Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 11

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

Archived requests[change source]

Vitoria-Gasteiz[change source]

Vitoria-Gasteiz (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A fully fledged article that mostly simple, enough refs so overall good. Of course, still has faults. The one and only...Mr. Berty! talk~stalk 12:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done a short review. Hydriz (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It has been a while now and most of the comments on Talk:Vitoria-Gasteiz have not been addressed. This should become a GA someday, but it still needs a lot of work as indicated in the reviews/comments. Gotanda (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: Basically, per the above oppose. Goblin 19:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

Halophile[change source]

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

Meets all the criteria for GAs, in my opinion. Albacore (talk · changes) 03:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a quality-article, and in very potential shape, but I think it needs more references and slight simplification. But it seems that just a little work will make it ready in no time. :) ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 00:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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 14:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

I finally got around to making a few comments on the Talk page. A very challenging topic to make simple. Gotanda (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: I would suggest fixing the already raised issues with this one and then renominating it, perhaps after another review, as it's very nearly there but due to the running time and lack of consensus it would be somewhat improper to promote this or extend it further, sorry! Goblin 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

The Sea of Monsters[change source]

The Sea of Monsters (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

GA in enwp, copied and simplified here. Is still complex in parts and has a lot of redlinks. Comments are appreciated. Pmlineditor  18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gotanda and I have both put up some comments. :) Nice article, and hopefully we'll be able to make this a GA soon! Warmly, —Clementina talk 10:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of these issues have been fixed. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
<overreact>This book is one of my favorites from the Percy Jackson series! Yaaaaaay! Yes! Yes! Support!</overreact>...Actually, I think a few more references in the Summary part of the article, and words such as "intermingle", "recruit" and "engaging" don't sound especially simple to me, even if they are Basic English words. Maybe you could find a simpler word to explain in parenthesis or a wiktionary link?—But besides all that, I do like the article. It's not that long, but there are enough references and blue links to satisfy me. As long as those concerns are fixed, I'm quite for support here. ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 01:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've fixed most of the concerns of Gotanda and Clementina. Further comments are welcome. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This article seems good now - it was quite good from the first, but now the further improvements have made it even better. :) Btw, sorry, PM, for not being able to reply to you on my query - I turned it off without noticing. ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 13:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The plot section could use more simplifying (not the words exactly, but the general sense is a little hard to understand), but overall it's a quality article. With a very little more simplifying, I think it'll be ready. If I get time (which I highly doubt, but I'll really try), I'll do some tweaking there. Cordially, —Clementina talk 13:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    I have done some more simplification to the Plot section. Please take a look. :) Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Closed as promoted: Congratulations, this seems to have had the work put in to get it to GA status and has the support from the (albeit few, though that can't be helped as all noms are the same...) commentators here. Well done! Goblin 10:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Komodo dragon[change source]

Komodo dragon (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is copied and simplified from enwp where it is a Featured Article. It is also featured or good in several other languages. Much of the early work was done by User:Bibliomaniac15 and User:Yottie listed it as a potential GA, so it has the work of several editors. Thanks for considering this, and I look forward to some comments. Cheers! Gotanda (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Albacore and wiooiw have really gone above and beyond to clean up a bunch of reference problems that I was unaware of. They have really improved this article. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I only had one real concern, which was fixed quickly, and I already think this is good. I would suggest trying to get it to "very good" next, provided this passes. Kansan (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and the supportive comments, Kansan. If this passes GA, I'd love to try to get it to VGA, but that will probably take better access to the books that are referenced than I have right now. Gotanda (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This certainly looks like a good article after the changes. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
An excellent article made by excellent editors. :) I think it's overall good quality now. Cordially, —Clementina talk 12:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll weak oppose until the references are cleaned up. Albacore (talk · changes) 13:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC) The article meets all the criteria (which are very broad) but, until the issues at the talk page regarding references are fixed, especially regarding page numbers, I don't think the page meets the GA standard. Albacore (talk · changes) 14:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 Comment P(V)GA is no longer a vote. Please refrain from using terms such as 'support' or 'oppose' and instead provide reasons why an article meets the criteria (or not) and provide assistance to the nominator with suggestions on how to fix the issues. Goblin 14:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!
Albacore is correct that page numbers are missing for some of the book references. I don't have access to a library with these books and cannot get the page numbers at this time. If that prevents GA, I understand. Gotanda (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Closed as promoted: Please don't eat me: the consensus here is to promote the article and so to not promote it would be against the spirit of the wiki, as I am not sure I could reasonably apply the spirit of WP:BOLD or WP:IAR to close otherwise. The article is in a good shape and, while there is work needed on the references, I would not personally say that it should impact on GA, though if this was a VGA then I would say that these would be more major and pressing concerns. If it does go to VGA, then they should be fixed, and if they can be done anyway, then even better! Thanks, Goblin 11:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

