Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good articles and very good articles are some of the best articles on Simple English Wikipedia. They have certain criteria that they must meet before they can be considered as a good or very good article (see Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles and Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles). If someone notices that an article meets most or all of those criteria, they may list it on the Proposed good articles or Proposed very good articles page. The article is then voted on, and if enough people agree that the article is good or very good, it is promoted to that higher status.

However, sometimes a good or very good article is changed in such a way that it no longer meets the criteria, or new information may become available about the topic, making the article incomplete. In such a case, the article should be demoted from good article or very good article status.

Process of demotion[change source]

Demotion of a GA or VGA can be done in this way:

  1. A named editor notices that the article no longer meets the GA or VGA criteria.
  2. The editor lists the article on this page and adds {{pvgademotion}} (for VGAs) or {{pgademotion}} (for GAs) to the article's page to show that it is currently being reviewed and improved.
  3. Major contributors to the article who helped it become a GA or VGA are notified, along with a note at Simple Talk to let the community know about the proposed demotion.
  4. For two weeks following the discovery, the article can be fixed to again meet the criteria. If there is agreement that the problem has been fixed during this time, there does not need to be a re-vote; a named editor can remove the tag from the article, and put the {{vgood}} or {{good}} tag back.
  5. If the problem is not fixed, the article will lose its status after the two-week period. When the article once again meets the criteria, it can be re-nominated for GA or VGA status and will follow the full promotion process from beginning to end.
  6. When an article is demoted, the associated badge in its Wikidata entry should be removed.

Proposals for demotion[change source]

List proposals here, newer ones at the top. Each proposal should list what needs to be fixed. Within two weeks from being listed, an article listed here must be fixed to again meet the criteria, or have its higher status removed.

=== Article name ===
{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be demoted. ~~~~ 

Gothic architecture[change source]

Gothic architecture (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Lack of references, complex sentences and don't even follow the manual of style. The article is also very long compare to other articles not because it is comprehensive, it just have a ton of unnecessary info. The amount of work needed to push the article to VGA is just too much for a fix-up here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notify @Amandajm, @Eptalon and @The Rambling Man as major contributors CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of references on this page (note not all references have to be inline). Not sure what part you think isn't following the manual of style but it looks fine in that regard as well. There is very little wrong with this article. I think perhaps you are bringing your experience with over here. We operate a lot differently than their processes. -Djsasso (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very comprehensive description. Lack of reference isn't necessarily a problem in this sort of uncontroversial topic, and in that matter, I see the article is already well-cited. Is there any statement that you think needs to be better cited?-BRP ever 11:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn[change source]

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

Red links in the infobox, broken templates, shorter than expected, only 49 references. Exploration part is heavily dependent on Cassini (I understand that) and doesn't mention Enceladus Hopper and Dragonfly. Very little on the actual planet, rather focuses on its rings. Not alot of images either. Elytrian - Talk 07:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a very good article since 2011. A lot has changed since then. Apart from completeness (which is required for a VGA; and which I don't judge here, the main problem is the template at the bottom ({{Solar System}} which needs cleaning up. (Currently in contributes over 50 red-links). For the time being I would propose cleanup/rework of that template. Not looking at completeness at the moment, I'd say if that template is cleaned up (so that less than about 10 red-links remain), we can demote this to Good article. Without cleaning up (or removing) the template, I wouldn't feel good making this a good article.--Eptalon (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, we have the red-link Nemesis. Nemesis is supposed to be a brown dwarf, orbiting the sun at around 95.000 AU (1.5 light years). It likely doesn't exist. Sedna has a perihelion of about 937 AU (and an aphelion of about 76 AU). Sedna is about 1000-2000 kms in size (no idea if that's radius or diameter), one round around the sun takes Sedna about 11.500 earth-years. Note: With Sedna we are only at about 1% of the distance (if that's aphelion) of Nemesis. I don't know the exact formulas, but we are likely looking at time periods of millions of years (for one rotation around the sun); it looks like Nemesis was claimed to have rotation periods around the sun of 25 to 33 million years. Life on earth has existed for about 5 billion years. We would therefore look at Nemesis passing between 100 and 150 times. Now if those 1.5 light years refer to the perihelion, times would be even longer). And no, before you ask: no it doesn't take an astrophysicist to write an article about a solar-system object.--Eptalon (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that we don't hold redlinks in navboxes at the bottom against a VGA or GA. We only look at the article's content. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this can easily be fixed. SHB2000 (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A VGA doesn't need to have a large amount of references (as long as its well referenced) and they don't need to have a huge amount of images either. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote to GA The article is good written but need to clean template and probably expand the article. Frontfrog (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to say that the infobox Solar System was brought over, and if we change it (good idea, but...) we'd have to do the same to many other infoboxes in other parts of the wiki. And, as you all know, dj Sasso updates for many types of infoboxes. And, although the box sits on the page, it is not "owned" by the page. It is shared. On sources, the key thing for them is to read the article thinking "where would a reader expect to see support for that statement?" That should be the place for a source.
On the subject of Nemesis, it does not exist. There is simply no convincing evidence, and we should not have it in any infobox (but continue to have a page on it). It is nothing to do with Saturn anyway. I see the para about flattened shape is a bit slack because it doesn't distinguish between the solid part of the planet and its gaseous outer section. What are we calling core? Is it the core or the metallic hydrogen? or the layer of liquid hydrogen and helium? All these issues might call into question its GA, let alone VGA. There are good things on the page, but I think it cannot stay as a VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redlinks in infobox are no longer there and there are more than enough sources. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote to GA - it looks (to me) like this discussion is showing that the article is no longer VGA. (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demote to GA, no mention of observations (properties) from Earth. The enwiki version is last assessed in 2009, so standard changes and cannot be considered recent. Actually, I will nominate the article there to be delisted as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happens on has no bearing here. -Djsasso (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a lot of concern has already been addressed while the discussion was ongoing (reference and redlinks). I think what's most interesting about Saturn is its rings, so it's only natural that it would be covered more. There are enough illustrations describing the planet, adding more is an easy fix but I think it's sufficiently illustrated already. I think improvements can be made after a discussion on the talk page, but demoting this is unnecessary. It still reflects one of the best works of the community.-BRP ever 12:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed[change source]

Carom billiards[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not demoted Appears to no consensus to remove after sitting here two months no one but nom has commented. -Djsasso (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carom billiards (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article is not written in Simple English (check sentence length), and too close a copy of En version. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I should say this is an example taken from early Simple WP. Perhaps standards then were lower than today. But it also points up that we do have a lot of GAs sitting on articles that almost no-one ever reads! We could perhaps leave these early ones alone, but that doesn't seem to be just to today's editors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some/many of the refs don't deliver... Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pages[change source]