Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 talk 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. ~~~~ 


Jupiter[change source]

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

Is currently a VGA, but entirely avoids the recent work on the way Jupiter affected the other planets during the formation of the Solar System. If you read En wiki not only on Jupiter, but also on the Grand tack hypothesis you will see what I'm getting at. [1] [2]

Should be demoted at least to GA until we have a reasonable account which addresses the key issues about Jupiter's effects on the early Solar System. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have worked on the infobox and etymology of the symbol and name. What you mentioned is also a valid mention, though. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see few have picked this one up (Grand tack hypothesis), but I did read through the En wiki page, and this one is quite deficient. Time for action. We can't expect to be respected when our page does not mention important issues. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now we have a version of the Grand tack hypothesis.
@Macdonald-ross: Do you still think the article is insufficient, or can this be closed? Lights and freedom (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a sentence, because the text still had a "Jupiter the Great Protector" bias. I sense we are just at the start of a great journey before we understand the Solar System better. Err, yes, you can close the item now. But, personally, I don't regard it as VG. We are too eager to show off our stuff with flags IMO. I repeated: should be demoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's need to demoted.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis[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.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

If you examine the article history and talk page, you will see that I put in a lot of effort trying to simplify the article and correct the many errors it still included after it was promoted. Lights and freedom put in time as well, thanks! However, there are still about a half dozen major problems listed on the Talk page which nobody has tried to address. The original nominator may have retired or may still be around as an IP.

I waited a while, but it has rolled around on the front page a few times. Another editor did make some corrections and tagged it as complex. The Flesch score is 61 which is more complex than our average of 66.5 for VGAs. Bios should be simpler. That average includes science articles such as Evolution which are much harder to simplify.

The original promotion discussion is here.

It no longer meets 6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). But, more importantly, it lacks references or references were completely misused/incorrect, parts of it are complex, and large parts are just poorly written or disorganized. --Gotanda (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just looking at the intro, the artcle is far from VGA. The entire first paragraph is a single 30 some word sentence. You could probably get 3 sentences out of that mess.. In the first 3 paragraphs. JFK is linked 3 separate times. The entirety of her time as FL in the intro is covered as 'She became First Lady. Her husband was assassinated." Different paragraphs but still back to back sentences. She apparently did nothing as FL. Breezing through the rest, it gets incredibly clunky and feels a bit off more than occasionally. the complex tag is certainly valid. That tag alone is enough to make it fail VGA. It is probably enough to drop it below GA standards. The article has seen 172 edits since it was noted as VG. A lot was changed in the interim. For an article on a dead person with very little need for updating since pretty much nothing has changed, there has been a lot of changes made here. This certainly is not the article that passed the VGA process one year, one day and 172 edits ago. Pure Evil (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the original VGA discussion, I have to wonder how this was promoted in the first place. The discussion was at a point where is was getting close to acceptance but there were still issues that needed to be fixed. It all sat there quietly for 6-7 weeks and as no one was doing anything, it got promoted. Not that there were no cases of people seeing problems that needed fixed (there were) just that no one was doing anything about it any more. The problems were still there but no one was working to fix them. That is no reason for promotion. It is more a reason to not promote. Issues are there and not getting fixed = failed since everyone gave up on it. Pure Evil (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with your description of the promotion process. The only reason I put that much work into it--after--was that since it got promoted, I did not want the most glaring errors getting a lot of visibility as "our best." --Gotanda (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally notice that there's a lack of interest in the processes of GA and VGA. As to this article: Can we say that we demote to GA, perhaps putting some work into it (to fix the most glaring errors)? - I can understand everyone who works on these articles, and in the end, they get demoted anyway, which is frustrating. VGAs are supposed to be the best kind of article this community is able to produce. Like many other GAs/VGAs, this one was basically the work of one editor at the start, and when the editor leaves/becomes disinerested, the aticle sits there to rot. Eptalon (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll make a comment. Generally editors are very pushy as they try to get GA or VGA. I don't know that applies in this case, but it does in many. By being so possessive and defensive the process of commenting is often ignored or flat out denied. Single-author articles are the worst case. You can see this happening in the current PGA and PVGA. Editors see it as "their property", and their defensiveness is obvious. Another questionable feature is the number of biographies being a high percent of all the GAs and VAs we promote. So is the number of one-author proposals, or effectively one-author proposals. The end result is a general disaffection towards the process. Very often, the defects have been noticed, and were flat out denied by a pushy author at the time. Frankly, I don't see this being reformed without banning authors from the discussion, or banning authors who have contributed more than 50% of the article. Authors have been "judge and jury and old man fury", to use a phrase of Lewis Carroll. I'd like to add a final comment: the lack of participation may be due to a general perception that the process pf discussion has shown itself to be a waste of time. Generally speaking, it has not resulted in better articles. And articles which are pretty good were pretty good before discussion! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are coming up on two weeks and editors have not fixed the issues on the talk page or the complexity. This article no longer meets criteria 5 (recent edits) or 8 (tagged for improvement) for Good Articles either, so despite having put a fair amount of work into it, I think it should be demoted to regular article. Thank you --Gotanda (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Result - I have demoted the article to regular article. Issues raised need fixing. If wanted, the article can then be re-submitted to the process, ideally first trying to get the 'Good Article' flag.--Eptalon (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.


