Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 10

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived requests[change source]

Fra Angelico[change source]

Fra Angelico (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Failed VGA (here), but I think would probably be good for GA. Any thoughts? --Eptalon (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just made one slight edit to bring the subheadings for References and Bibliography, but article seems to meet all of the requirements for a GA. Ted (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any major problems with the article (one of the issues that held it up last time was simplicity, which I don't see as an issue at this point in time.) I am a little concerned about the references to his pictures as "beautiful", as that may violate NPOV. Kansan (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansan seems very right. I found many parts in the article that needed references, quotes, or removal because they were violating NPOV. Besides that, there were a few more problems, but I put them up in a fairly long list on the talk page for Eptalon or anyone else to fix. I'll see if I can find more in the meantime. :) Love, Belle tête-à-tête 05:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now most of the descriptions about Fra Angelico's art is taken out, smoothed over, or cited, and Peterdownunder seems to have fixed almost all my comments. :) I no longer have much objections for this article in becoming GA. Warmly, Bella tête-à-tête 06:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mild objection the article is in good shape, but I'm not sure about the reliability of the sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: I've taken TRM's objection above into account on this one, but having reviewed them myself I think that there is suitable reliability for the purposes of getting this to GA level and thus it's not a major obstacle imo. People may disagree with me on that, so feel free to either overturn this decision or take it to PAD if you desire. Anyway, as I say, the references aren't an issue for GA but if it was going to go further to VGA then I think they do need to be looked at and improved upon further, and it might be something that is worth doing anyway. Congratulations on the hard work everyone! Goblin 02:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Berlin Wall[change source]

Berlin Wall (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I do currently think that the article is getting to a state where it is worthy listing it here. To my knowledge there are virtually no red links. I am listing this as proposed GA, because in general, there are few references. Note that genuine references may be hard to get, as incidents like the evasion/shooting at the Wall were not recorded at all or only sporadically by the East Germans. Anyway, open to criticism. --Eptalon (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All dates should be international format. All dates should be delinked except the Reunification of Germany, which is a really significant date. The sentence "The whole of Europe was separated into a Soviet Union zone in the East and a US-dominated zone in the West" is full of troubles. Might be best to have a section on the 'Iron Curtain' and the division of Europe into socialist Warsaw Pact countries in the east and democratic NATO countries in the west. This is a more proper and neutral way of describing the situation (though the word 'democratic' may need some explanation). Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All date-related links removed (we can also not link the date of the fall of the wall, unless we create an article for it)--Eptalon (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I noticed while looking through the article is that some of the time, it's referred to as "the wall" (uncapitalized) and other times, as "the Wall" (capitalized). I would probably be okay with either (although I would like a consensus from other editors), but we should probably stick to one or the other. Kansan (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - good subject choice, culturally and historically very important.

  • Lead needs to be expanded to adequately summarise the article.
  • The lead could also have an image of the wall added.
  • Consistency - per Kansan about "the Wall" vs "the wall" but also "World War II" vs "Second World War"
  • Headings - we should really have sentences as headings, so "What lead to the building of the wall" should be succinctly rephrased, same with "What the wall was made of".
  • Caption says "Occupied" but this is not explained in the text.
  • Why is Germany in italics?
 Fixed together with Berlin, which was italicized too. —Clementina talk 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • treaty is an important article so we should write it!
 Comment: We already have it - it's the red Austrian State Treaty that it's linked to. I'll see if I can make it anyway, though; red links always look so ugly on a fresh, pretty GA. —Clementina talk 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Created article for Austrian State Treaty. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't got into colloquialisms - TV is television in an encyclopedia.
 Fixed —Clementina talk 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only three references for the last six sections (and a "curiosities" section which has one bullet point and one normal paragraph) - needs addressing.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...another thing that concerns me a bit is that in the "Other websites", Retracing the Berlin Wall is dead, and wall-berlin.org/ is forbidden. Could these be removed or fixed? :) Love, —Clementina talk 12:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to keep this ticking over, two weeks later. The most important thing here is lack of references really. As I said earlier: "Only three references for the last six sections (and a "curiosities" section which has one bullet point and one normal paragraph)". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: The article has been sat for nearly a month now, and for the majority of that time nothing seems to have changed and concerns have not been met. As TRM has said above, it's still lacking references for it to be a GA. Sorry, not now. Goblin 10:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]

Gettysburg Address[change source]

Gettysburg Address (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article's laid still for a while without any major changes, and being sufficiently simple and without red links, well referenced, and covering the subject pretty throughly, I thought it might be a good candidate for GA. It was also proposed for VGA earlier this year. Cordially, —Clementina talk 09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though not really a big deal, a lot of the book citations use the Template:Harvard citation format or something similar and the others don't. It would be nice if it was a bit more consistent. I'll be happy to fix it if anyone thinks it's nessesary to. wiooiw (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi wiooiw, thanks for your comments! :) If I understood you correctly... I usually use the Harvard-format references for references listed fully below, references I use more often; the ones that aren't referenced Harvard-style are not used as often and I therefore felt it would be simpler to simply link it directly. As far as I know, most articles reference their articles like this. If you still think it should be fixed, please feel free to do so, but I don't see a great problem with the references right now. :) Warmly, —Clementina talk 03:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:CITE you need to use the appropriate citation template. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and I would be very grateful if you could point out to me which template I should fix, since I think I've done all the citations according to WP:CITE, but I suppose I could have missed something. :) Love, —Clementina talk 05:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use Cite book for the Google Books sources as it supports a url parameter. Other than that well done Clementina :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? 01:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is clearly worth GA. References are more than adequate, and in my opinion do not need further elaboration. Writing is good. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is without a doubt, the problem is the consistency of the reference templates which in fact isn't a problem at all. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and replaced the pgood tag with good, the article has no major problems and the references are almost always overlooked, though I do agree that consistency of templates used would be ideal. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? 04:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at first glance it's reasonably suitable for GA, but there are several dozen niggling issues which could easily be resolved, a few examples:

  • Repetitive prose ("delivered" repeated quickly in lead)
 Fixed —Clementina talk
  • "came to be seen as one of the greatest" - this is SEWP, what's wrong with "is one of the greatest"?
 Fixed —Clementina talk
  • MOS issues: separate number ranges with an en-dash, not a hyphen for example.
 Fixed —Clementina talk
  • References, you can't just say "By August 1863, millions of people had been killed or hurt because of Civil War battles. " without a direct reference.
 Fixed —Clementina talk
  • "Edward Everett delivered a two-hour Oration before" why is that Oration capitalised?
 Fixed Thanks for catching that mistake! —Clementina talk
  • Ref 63 is a single page, so it shouldn't be pp.
 Fixed Oops. —Clementina talk
  • Bare URL in ref 41.
  • And 35, and 33.
  • Amongst many others...
  • Different date formats in the references, some are dmy (which should be mdy for USEng), some are ISO.