Olympic Games[change source]

Olympic Games (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Slimed down version of an FA article on Wikipedia. Has under gone a lot of copy editing to make it simpiler. KnowIG (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the red links need to be created and the 6 reference errors need to be fixed before this can be a GA. Albacore (talk · changes) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I just commented on the talk page and left a long review. I hope it wasn't too much. :P This article seems rather far from GA status, but I'm sure it'll get there soon! ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 09:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: Very little has been done to the article since it was nominated, and there are no people in support of promoting the article. Goblin 19:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!

Białystok[change source]

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

Article has been under heavy edit on EN:WP and is in the middle of preparation for a GA review there. The article has specifically been structured in simple terms so it could be quickly edited for use in SE:WP. Ajh1492 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • : At least half the sections are un- or underscourced. Purplebackpack89 03:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There is certainly the basis for a Good Article there, but it still needs a lot of work before it is ready. Much of the language is not simple English and there are lots of red links to be fixed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned out the red links and words that I thought might be considered "not simple", but I could use a couple examples on what is considered "not simple English". Thanks! Ajh1492 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: Sorry, but not now. The article fails criteria 2 ("The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.") and criteria 5 ("The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).") and the article should be complete in terms of all the changes to be made to it before it is nominated, not after. Please continue to come back and fix up the article, and try again once it meets all of the criteria to become a GA. You could also take a look at existing good articles for tips. Thanks, Goblin 15:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

  • Considering the main text of the article has gone through 4 years of revision on EN:WP by over 15 editors, I think you're being rather shallow. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    The Simple English Wikipedia isn't the English Wikipedia, and are completely unconnected apart from the fact they're both Wikipedias owned by the WMF. In short - we don't really care about what goes on over there. Goblin 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
Frankly I'd better spend my time working on EN:WP if everyone here has such a curt and nasty attitude like User talk:Bluegoblin7. No politeness, just a sit down and shut up kind of attitude. Have fun in your little sandbox world. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for the rudeness of my colleague. If your still interested, I'll give the article a formal review. As a side note, Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles states that: "When the article meets at least 5 of the criteria mentioned above, a named contributor can add it to the Proposed good articles page." So automatically failing it would be incorrect here, unless I'm completely missing something. Albacore (talk · changes) 01:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if my comment came across as rude as that was not my intention. Your comment, to me, read that you believe that just because something is "good" at ENWP it should automatically get a free pass to the same/equivalent state here at SEWP - an attitude that is shared by many enwiki editors that come over here. This is not the case, and, as I said, the two wikis are completely separate. What happens at enwiki isn't our concern, as I said, though we do recognise the work that goes on and several enwiki "better quality" articles have got the same here - but with an awful lot of extra work and essentially a full re-write. This article did not meet the same easy-to-read standards as our other GAs when it was nominated, which is why it got failed, along with other requirement fails (Imo.). Goblin 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
Yeah, the article needs lots and lots of work before it can be a GA, but I do think the manner and tone of the closure was suspect Purplebackpack89 02:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
When we changed the nomination/review process a couple of years back we also (I believe) made it so that articles had to meet all of the criteria before they were eligible to be placed here, and there have been other nominations (Both PGA and PVGA) that have been failed for the exact same reason. Like practically all of those changes, it appears it didn't get reflected over to the requirements section (It hasn't for PVGA either, which still says the process is a straight vote!) - reflecting the difference in the community where there was (genuinely) no need to have made sure it was updated, thus why it slipped through the net. I'll update both of the requirements pages later today to reflect that discussion better. Goblin 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

The article is okay, but certainly not ready for GA. It needs a thorough peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer[change source]

