainly on social issues, and others on military issues), and that there are very different kinds of conservatives that often strongly disagree with each other (i.e. neoconservatives and paleoconservatives often strongly disagree with one another). Kansan (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chem and Kansan. Thanks for the quick response. I know it was a massive change. I have some questions:

• Should details about Conservatism go on this page: Conservatism? Common ideas, disagreements, and a definitions of conservatism and movement conservatism are important. Or, am I just being too literal in my understanding of the title of this article.
• Should the old content be restored in places? Or, is it better to start over? Which parts of the previous article can be put back in? Honestly, sometimes starting from scratch is easier than trying to fix something. I would be happy to work out an outline with people and maybe start from there.

Anyone else have any thoughts? I'd like to see what Macdonald-ross thinks too. Thanks for the thoughtful replies everyone, Gotanda (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• As Chemicalinterest said, you've removed a bit too much off the text and now it looks a bit like a list. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) ^talk/_stalk 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bed soon but I will try to reply more specifically tomorrow. Kansan (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We have two articles, one on conservatism in the US, the other on conservatives in the US. They are now both short articles, and I would suggest a similar approach to both:

1. Make clear the two mainstream types of conservatism, namely,
   1. Economic liberty and freedom of individuals to make their own decisions (aka 'small government'; 'states rights'; 'low taxes'; 'people responsible for themselves'; right to bear arms ...)
   2. Strong central goverment to counter perceived threats to America (anti-communism; 'war on terror'; 'war on crime'...) or to America's moral health (anti-abortion; anti-gays; anti-birth control; pro-capital punishment..)
2. There are some topics which are common to both, such as a distrust of sweeping eutopian changes, and a belief in adjusting and amending things which have a good track record. In social theory this is sometimes called 'disjointed incrementalism', but that won't get throught the Simple filter!
3. Stick closely either to text+refs from enWP or referenced and reliable reviews of the American political & social scene.

Most individuals fall clearly into one of the two camps above, for example: Dick Cheney > group 2, but Milton Friedman > group 1.
Good luck: these are controversial subjects! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross, is it utopian? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed alt. spellings with redirects. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Where we are...

This is how I read it. We have a list of Conservatives in the U.S. with an not-simple introductory paragraph (which could be discarded). We could keep this as a list; it would act as an informal guide to our biographies of those people. We need more biographies!

Also, we have a page Conservatism, which could be improved and expanded. We could explain the ideas of conservatism there.

If people don't like this, then we have to go back to the enWP article, which has both theory and thumbnail biographies. This would not be easy to simplify, but it could be done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Started in December 2010

Geography of Taiwan

I am posting this here before applaying for GA. I believe it to meet all requirements for Good Article requirements User:have a nice day

It needs some more work before it can be a GA. I'll leave a few comments at its talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 18:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Halophile

Listing here before proposing for GA. It seems to meet all the Good Article requirements. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved to PGA. Albacore (talk · changes) 03:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

History of the United States

Was very close to making GA or VGA a month or two ago. Probably could make it again if peer reviewed. In my opinion, is simple enough and covers all the relevant topics Purplebackpack89 18:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cope, Edward D.

I simplified this from the English Wikipedia. I explained the hard words in the text. If there are any words that you think need to be linked to Wiktionary, please link them. I included a link to the Main Page of Wiktionary so readers can look of words in another browser window. Maybe you will help get this article ready for the main page by adding a few links to other articles. Chuck Marean (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)