I could go on, but this really needs a capable copyeditor to do at least one run through of the text before it should even be considered GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful comments! PGA/PVGA wasn't the same without you. We do need more copyeditors as thorough as you are. I'll do my best to fix all your concerns, TRM. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot better now, still have bare URLs but the text is good, interesting and informative. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kelly[change source]

Dan Kelly (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a good article about one of Australia's famous bushrangers. Well referenced and comprehensive. The article was proposed earlier this year [1], and all issues have been fixed. As well their has been a new final section added. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good. Nice coverage, doesn't glorify his actions. A couple of points. Many of the refs have an English icon next to them. But most, if not all the links are in English. Ref link 25 is broken. I found this: Ned Kelly Rides with Floriade at NFSA, seems to address the issue. This: Restoration of The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906) also looks interesting.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article in the past. So i support a GA status for this article.--Sinbad (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the missing proposed good article tag.--Sinbad (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) A few comments have been added on the talk page. :) Best, —Clementina talk 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links updated --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beautifully done, thank you! :) It's even better than the version on the English Wikipedia, which is a refreshing change. My concerns have been fixed, and I think that, overall, this is ready to be a GA now. —Clementina talk 06:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a goer for me also. Tick! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightning Thief[change source]

The Lightning Thief (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article originally from enwiki and GA there. Some significant work has been done in the last few weeks simplifying and improving references and I now believe it reasonably fits all nine requirements. All problems mentioned in its peer review have been fixed. PrincessofLlyr talk 17:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not impressed. Book too recent; its notability not established. Too long, detail in several sections indigestible. Plot section unreadable. Full of red links. Overall, the page is too long for a work that is not really significant, and too raw. We have many pages on individual works of literature which are better than this. Look at The Pilgrim's Progress for a beautifully written page. It does not have a GA, and needs simplification, but what a good article, Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you suggest which parts should be shortened and what must be done to establish its notability? Pmlineditor ∞ 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Pmlineditor. What must be done? What defines "too recent" and "notability"? It was published five years (thousands of days) ago and is popular among kids and teens. Airplaneman ✈ 23:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a recent film based on it: Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief. PrincessofLlyr talk 03:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I don't think it's a question of notability—it certainly seems quite popular with teenagers. :P I haven't read the book though, so my review will sadly be rather limited... There are just three things I'd like to be fixed before this becomes a GA:

  1. Too many red links
  2. Making the section about the plot clearer and more comprehensive.
    I've done what I could to make the plot simpler and easier to read. :) This sentence sounds a little funny though: As they come near the pit of Tartarus, Luke’s shoes try to pull Grover into it, but he manages to slip his hooves out of them. Maybe this could be made a bit clearer? —Clementina talk 04:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ref number 3 doesn't seem to cover the information it is used as a source for.

I'll do what I can do on the first two, and hopefully be a help rather than a hindrance. Overall, the article seems to be of good quality and well-covered with reliable references, and with a little work it has an excellent chance of becoming GA. :) Cordially, —Clementina talk 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which has been reduced to one redlink (the other, Helm of Darkness, I've just created). :) Hope this helps, —Clementina talk 03:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't an issue here. I left a quick review on the article's talk page. -Barras (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read the article today. I think this article is ready to become a good one. -Barras (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think this article is good enough to be promoted now. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 05:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as promoted - Issues fixed and concerns addressed. Congratulations. Chenzw  Talk  08:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilgrim's Progress[change source]

The Pilgrim's Progress (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not written by me, so I feel free to say it's a fine page about a great book. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a red link but other then that it looks good - (>ಠ_ಠ)>The King<(^.^<) (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder of the GA requirement: "All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left". Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure one red link wouldn't hurt, and yeah, the book is great. ;) But anyway, the article is important here... But I think it needs a few more refs to make it more reliable and ready for GA. I'll leave a review when I find time, and let you know if I do. God bless, Belle tête-à-tête 12:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red link fixed, but more work needed - see talk page. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valid items on talk page now fixed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, I have one comment, but when I have more time, I will review the article more thoroughly. Pilgrim's Progress. . . is one of the most important books in English literature." As the first sentence of the article, it should provide an overview, an indisputable description. Being the "most important" is an opinion that does not belong in the first sentence. I suggest that it be replaced with the author, publishing year, and publisher. "[O]ne of the most important books in English literature" and the corresponding reference should be moved to the body of the article, prefixed with "according to so-and-so". Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, and now  Done. It is interesting how easy it is to overlook important things. Saying what it is comes first, evidence of notability second. We don't normally draw attention to the publisher in an intro, however. His name is visible on the title page illustration. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good.--Sinbad (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are new comments by Clementina on the talk page, and revisions/additions by me on the main page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not promoted; re-nominate if required ,after fixing some of the issues. --Eptalon (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States[change source]