Bobby Fischer (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article was already in very good shape when I looked at it. With a few minor changes and additions, I decided that it was ready to bring to this process. Kansan (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is comprehensive in its coverage of his extraordinary life (not just his chess career), and is well and reliably referenced. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as a nice example of good articles here. I made a quick copyedit run through to simplify a few things, and link a few things up, but otherwise this is in decent condition. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above and nom. --SEPTActaMTA8235 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well referenced and informative, looks ready to be promoted to me. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I can find no flaws or typographical errors here, and it has enough references, so the article is certainly good enough for GA. ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 06:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The only thing I noticed is the random numbers that showed up at the end of a few of the refs. I removed all of them, but if I was mistaken, feel free to revert me. Other than that, looks good! PrincessofLlyr talk 15:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The opposite of random (whatever that is...): They are page numbers for the references. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. Sorry. Isn't there a better way to format that? PrincessofLlyr talk 17:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The short answer in no, but this is a topic I'd rather not pursue here. Suffice it to say that this way a reader can pick up ref and page# in one click even if a source is ref'd many times. Also, it is easy for me to do, which is a factor, considering how many refs I put up! Macdonald-ross (talk)
I've reformatted the book refs because it was unclear that the superscript was a page number. This is how it displayed: [1]2 Goodvac (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is quite good, however, I still have one question when reading the article: What is a perfect score? This should either be linked or explained. Otherwise this is a pretty good article. -Barras (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I reworded it to simply state that he won all of his games. Kansan (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Great. My attempt was to link to the page, but it is non-existent. It's much better now. Again, a really good work. It's ready to become a good article. -Barras (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Closed as promoted: Nice work - a good example of how the process should work, giving us a good article with plenty of community input. Well done! Goblin 10:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

History of the United States[change source]

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

I am renominating this for GA. It came very close to making GA a few months ago, but we just ran out of time. The reviews from then are in the archives. A point-by-point of how this meets all the GA criteria:

  1. it’s a Meta 10,000 Article
  2. Over 80 KBs long; touches on major themes while still adhering to summary style
  3. Edited by at least seven editors
  4. Properly categorized, dozens of interwiki links
  5. Has not had a major revision in months. Only revisions have been vand reverts, interwikis, and a little addition on social contracts
  6. No red links, hundreds of blue links
  7. Done
  8. No templates
  9. 160 references from dozens of different works; all references that can use {{cite book or a similar template, all have author, date, title, publisher, URL and ISBN when available

I think this is pretty clearly GA, maybe even VGA. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. Support a few minor concerns, but otherwise good. --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t c l) 20:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, very nice start, and I've been over the article a dozen or so times in the past. I've made a few minor corrections and will continue to do so. In the meantime some bigger issues in the first few sections:

  • A large lead with three refs only. I would be tempted to remove all citations since everything in the lead should be referenced later in the article.
☑YRefs have been rmed from lead...some might have to be brought down to the body. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I found two dead links earlier, and two disambiguation links.
External or internal? And which ones? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that, two external links. I use the tool on to find them, the link is here... linky. Plus Georgia and West Coast are the dabs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "rights" I'm not sure this is instantly simple.
☑YLinked to civil rights Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Today, the United States is thought of as the only superpower in the world" I would remove this. You're using one reference only to support it, it's someone's POV and isn't necessary. Moreover, it's in the lead but not mentioned in the article itself, so it either has to be expanded upon in the article or removed from the lead. ☑Y
  • "At that time, Native Americans lived in the United States." not really, there was no such thing as the United States when the natives lived there.
☑YChanged to "...lived on the land that is now the United States"
  • "However, they did not settle there." is unreferenced. You may know this, but I don't. Prove it.
☑YIt's covered in the reference for the previous sentence...should I copy that reference, or just move the reference one sentence further? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Move the ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC) ☑Y
  • You suddenly mention "the Americas". This could be confusing to a non-expert since this is about USA not "the Americas".
☑YLinked Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "...and started the colony of Rhode Island in 1636." cite please. You may take it for granted, but I don't and I want you to prove it. ☑Y
  • "o settle what would become the United States. In the 1500s, Spain built a fort at Saint Augustine, Florida.[10] France settled Canada, ..." when did Canada become part of the US?
☑YCut Canada, kept the places in the United States Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "adopted the English way of life" is that Simple English?
How would you phrase that clause to convey the meaning I'm trying for? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
"lived like English people"? I dunno, but I think that the current phrasing is too complex. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "was like in 1700 " in that year only? Or that era?
Changed "in" to "around" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "may have led to the thinking used in the American Revolution" I don't get this at all.
Historians believe that the Great Awakening was a precussor to revolutionary thought and organization Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but the wording in the article is unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If you insist on linking fish, do it for fishing which appears before fish. ☑Y
  • " or the French and Indian War. The English won." merge - "War, which the English won." and reference it. ☑Y
  • "Many colonists who wanted to move to the frontier did not like the Proclamation." prove this please.
See comment about Vikings...same idea about ref in the sentence before and where to put it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't leave "last sentences" hanging without ref, move the ref to the end if in doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC) ☑Y