Chopsticks[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.

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

See section "Origin of the word" which is obviously not simple English, but just obsessive. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed some of the excess detail. I think it's now reasonable, as it explains the word/meaning of chopsticks in each of the main languages that uses them. If you still think it's too much, you could remove all the other languages and put the sentence about English into the history section above. I think this is still a good article and should not be demoted. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tried to fix up some of the issues. Removed a lot of old cruft. Reorganized a bit. But, there was never much here anyway. Not Good. Time to demote. --Gotanda (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result - I have demoted the article--Eptalon (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.


Neptune[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.

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

The article as promoted has two differing accounts of who discovered it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Back in June or so when it was at PGA, I had some very good thoughts on it and looking through the GA criteria, I was in favour of promoting the article. I don't think we would have reached a stage where it would need demotion. If something is factually incorrect then we can fix that now without demoting the article. I might have more of a proper look at the article later on. --Ferien (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep This is something that can be fixed without demoting the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, agreed. Close this as stet (not deleted), so long as my point above is settled. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Result - Kept at current level (GA) --Eptalon (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.


Gothic architecture[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.

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[reply]

Notify @Amandajm, @Eptalon and @The Rambling Man as major contributors CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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 en.wiki over here. We operate a lot differently than their processes. -Djsasso (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  • Just for your information, I haven't seen Amandajm or The Rambling Man edit i quite some time. As I also contributed quite a bit, I'll comment here: As I understood, our criteria do not require in-line citations, and the article has a list of 15 books/works cited. Note also: the usual cathedral took several hundred years to build. (In the case of Cologne Cathedral: 1248 to 1902;Reims cathedral: 1210 or 1211 to 1516). So, can you point to sentences or sections that you think should change? --Eptalon (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This one I would leave alone (not delete), although I would not have constructed it this way myself. To have a title "Gothic architecture" and illustrate it entirely by cathedrals is to me a bit strange. We do have castles, which were part of that world! A better title for the page is "Gothic cathedrals". Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to change the title to Gothic cathedrals, as being accurate, simple, and avoiding the criticism that I made above. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't a more appropriate title be Gothic cathedrals and churches per enwiki? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, almost all the examples are of cathedrals. Titles should be as brief as possible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I remember, most are churches (likely cathedrals nowadays); you find a few palaces, and town halls, though. Examples of profane gothic buildings are Windsor Castle, (part of?) Blois castle, the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, town halls in Brussels, Siena, and Lübeck. There are also some scuptures, and altars... Eptalon (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

Kingsway tramway subway[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.

Kingsway tramway subway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article needs source work and giving it a read there's some complicated word choices (also noted on the page's talk page). The use of complicated terms such as: "parliamentary session", "commercially viable" and "abandonment". The article could pass for GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demoteː Article is complex in many places and the organization of the writing makes it harder to understand the main points. Just looking at the section titled "Through services" there are many problems. Complexity
Through servicesː not simple, jargon, what are they? Opening with something that is not simple is a bad way to start.
  • Diverted
  • Due to (use because and a direct svo order without fronting the cause
  • LCC (undefined acronym)
  • it was then decided that the headroom (passive and vocabulary)
  • The work resulted in the replacement (indirect, complex)
  • There is more... It really needs to be simplified
Also, perhaps the main point of through services is buried in the last two sentences "It was 16 miles (25.75 km) long. This made it the longest tram route operated entirely within the County of London." The organization of the text is poor. Gotanda (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Demote per above MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 14:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Demote. There are many flags requesting sources, which by itself means the article is not VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is it time to demote this article? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Long past time to demote, I would say. Gotanda (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I just cleared a rick-rolling reference that has been in the article from 2009, as 100+ edits have been made since it became VGA and as there are over a dozen Citation needed templates (in just the top half. Looks like they got bored of tagging it all and just gave up) - this thing is far from VGA, not even GA.. It is nowhere near the article that passed the VGA process. All things considered, its kind of embarrassing that it is designated at "Very Good" when its closer to "Barely Passable". --Creol(talk) 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, this one should be demoted to GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: Demoted to Good article--Eptalon (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archiving. --Ferien (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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]