History of the United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Was very close to being a VGA before its review was abruptly closed yesterday. I discussed this with another editor over IRC, and we think that it could fairly. It will likely again be nominated for VGA in the near future Purplebackpack89 17:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through this several times in the VGA review and think that it is good, although voting is evil. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*As Chem alluded to, we've been through this pretty thoroughly, and suffice it to say, I think it's at least good at this point. Kansan (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still problems with the references, including malformed ones, ones with hyphens instead of en-dashes, a mixture of date formats, repeated references which should be general references, a distinct lack of information regarding the Republican success in recent days, so it's not good yet. Not to mention the indiscriminate use of images. Too many images, all different sizes, hardly encyclopedia material, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't have a problem with the different images; such a diverse topic needs a diverse collection of images. Kansan (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say different images were a problem, I said their placement and size differences makes it look like a school project, not an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did say "too many images". At first, I didn't see the lack of consistency of sizes as a serious problem, but upon reflection, it really does look problematic and as such, upon further reflection I will strike my vote until we can find some consistency. Kansan (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several things for Rambling:
  1. I fixed the en-dash and malformed references issue. If there are a few I missed, you can fix them yourself
    Nope, your article, you're interested in its promotion, I'm merely interested in maintaining some level of excellence and not promoting poorly formatted articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no malformed/poorly formatted citations. They are probably formatted. Purplebackpack89 23:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, look again (67, 152, 160 to name but three at a glance). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
67 and 160 were VERY easy fixes; I'm a) not seeing the problem with 152 and b) not seeing any other referential problems Purplebackpack89 07:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't go around saying all the references are fixed when they clearly were not. And don't mix date formats. Use one format of dates throughout all references. Ref 54 has spare comma, ref 59 needs a pp., still too many book references without page references, 147 needs an en-dash, 153, The Washington Post is a work, not a publisher, 158 has no publisher, 159 the work is The New York Times, not the publisher is New York Times, etc, etc, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. IMO, there's nothing wrong with having a lot of images. A real history book has lots of images of different sizes
    Yes, that's your opinion. Try looking at decent articles in en.wiki, FA stuff doesn't have dozens of images at all different sizes. It looks amateur. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I resized the images so now they are only two different sizes instead of "all different sizes". --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. When did something that happened two days ago become history? We don't know even know the extent of Republican/Tea Party victories, let the legacy of the Republicans' victories
    A single sentence describing the results would suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have instigated threads on the images and the GOP victories Purplebackpack89 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, of course, all remaining unresolved issues which I would expect to be resolved for any level of accreditation, leave alone VGA, on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning... Purplebackpack89 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning not all talk page comments have been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Being the one who 'abruptly closed this yesterday' I thought I should at least give my rationale for closing it (again), as it seems to have been overlooked with the straight nomination to PGA without fulfilling and meeting all the criteria first - i.e., before you nominate it. We're meant to be seeing if things are already good, not how we can make them good. Anyway, I digress. I closed the nomination as it had, in short, staled. The nomination was made over a month two months ago, yet the guidelines/policy (I forget which we made it...) says that noms run for three weeks. Hmm. Secondly, there will still many outstanding issues in the article - perhaps more than I suggested in my closing statement - and considering a criteria for both VGA and GA is that the article shouldn't undergo lots of changes recently (So, err, fixing most of the issues with the article) it seemed appropriate to close instead of leaving it running or giving it a 'no-consensus' extension. Finally, and this is more a general point than aimed at this article, (V)GA is a community process, yes, but articles that are nominated shouldn't just be drive-by noms made by any editor who has an 'urge' and then leaves the fixing to others. If you make the nom, follow it through and fix all the concerns yourself, otherwise what's the point of you nominating it in the first place? Any questions/comments etc on what I've said I'll gladly receive to my talk - it'd probably be OT below this. Likewise, if you've got issues with a closure I make (As there seemingly is here?) then please, as ever, bring it to my talk and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you - believe it or not I don't like closing things as not promoted! Regards, Goblin 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

FWIW: My closure diff is here. Goblin 00:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
What the... "drive-by nom?" I have been working on this article for MONTHS!!!! Heaven forbid, somebody other than me work on this. It clearly meets the GA and PGA criteria as listed, and is certainly GA (if not VGA) quality when the images concern and the consolidation of the Foner refs is resolved. The references are properly formatted, by the way Purplebackpack89 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what I wrote:
"Finally, and this is more a general point than aimed at this article, (V)GA is a community process, yes, but articles that are nominated shouldn't just be drive-by noms made by any editor who has an 'urge' and then leaves the fixing to others"
Nothing wrong with other people working on articles, there is a problem (Imo) with people nominating and never returning. And it clearly doesn't meet the criteria otherwise this would be full of supports. :-). Goblin 02:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
There is only one oppose vote, that of TRM. And nomming and never returning? Look at the last 50 edits, or the last 100. Over 80% of them are by me. Purplebackpack89 02:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is more a general point than aimed at this article. That is all. Goblin 02:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

 Comment::Maybe it is a case of the more you look, the more you find? But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I still have several questions about specific language. I was gathering these up for the PVGA when it was closed. Before I dig into that--some content questions. No article on a topic this broad can cover everything, but here are a few items I wonder about. In roughly descending order of importance (although that is entirely subjective):