More soon if this starter is taken in the right way. Re: refs, if you really think this is VGA quality, everything questioned will need refs, so that's the approach I'd take if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I still maintain you don't call common knowledge correctly, but I'll mostly cow-tow. I've made most of your fixes, expect for the links (because I don't know which ones you're talking about), and the references to the Vikings and the Proclamation (because I don't know how you'd call the quandary I mentioned) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Your "common knowledge" is different from mine, different from somebody from India, somebody from China, somebody who's 8 years old etc etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I said I'd mostly cow-tow...but remember, not everything need be referenced, even for a GA. See this for more on citation guidelines. Oh, and it's going to get crowded here if we put a full review here, so could you put the rest of the review on the talk page? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thats not a guideline. That is an essay, aka one (or more) users opinion. Rambling Man is correct here, you can't write for just one audience aka the US. Because what is common to you isn't common to someone on the other side of the world. Its a generally accepted principle that if a statement can be questioned it needs a cite. -DJSasso (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not "can it be questioned", it's "is it controversial?" I don't see how the start and end dates of a major global conflict qualify as controversial. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Being questioned is equivalent to controversial. To use your example about the British winning the French Indian war. There are very large chunks of the world and indeed your own country that would not know that. Something that would not need a cite would be something along the lines of Washington is the capital of the United States. But who won a war would very much need a cite, in fact I can't even think of a better example of when a cite would be needed. Because who won a war is often controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, there is a cite now. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
We haven't even gotten to the voting stage yet, or even finished reviewing it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm done reviewing. You've made it clear you're entirely ungrateful for anything I propose. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Goodvac
That was a misuse of the CN is generally used only for stuff that is blatently controversial. Again, I remind you that even for GA/VGA, saying "every assertion needs to be sourced" is wrong. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's plainly false, and I never used the CN template. Sure, citations are unnecessary for any random article, but if you're trying for GA or VGA (the best quality articles), everything needs to be sourced. Else you could be accused of engaging in original research. Goodvac (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delink dates throughout (I believe AWB does this)
  • I will be doing some copyediting in the next couple days.
  • Overall, a thorough and well-sourced article. I'd say it meets both GA and VGA criteria. By the way, I've noticed that the GA criteria and the VGA criteria are identical except VGAs need to be more comprehensive. Is that the only difference? Goodvac (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. This probably will get nommed for VGA awhile after it makes it makes GA Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments: this is such a long article that has gone through so many revisions that it needs a really thorough check. I don't have to time to go line by line myself, but many items that need attention are on the Talk page under: Some more issues. When those are done, I may have time for more. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable References-Not Ready[change source]

Looking at the above discussion of to cite or not to cite led me to actually look at some of the citations. It is not enough for citations to exist, they must be accurate and relevant. I don't have access to a good English language library for the book sources, so I just started looking at some of the online references. I have listed problematic references below. If this is the quality of the online refs that can be checked, it brings into the question the accuracy and relevance of the book references that I cannot. I could not look at all cases, but EN has significantly different references in some of these cases.

Also, we've been here before with this article. This has been nommed and renommed. Hard to tell if any of the outstanding issues from the last nomination were resolved, but there was not much revision since the last nom expired (point 5 above in this renom). All of this leads me to believe that this subject is just too broad and too demanding to bring up to GA at this time with the group of editors we have now. As others have pointed out, comments on my Talk page in response to a thoughtful and careful review such as "Why don't you do the last three yourself? They shouldn't be hard to find" show that the nominating editor is not committed to getting this through to GA and once again responding to help with "You do it".

Troubling citations follow:

  • "France settled Louisiana, and the area around the Great Lakes. The Dutch settled New York, which they called New Netherland. Other areas were settled by Scotch-Irish, Germans, and Swedes.[9]" to ↑"Colonial North America". Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham University. Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Links to a list of primary source documents; mainly English, some French and Dutch-no mention of the other groups as far as I can tell. Each settlement pattern/activity (French, Dutch, Irish, Germans, New Sweden, etc) should be referenced by a non-primary source. Reference must be replaced.

  • "Indians were being pushed out of the Midwest and South by events such as the Trail of Tears and the Black Hawk War.[56]" to "Choctaw Nation History". Choctaw Nation. Retrieved 2010-09-19.
This links to landing page. "Trail of Tears" is a header. Searched site but Black Hawk War not found-in any event not on the page linked. Cite needed for Black Hawk War. Reference does not fully support statement.