  • What ever happened to Prohibition? It was in the outline, but not here. It was a vast social experiment and something that seems peculiarly American.
Well, the Temperance Movement is mentioned. I added a sentence about prohibition:::
Thanks. That helps. Ted (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • French settlement in Louisiana? The Louisiana Purchase is mentioned, but not the actual settlement (See: "France settled Canada and the area around the Great Lakes.")
Added Louisiana to the
OK.Ted (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's Jimmy Carter? We jump from Nixon to Reagan. Camp David Accords? Nobel Peace Prize?
For starters, Carter recieved the Nobel Peace Prize for work he did outside of his Presidency (and none of the other American lauterates are mentioned as such). Secondly, he was only President for four years Purplebackpack89 07:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean. He won the Nobel Peace Prize. He was president only one term, but that was a pretty significant term for the US in the Middle East. Ted (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carter didn't win for his presidency; he won for his post-presidency. And none of the other Americans Presidents or other Americans who won are mentioned in this article, nor in the en articles about general History of the U.S. or History of the U.S. 1964-80. Though Carter is not mentioned by name, there is clearly mention of the Saudi oil embargo and the Iran hostage crisis Purplebackpack89 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd to say this about an American article (especially since I just called for France, but there is a strong European--or even UK--focus and very little on Asia. Europe is perhaps more important, but relations with Asia-Pacific are important too. China is almost non-existent as a country the US had relations with (allied in WWII, the "Loss of China", fought against in the Korean War, etc.) China was also a source of immigrants (mentioned very, very briefly).
Well, the United States and China have really only had relations for 38 years. Communist China is mentioned as an antogonist in the Korean War, and the immigrants are mentioned. Not seeing how WWII or the "Loss of China" is very relevant to this article, except as a Korea/Vietnam antagonist. This is an article about U.S. History, not U.S. foreign relations or Chinese history Purplebackpack89 07:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To say that "the United States and China have really only had relations for 38 years" lacks perspective. Formal diplomatic relations between the US and the PRC are that brief, but that completely misses the point. China was very important to the US before that. The way the US, especially FDR, was so attached to the Nationalists was significant in WWII and in the Cold War. This book on Stilwell is excellent. Ted (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're exaggerating the importance of China to this article. Purplebackpack89 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several figures or items that may need to be linked, but that would add red links. Phyllis Schafly (to balance Friedan and Steinem in that section), the Grange, and Roe v. Wade. I have mentioned several of them already. PBP asked me to make the articles, but I only made one–Indentured servant.
Can't you create more of them yourself, as I asked? It'd be very helpful Purplebackpack89 07:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered your question on my talk page. I suggested four and made one of them. You nominated, and I am doing my part by reading carefully. Ted (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones can I create? Make some redlinks in the article. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if any of these were already discussed and decided. Thanks, Ted (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Hi, All. Still a long way to go on this. I wish there had been a little break between nominations. Checking takes time. I've highlighted some issues that need attention on the Talk page.

  • 24 Commas between two verbs or verb phrases (still needs fixing)
  • 26 Headings: Consistency and Manual of Style (important because changes may break links)
  • 27 Needs simplification: clause occurring in the middle of a sentence

Thanks, Ted (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References still need to be fixed per my comment above. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the pp., endash and punctuation errors in less time than it took you to whine about them. The books without page references are generally book-length works dealing exclusively with the topics of the sentence; and I'm not seeing where it requires page references anyway Purplebackpack89 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I'm not "whining" about them. I pointed them out as erroneous, despite your continual denial of any problem. If you want help, fix your own attitude here. I'm sorry I spent so many hours reviewing the article, just to be criticised for being particular, specific and very detailed. And if I have to say don't mix date formats in the references one more time.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily closed as not promoted: Per WP:NOTNOW - the article has lots of outstanding issues from it's two month VGA nom and these should have been completely fixed and a gap left between re-nomination for GA status. The article has taken more than enough of the community's time and it's clear that the nominator feels that it isn't his place to fix them. Either way, the article is still undergoing major changes and is not stable, thereby not meeting criteria 6 of the GA criteria. I therefore feel that it is not appropriate for this article to continue at PGA until it has been given chance to stabilise and all outstanding issues are fixed. As ever, if you disagree (and are uninvolved) please feel free to overturn without prior notification to me - I won't mind. Goblin 22:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]
No need to "wait for lynch mob". Good close. Goodvac (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. Although the close was correct, you seem to have a history with Purplebackpack89, so it was not your place to close this. Goodvac (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin who hasn't commented in this review. I would probably close this as well. It was long past its 2 weeks. The GA process is not for working together to make a better article. It is already supposed to be at GA quality once it gets here, barring some minor fixes. That being said. BG7 shouldn't have closed it as you two have issues with each other and have been told to avoid each other in the past if I remember correctly. -DJSasso (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) This is just a recall of the dates: Week 1 ends Nov 11; week 2 ends Nov 16, week 3 ends Nov 20; Article can be promoted, if ready earlier, or withdrawn; Neither PBP89 nor BG7 can promote the article (obvious COI). I am willing to help, let's work as a community to fix the remaining issues. We are almost there. --Eptalon (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd pressed save on this before the AN thread but it'd lost my session. Still, accept the possible issue but stand by the close overall.
@Eptalon, when you take into account that the article has had two months at PVGA you understand why it's not suitable. And articles are not meant to be fixed by the community if the nominator cannot be bothered. It fails several criteria and there are therefore grounds to speedy it. Goblin 22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]

Despite a COI re-opening of this PGA, nothing has changed. It's not good enough. Several of my comments on the talk page are unaddressed, several references (as noted above) are incorrectly formatted (despite denial from the nominator) and if you're prepared to nominate the article, be prepared to fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ^ What TRM said. If you want some advice PBP89, just try working on it before you nominate it for anything else. I'm not saying the article is hopeless... it just doesn't stand a chance right now. So, first: fix unadressed issues (or get someone to help) and then re-nominate it. I understand you've been wanting to get this article nominated for a very long time, but right now don't you think you should fix it up so it will be less of a COI? --« Erin » 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still see enough problems to fail this one. A simple example: twice we get: "The growth of the English colonies was not good for the Native Americans, because many of them died of disease and lost their lands". (intro) and "However, in time England controlled all of the colonies, and most American colonists adopted the English way of life. The growth of the colonies was not good for Native Americans. Many of them died of smallpox, a disease brought to America by the Europeans. The ones who lived lost their lands to the colonists." (Colonial America)
Now, this is not really true, because it suggests that the worst damage came early on. That's just not so. The real damage to the indians was done in the 19th century. (There is a brief mention under 'Reconstructions') This is the truth: the full scale of the damage was done not by colonists, not by the British, but by the United States when it was well & truly independent. Also, why repeat almost the same words in the two places? The sentence in the intro is very clumsy.
We should not see these kind of problems even at the less exalted GA level. I could add more: the article is a ridiculous length, and that does add to the problems of a less skilled reader. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Outstanding issues need to be properly and comprehensively addressed before re-nominating. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagle[change source]

Bald Eagle (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hey everyone, this article has been nominated for Good Article before and has had a long list of comments (now all fixed and seen to) put up on its talk page. It failed, but I'm determined to get it to GA some day soon. I admit my simplifying (I brought it over from en, you see) is not the most perfect, but I'd like to see if there are any more concerns I can fix about it now or if it is ready. :) Thanks. Cheerfully, Bella tête-à-tête 11:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a really nice article :). I did find a "Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters" category. I don't really know if that should be there. wiooiw (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :( I don't really know about that category, either, one of the reasons why I put this up... I tried everything to fix it, but it doesn't seem to go away. I don't see why it would hurt, though. Bella tête-à-tête 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the addition of that category by removing this deprecated template parameter :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, that seems to have solved the problem. Thank you, Grunny dearie! :) Bella tête-à-tête 06:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments nice work so far, as requested, some comments on the talk page. Ping me when you're done! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you an email, and finished the comments. =) Hope I did well enough! If you have any more to review on, please do so. Cheerfully, Bella tête-à-tête 06:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a few copyedits to the article. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good as is, although I did have one clarifying note that I left on the article's talk page.Kansan (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filled in redlink for Skagit Valley. How can we get a link for Least Concern on the taxobox? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also filled in redlink for spawn (biology). --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, dear Chemmy cookie, I was going to fill those two links in, but you beat me to it (*boils with envy at Chem's quickness*)! Your attention in this part is very valued. :) I do hope some more people come along and comment here before it gathers dust and closes as unsuccessful. So far, I believe it's quite good - except it's my old internet server that makes poor dear Mr. MacDonald's edits look funny. That reminds me, I once ate at a banging good restaurant called the MacDonald's or something...Ahem, anyway, thanks! Cheerfully, Bella tête-à-tête 12:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I believe its quality is enough to be a good article now as well. :) Excellent work everyone, thorough reviewer and diligent fixer both! —Clementina talk 06:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Great work! Article is in good shape and there's clearly a lot of love for this one, so let's promote it to GA status. Woop! Congratumulations, another great example of the process working correctly. Goblin 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

Copper(II) sulfate[change source]

Copper(II) sulfate (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I want to get at least one of my chemistry articles into a good article status and see what I can do to improve my chemistry article-writing skills. Peer review is a little bit sluggish.Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single reference on the entire article. Not even close to good article status. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DJ. I didn't even think of nomming History of the U.S. until it had over 100 refs. You'd probably need at least 15 for this Purplebackpack89 17:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could import some references from en.wikipedia, what it is based on. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imported refs, added reaction formulas, and did some cleanup. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed refs so they are after punctuation. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead needs some expansion, it needs to summarise the article. As a minimum I'd include its colour and some of its uses.
  • Chemical properties section is unreferenced. I don't go for a "minimum number of requirements" but I do go for adding references where appropriate.
  • Claims like "It is one of the most common copper compounds." definitely need referencing though.
  • "It should only be tasted carefully, as it is poisonous." we're not a safety guide, and why you'd taste it, I haven't a clue, perhaps just stick to saying "it is poisonous" (with a reference, of course).
  • "Copper sulfate is not normally made in a laboratory as it is cheap to buy." this doesn't make sense to me because presumably it's made somewhere before you can buy it? Where is it made?
  • "resistant" is not simple English.
  • Avoid all-capitals in the reference titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll work on that.  Done
    • I get references from enWP. I might be able to find some more. --later--I found several references from another source.  Done
    • I removed some of the claims because I could not find any references.  Done
    • In case you didn't know, some minerals are detected by taste. My mineral handbook (maybe I can add a ref) says that it has a sweet metallic taste but should be tasted carefully as it is poisonous.  Done
    • It is not normally made in a chemical laboratory, but in a chemical production plant. The same for sulfuric acid. People don't burn sulfur, react that with nitrogen dioxide and air, and dissolve that in sulfuric acid and dilute it when they need sulfuric acid; they just buy the stuff from a chemical supplier.  Done
    • I'll work on that.  Done
    • I'll fix that.  Done

Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs 6 thru 9 need publisher information, accessdates, dates, etc where available.
  • "toxic" isn't Simple.
  • Nor is "electrode".
  • Pity we can't do the infobox like you imported over from en.wiki for Zinc?

Otherwise this is heading in the right direction. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must have saved it too early. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week: I was going to get lynched no matter which way I sent this, but it's rather clearly a 'no-consensus-but-has-had-work-done' to it so the logical course is this extension which I slept on last night. Come on guys, give it some comments! Goblin 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
The main thing blocking this is the lack of information about references 6-9. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{sofixit}}? They should all be easy enough to find, particularly access dates, and as TRM says, if they're not available they don't need to be added. I'll take a look now myself... Goblin 13:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
 Done. That was soooo hard. Not. Goblin 13:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]
Explained difficulty on your talk page. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not promoted: As much as it pains me, there's been no further input from the community on this one which generally means that it's not ready. There's also still outstanding issues on the article, and therefore there's no consensus to promote this one at the moment. Try fixing the remaining issues and then coming back! :-) Cheers, Goblin 17:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Japanese American internment[change source]