  • "During this time, many people moved to the United States from other countries, such as Ireland, Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe, and China.[69]" to ↑ Michael Powell (2006-09-21). "Old fears over new faces". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2010-10-28.
News article primarily about present-day responses to immigration. No specific statistics given for the groups of people coming to the US at the time of the section "Reconstruction and the Gilded Age". No mention of Chinese, only their exclusion. Reference does not support statement.
Statistics need not be given as there are no actual numbers. Only proof that the people actually came need be given Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If if your standard "Only proof that the people actually came need be given" is OK, ref has no statement on Chinese immigration (Which, by the way, is a fundamental weakness of this article-Euro/Anglo focus to exclusion of almost anything else.) The statement was "many" and that needs a source. But the main point is that this is just sloppy or lazy referencing. Get it from a history textbook, book, or article, not popular journalism on a somewhat related topic. Gotanda (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • "Another response to the Muckrakers was something called “Trust-Busting”, where big businesses were broken up into smaller ones.[84]" to ↑ Reed, Lawrence W. (August 2005). "Where’s the Beef?". The Freeman. Retrieved 2010-08-23.
The article is about regulation, not trust-busting. Trust-busting not mentioned. Even if moved to the section on regulation, it does not support. The article is actually making the case that books such as The Jungle causing regulation is myth. Quote: In 1906, in large part because of the firestorm Sinclair generated, Congress passed the famous Meat Inspection Act. A century later, American schoolchildren are still taught a simplistic and romanticized version of this history. They think that unscrupulous capitalists were routinely tainting our meat, and that the moral crusader Sinclair rallied the public and Congress to act. Government then shifted from bystander to do-gooder and disciplined the marketplace to protect its millions of victims. But this is a triumph of myth over reality, of ulterior motives over good intentions. Quote: As popular myth would have it, there were no government inspectors before Congress acted in response to The Jungle and the greedy meat packers fought federal inspection all the way. The truth is that not only did government inspection exist, but meat packers themselves supported it and were in the forefront of the effort to extend it! Reference actually contradicts the statement. Remove and rewrite.
Remove, yes. Replace, yes. Rewrite, no. Can easily find a reference that supports the sentence Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, rewrite. Which is it? Either the reference you initially cited is correct (And it makes a pretty strong case that your description of the effect of muckraking has been overblown) and this needs to be rewritten. Or, you just tacked that ref on there without actually reading past the first paragraph or two, in which case it isn't researched and needs to be redone. You've already cited evidence against what you've written, you can't just ignore that and say you'll find another reference that says what you want it to. You've got the process backwards. Read and understand, then write. Don't write what you "know" and then cherry-pick refs to support that in the face of contrary evidence (some of which you've provided yourself). Gotanda (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Those were just the ones I checked, but the rest are therefore now questionable and I just don't have the resources or interest to verify them. The subject of this article is very demanding. This article shows deep flaws. It needs a fundamental rethink and rewrite before it is nominated yet again. It may be that this article is beyond the abilities and resources of the current group of editors to raise to GA standard. Gotanda (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, I fail to see how looking at 2% of the references can be a basis to claim that all the references are essentially say you do not care to look at any of the other references, and unless you do, the presumption should be that the other references work (keeping in mind that the other references come from different sources). What leads you to believe that there are flaws in the content or information provided? Your comments seem to be about the references (and this is clearly not most of the citations; as most of them are books) than the content. I do not think the article is fundamentally flawed; I have worked many hours on it and believe that all the information contained is true, accurate, and easily verifible from a history textbook if more thorough references don't work. I take the assertion that the information provided there is factually inaccurate as a borderline personal attack. Finally, different issues have come up in this review than in past reviews...the issues from past reviews have been resolved (and no one had any major issues with the facts in the article in any prior review; leading me to believe that most agree with the facts as presented). Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't look at just 2%. And I didn't write that all the references are flawed. As I wrote, I could only check online refs. I checked about 10 and found 4 that were seriously flawed before I gave up. That's a 40% fail rate. Not good. (If you want another one, how about this? ↑ "About the Great Depression". University of Illinois. Retrieved 2010-08-24.[105] An anonymous essay from a poetry resource website? That's just picking one ref as a random sample and checking.) That shows a fundamental problem. Your responses to the incorrect references here just confirms that the other references are "questionable" (Note: I never said all them were wrong, just questionable. They need to be checked if the mistakes seen here so far are anything to go on. Referencing is a skill.)
I did say the article was flawed. Aside from references, there are other problems: 1) perspective (as described above by others); 2) quality of writing-still finding unclear sentences throughout and basic grammatical errors at this point means it isn't close to ready; 3) scope-this totally ignores or gives short shrift to important aspects of US history, or they are tacked on without much integration; 4) it just isn't written simply (I know, you disagree. Looking at it from the point of view of a language learner can be difficult to do.) 5) lastly, the whole point of doing the article this way-aims and methods. Taking a topic this broad and important and setting out to create a VGA from scratch is an incredibly difficult writing challenge. Look at the GAs and VGAs. They tend to be on more manageable subjects. If you really want US history GA and VGA articles, I'd suggest selecting more limited topics from US history and building up--start with the "daughter" articles. (That ignores the whole point of whether hunting for VGA stars is the right way to go, or whether it is better to just make articles as high quality as possible and if they meet GA/VGA, great.) Finally, so much of this is sourced/referenced from just two high school or first year university textbooks, Blum and Foner. They may be fine textbooks, but not a broad or substantial enough foundation to build such a big article on. How many nominations has this been through with the same types of problems cropping up again and again? Not ready. And at this rate, not likely to be ready any time soon. Gotanda (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Lemme concede some of your points for the time being, and focus on a few points in particular...your arguments that the article lacks in scope and has a systemic bias. I seriously doubt that important aspects have been left out, and challenge you to find one and justify why it merits inclusion. When you have mentioned this before, most of the things you have mentioned have been fairly unimportant or tangential (hence why they don't flow), and don't really belong in an article of this size (some of the things you had mentioned earlier were either inaccurate or non-neutral; or would have undue weight if added to this article). I have three counters to your alledged Euro-Centric bias argument:
  1. That doesn't jibe with the fact that there is extensive coverage of African-Americans in this article (most sections of the article have whole paragraphs devoted to them; smaller sections go out of their way to be sure to mention the black experience), and not-inconsequential coverage of Native Americans. Also, you had mentioned foreign relations earlier; there is clearly substantial coverage of US relations with England, Germany, the USSR, and Latin America
  2. Other editors (Mac in the last go-around) have thought it wasn't Eurocentric enough; I believe this
  3. (The Un-PC one; but very pro-Brit so Mac will like it) So what if it's a tad Eurocentric? It can justifiable be so. Americans learn English in school. The American system of government is derived from English, French and Greek philosophers. America's folk music has Scotch-Irish roots (that's why I voted keep on the S-I article earlier this week). The American economic model was based on British industrial models. The US has been greatly and inextricably influenced by Europe in almost every aspect of its culture