Japanese American internment (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've put a lot of work into it. It's not the longest of articles but I do think it provides a good overview of internment. Kansan (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good start, good start. However, there are a few things I think need to be added. For example, it didn't mention that the Hawaiian Japanese weren't interred (I added that myself). Also, it doesn't mention Manzanar or any of the other camps by name. And of course, adding more content means adding more refs and more links Purplebackpack89 02:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding to this (and for creating Manzanar. Kansan (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list of comments put up on the talk page, take your time in reviewing them. =) Love, Bella tête-à-tête 08:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your extensive review, which was very helpful. The points raised all have either been fixed or responded to. Kansan (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, no prob. :D I'm pleased at how quickly and swiftly you fixed/responded to my comments, and I can find no more objections here to this being a good article... But my opinion is much too influenced by my prejudice for you, so perhaps someone more neutral should see about this page. ;) With heartfelt love, Bella tête-à-tête 06:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completed some copyedits to the article. I also added a {{fact}} for the crowd-into-a-racetrack part. IMO, it is too short but tells about as much about internment as there is. Maybe some quotes from Japanese people can be added. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment: the length of an article has nothing to do with its quality. ;) Great work, everyone. —Clementina talk 01:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no specific article length guidelines violated here. Kansan (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look, made mainly MOS changes, looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week: While it is definitely just about there, and is without a doubt leaning support, I don't feel confident to close this at the moment either way as consensus is not wholly clear, and there are no grounds to close it for a 'no-consensus', so let's leave it another week to see if it emerges as I expect it will or if something miraculous happens(!). Anyone else is welcome to come and alter this 'decision' at any point if they read the community's thoughts on this differently. :-) Goblin 01:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
Reading over the article, it seems to be a quality article that is neutrally yet interestingly written, has had good work put into it, and is actually readable. :) I think it's ready to be a good article. Love, Clem's Pet Bunny Hop 03:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's much to like about this one, which is indeed refreshingly readable. It is rather short, and aspects not formally listed as criteria may still be relevant. The article could say more about the thinking of the American government before the regulation was enacted and later in the war (all public record). The reference to the US Government and FBI knowing the rumours were untrue is backed by a ref to the National Japanese American Historical Society, which is not a neutral source.
Looks good to me too. As, many have already commented, it is very readable. Ted (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Was San Francisco the main base of the Pacific Fleet in mainland US at that time? And was not San Fran the main location of Japanese immigration at the time? And was there not a concern that Japanese submarines might operate off the west coast of the US? That might help readers understand why California was so important.
Parallels with other countries might be mentioned. Everyone interned 'enemy aliens'. Britain interned about 1,000 people of German origin who were living in Britain. Some were citizens, and some were Jews. Many were released when officials got to know what kind of people they were. None of this is absolutely necessary, it is 'framework' stuff. On trivia, race tracks are certainly not 'small places'! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say Honolulu rather than San Francisco is the answer to at least one of the questions; Los Angeles also had (has) a very large Japanese community as well. Considering the numbers of people interred at them (tens of thousands), racetracks are very small places Purplebackpack89 03:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as promoted: Great work, just as I thought it'd turn out! Excellent work on this one, congratulations! An example of the GA process working as it should... Goblin 17:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Mosque[change source]

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

Quite a bit of work went into this article. Personally, I think that it would have the potential for VGA, but I'll try GA first (ideally, this cuts down the workload for VGA). --Eptalon (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This, for me, is a better article than most, certainly a good candidate. I just want to mention this:
"All mosques have a prayer hall, which is also called musalla. Normally, there is no furniture in it. This makes it possible to allow as many people as possible to pray."
'Furniture' is a tricky word. In the context I would take rugs and prayer mats to be furniture. And isn't it true that if prayer is performed as Muslims do, that is the simpler reason why there is no other furniture? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, then look at Protestant ones. Protestant churches are often much more plain, and less decorated than Catholic/Eastern Orthodox ones. This could be the reason here as well:You shall not make an image of God. Also, when you look at the ceremony of celebrating Mass in Christianity, it involves many accessories (like chalices, large books, large crosses, an altar (table)...); Muslim ceremonies do not seem to involve such accessories,other than a carpet to cover the floor. This is however just a "theory", which would need further research so it can be backed up with references. --Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was only making the verbal point that, in context, rugs are a kind of furniture. And to suggest that, if you need enough space to press your forehead to the ground, then having no chairs or pews does not get any more worshippers in. Just a thought. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a small change, and am in favour of this article for GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice page, but I found a few mistakes in it (okay, a pretty long list :P) and wrote the whole review down on the talk page, and feel free to fix them! Let me know when you've finished, too. Sweetly, Bella tête-à-tête 07:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More changes, including some along the lines you suggest. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Reduce number of images by about 50%. We shouldn't be squashing text between images at all.
  • I removed "famous mosques" - this is Simple English but we should still maintain POV standards. What makes one mosque more "famous" than another?
  • Why "Mosques in Spain"? Why not "Mosques in Birmingham"? You could argue for sections like this for every place where Muslims are/have been prominent.
  • Images should either be just thumb or thumb|upright, not a mixture of random sizes and shapes.

The article is very good and needs just a few tweaks to make it professional. Right now it looks a little like it was put together "by" simple English readers/writers, not "for" simple English readers/writers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the graphics work well, but need controlling, so now they are all aligned right and 200px.
  • If there is a problem with the text, it is the large number of Arabic words in the article. I have italicised most of them, excepting words which have become common in English. This is just a matter of consistency. However, one can't be happy with so many words which have no meaning to the non-muslim. The article has taken over too much from enWP, and is too detailed in places.
  • There is repetition, too, and content which spills over into a general account of the religion. Now I'm sorry I looked at it so closely! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extended for one week: So close! Very nearly there and just a few, largely MOS tweaks to be made as above. Macdonald-ross raises some good points, so it is also hoped that these could possibly be fixed in the extension :-) Goblin 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
Closed as promoted: There's a lot to like here. I was thinking of initially erring on the side of caution and going for a 'not promoted' but after reading up all the background that'd be unfair and so this is most definitely a promote. :-) Congratumulations guys! Goblin 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]

Traditional animation[change source]

Traditional animation (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
I believe the article is sufficiently referenced, and although new, it meets 8 of the 9 requirements for good articles. It's just that there are no interwiki links yet. Wpeaceout (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be a GA, because now the article, even though new, meets all the GA criteria with 19 comprehensive refs and sufficient length. And now the article has two interwiki. But how old do articles have to be to get GA? Wpeaceout (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prose size is 900K, about as much as a stub would have. Please read the GA guidelines. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not complete, the lead is not clear at all, it has not undergone edits by several editors, and the last few revisions are not minor changes. Sorry, this will probably be speedily closed. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Chemicalinterest. I have fixed all the issues in the article. It is just that I need multiple editors to help out. Wpeaceout (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily closed as not promoted: Sorry, this article meets pretty much none of the criteria, contrary to your claims that it meets all of them. Furthermore, PGA is not a place to get help from multiple editors, it's somewhere to do the work yourself and nominate once it is ready. Please take a look at current GAs before proposing any more, as this is way, way, way off the mark. Goblin 05:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Zinc[change source]

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

This article failed VGA because of its size and several people, as well as I, thought that GA would be better. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture captioned "Zinc oxide in a flame" is overlapping the picture gallery. I use a netbook. Anyone else seeing that? wiooiw (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In IE8, it is in the "Preparation" section. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the picture anyway.
Where are all the reviewers? Did I scare them away? ;) Or is this just such a booooring article. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poor dear Chemmy! Noy, the article doesn't seem boring at all, it's just that the subject is so hard - much too clever for me to understand, however simple the words have become. It just doesn't make sense in my small rock-sized brain; I would really love to review your article, tho'. I will, however, make an effort again when I can find time, and perhaps you'll see a review left on it sooner or later. :) I do assure you the article isn't boring! ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 05:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the same as Belinda. It isn't boooooring, it's just that I haven't studied chemistry since high school. I did give it a reading and just found one minor change (doesn't to does not) which I made. I think it is a good example for other science articles. What element will you tackle next? Gotanda (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a chemical compound? Zinc oxide might be easy because it is a GA on enWP. He picks the easiest articles... --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look through the article. It's well referenced (and the only problem with the refs I noticed was a minor date consistency issue that I fixed). I simplified a little, too. The scientific nature of this article means that some vocabulary has to be linked or explained, and as is, I think it's about as simple as it can be without compromising the integrity of the article. From my perspective, at least, it looks good. Kansan (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as promoted: It would be unfair to drag this one out any longer, or risk closing it for a 'lack of input'. It's got three people behind it and if you count me then that makes four - so I feel that this is one worthy of promotion. Well done! Goblin 16:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia[change source]

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've slowly but steadily expanded this article with information from the English Wikipedia for the last several months, and I think it has the quality to be a GA with some work. :) I would greatly appreciate any reviews or comments, as I know my simplification was probably imperfect. Thank you! Love, —Clementina talk 09:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some simplification, but not much. To me, it looks a little too complex. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Chem, thanks for your changes! :) By the way, if you would be so kind as to specify in which way it is complex, I'd be happy to fix them. I think all the complex terms are linked or explained, and most sentence structures have been simplified. —Clementina talk 08:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not really any section that is complex, but I think it is the size that matters. It is somewhat hard to remember all of that stuff. But extreme simplicity isn't a criteria for a GA :) --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see one thing that can be improved. The lead only has information about her death and death-related things. It should have a summary of her entire life with maybe a sentence about her death and people pretending to be her. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Hmm, do you think so? Actually, though, I think her death and rumored escape is very important in the introduction and should still take up the larger part of it: it's the reason why Grand Duchess Anastasia's become so famous. Most movies or media about her is about her death/escape/impersonators rather than her life. :) And remember, Simple doesn't mean little! ;) What do you think? Abundant blessings, —Clementina talk 10:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a condensed version. "She was the daughter of Mr. So-and-so and the sister of Miss So-and-so. She died. (goes on about her death/impersonation after this)" I think that a sentence about the most notable part of her life should be included here. The lead should give a summary of the article. If the article was 3/4 about her death, than 3/4 of the lead should be about her death. I couldn't find anything exceptionally notable about her life, though. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead isn't summarising the entire article then it should really be a straight fail. The lead needs to summarise the whole article in similar proportion to the article itself - take a look at other (V)GAs for examples! Goblin 18:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Thanks for your comments, BG7. :) However, I don't entirely agree with you that if "the lead isn't summarising the entire article", the article should consequently "really be a straight fail". According to MOS guidelines, the lead should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." If you look at the VGA Jim Hendrix, the introduction doesn't say anything about his early life, school, early inspiration, or time in the army, though these sections take up a fairly large amount of the article. Same with Charles Spurgeon's early life and family, and Jessica Alba's early and personal life. Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna, as I said before, is especially notable for her death and the rumors circulating about her possible escape, which is why I've written largely about it in the introduction. There is little or nothing in her life notable enough to write about in the introduction, but I would appreciate more comments on this. Sincerely, —Clementina talk 13:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought on this one was: it's almost a new category: "People only notable for their birth and death". Seriously overlong, IMHO (47,000 bytes), I think vigorous pruning would improve it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... and would appreciate all help. :) Love, —Clementina talk 11:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much more needed. As you say, nothing is noteworthy about her life, so why 46000 kb? Let's try and get it under 30k! The article should not be a survey of every aspect of end of the Romanovs. Context, yes, but not so much detail. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some more simplifying and cutting unnecessary detail would help, but as long as it follows all of our writing rules, I don't think we need to cut out quite so much. :) After all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital project - as long as verifiability and the other essential points are covered, there isn't any practical limit to total amount of content. I'll see what more I can do, though. Cordially, —Clementina talk 09:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three reasons why articles should not be overlong:
  1. Time taken to download, as indicated by the bot guideline when editing.
  2. The advice (which is widely followed in enWP) to break long content down into sub-articles. The relevance here is that much of the material more properly belongs in general histories of the Romanoffs and Russian revolution.
  3. Most important of all: sheer volume of prose is an obstacle to users with limited English. Just because the founders of Simple concentrated on word frequency and Basic English does not mean they got it all absolutely right!
  4. And, to repeat, a biography is about a person's life and hers was notably not notable!
Check-lists and guidelines are fine, and should be adhered to. But if you're saying that nothing else should be questioned, then I disagree. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is WP:PGA and not "I don't like it because it's too long" etc. Please state clearly your objections against the criteria for a good article. That way we can action them. Just giving your opinion as saying the article is "too long" is unacceptable and doesn't (as far as I recall) fail any GA criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every article here should be simple. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course but simple doesn't equal short. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the article is so long that I have a hard time grasping it, then I think it is too long. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course, that's your opinion. Articles must be comprehensive. If that makes the article long, that's the way it has to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and checked a lot of the vocabulary. There were still several items that were pretty complex. I added links to the following words: archaeologist, captivity, execution, animated, laundry, memoir, sentry, imp, valet, and autocracy. I noticed that some words in the article linked to Simple English Wikipedia and others to Simple English Wiktionary. I tried to follow a similar pattern, but the links may need a check. Two issues: new red links and some of the Wiktionary entries do not exist, but don't show up as red links. If anyone considers that over-linking, please go ahead and undo, but I think the words add complexity.

One other issue that adds complexity is some of the quotations. Quotes from sources can be really valuable and add richness to an article, but some of them include some complex language. I think there is always a trade off there, but some of the quotes might be paraphrased or left out. For example:

  • He added that they sat "huddled up closely together" on a sofa on... Huddle is infrequent.
 Fixed Linked huddled to Wiktionary, where I created a page. —Clementina talk
  • pink-sleeved arm opening the topmost (highest) pane... Topmost is explained but then pane follows immediately. Pane is an infrequent word.
 Fixed Created an article on Wiktionary (pane) which I've linked the word to. :) Hope this helps, —Clementina talk
  • "Our Friend is so contented (happy) with our girlies, says they have gone through heavy 'courses' for their age and their souls have much developed," ... Contented is explained, but heavy courses seems complex and idiomatic to me--difficult for a second language learner.
 Fixed —Clementina talk
  • "We played on the swing, that was when I roared with laughter, the fall was so wonderful! Indeed! I told the sisters about it so many times yesterday that they got quite fed up, but I could go on telling it masses of times ... What weather we've had! One could simply shout with joy." ... Idiomatic uses and phrasal verbs like Roar with laughter and get fed up can be complex. Masses of laughter added in combination in one short quote make a complex passage.
 Fixed Cut out "masses of times", explained "roar with laughter" and "get fed up". Thanks for pointing this out! —Clementina talk

Those are few places to reduce complexity in a long article with a lot of detail in it. Just the amount of detail, the long names, and the many interconnections make this a complicated story in itself. But that is separate from the language. Maybe I just lack the Russian history context. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments, Gotanda! :) I've fixed a few and will try to get to the rest later. You made some very good points which I agree with, and I'm sure that even if it doesn't get to GA, the article will become much better through this review. Warmly, —Clementina talk 05:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, dear Clemmy! I created all the red links for you, because I'm your "dutiful little sister". It took me a long time, but at least the article looks better now. >_> I was glad to help, but don't expect me to be doing all this tiring work for you again! :P The article still looks a little too long, though. Take out some unnecessary stuff here and there and I'm sure it'll be fine. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised no one has mentioned that the entire "In culture" section has no references whatsoever. PrincessofLlyr talk 13:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for your excellent review, dear Barras! It's been a great help. Please tell me if there's anything else to fix, and I'll be very happy to do so. Oh - and PrincessofLlyr, the "In culture" section is largely unreferenced because it's just a list of well-known books or movies (which are all linked to their own articles) without any controversial information in it. :) Warmly, —Clementina talk 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remain opposed, on the grounds that the article is far longer than it needs to be to cover the subject (by a factor of 2 IMO). I know the issue of relevance is not listed in our criteria, but it is in enWP under: "Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." This is extra-important to our readers, who may read slowly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to en's criteria, though, the article on Grand Duchess Anastasia there (which is rather longer than Simple's) is a featured article. However, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion... :) —Clementina talk 01:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as promoted: Woop! Whilst not a massive consensus, there is one there and so it's my pleasure to make this our most recent Good Article - and probably last of 2010? Whilst there are some concerns, none of these are made under our criteria and are, therefore, somewhat irrelevant with the current criteria. If they need changing, here is not the place to decide them or bring them into play. Congratulations! Goblin 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Singapore[change source]

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

I have been adding new information into this article for the last few weeks. I believe it contains enough information to be promoted to Good Article status. It might have some red links. But it indeed qualifies for good article status. Please comment if you don't agree. Thanks! Hydriz (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty thorough, but redlinks should be fixed. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But I currently don't have the knowledge in the areas covered by the red links. We need other Wikipedians to help. Hydriz (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this article needs more references compared to its length, but it seems to have good potential. I'll try to find time to review it, as I have a few more comments to make. :) ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 00:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this article good enough to become a GA? Hydriz (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has a lot of potential, but I think it needs better organization as a first step. For example:
  • Why does the national flower come before economy?
  • Why does language (even down to details of secondary education) come before history?
  • Some things seem to be missing like: the reputation for being so law-abiding or having a strict legal system (depends how you look at it); the food culture like chicken rice and hawkers that are so much a part of Singaporean culture; sports like rugby and horse racing are pretty important to the city; and Singapore was a leader in congestion pricing and managing cars so differently from other cites. A GA should be pretty complete, right?
Just some suggestions. Gotanda (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just put up a fairly long review on the talk page. :) The article looks overall okay, though. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────┘
I have helped correct many of your reviews. But some really needs someone else to help. I can't be the only one doing everything. I am not a genius. Maybe Chenzw can help? Hydriz (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's our way that the proposer does the work. I think the article is not bad, but not near GA standard. There's a lot of awkward writing; in Simple that's important. The article lacks an account of the political system or government policy, so fails to be comprehensive. Suppose we ask a simple question: why has Singapore done so well, in contrast to its neighbour? We don't find much answer in the article. I had a British thought: it's a great thing being an island! But it doesn't tell the reader it is an island!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Sorry, this one's not quite up to shape yet, and nor is there a promotion consensus. Fix any outstanding issues, then come back and try again! :-) Goblin 13:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Knut (polar bear)[change source]

Knut (polar bear) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I simplified this over from enwiki, and although I'm sure it has a few faults, I think it shows slight potential for GA. I would love to have a review or some feedback, though. :) ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 13:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week: The discussion has had little or no discussion made to it and it would be unfair to close this when no comments but those of the nominator have yet been made. Whilst the three week period isn't here yet, I doubt we will get the discussion required between now and then, so this just saves some grief! :-) Goblin 14:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
They have been attended to. Thank you very much for the comments! :) ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 08:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Congratulations, a well-written article that has had concerns resolved promptly to create an article that's definitely meeting the criteria. The comments above say everything that I would normally say in this bit to be honest; there's a clear consensus formed! Well done! Goblin 12:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles/Archive_10&oldid=8895497"