Also, with regard to the Blum/Foner contact, a solid majority of the references do NOT come from Blum or Foner (indeed, there are multiple references from two other textbooks, Bailey and Boyer), those books are indeed decent textbooks (written by well-respected historians), and this would hardly be the first time that a GA was based primarily on one or two books Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I stand by the analysis that this is largely based upon Blum and Foner. But I'll add Bailey as well. Changes nothing. Not ready.
  • Blum 25, references, listed in Selected Readings
  • Foner 9, references, listed in Selected Readings
36 out of 172 references
  • Kennedy, Cohen, and Bailey 12, listed in Selected Readings, but not ref'd as Blum and Foner are for some reason which made it harder to spot as a repeated reference. Style fix needed there and another indication of the level of care taken in referencing on an article that has been nominated several times.
That gets 48 out of 172 references. There plenty other single refs (5 of which I've just pointed out are not acceptable). The article is heavily based on those two (or now three) textbooks that are broad surveys. No matter how good they are (and I'm perfectly willing to accept that they are good high school textbooks), three high school/freshman uni texts are just not enough to sustain an article this ambitious. If you have access to a good university library with books in English (I sure wish that I did), you should be able to read multiple sources and then use them. It's the history of a large, complex, and important country, not a train, hurricane, or bird. If other GAs and VGAs are based on one or two books, that is a separate issue, but I'd hope they are on more limited topics. Take that issue up in the appropriate place. Although the last thing we need right now is another PAD.
In any event, always replying with a "but you did X" or "somebody else did Y" doesn't change the fact that this article is nowhere near ready.
  • Check Boyar (sic) 2 Boyer 5: Looks like some work to do there.
Can we please move on to something that is working now. Gotanda (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Ted, 48 out of 172...that's less than 30%. I see no problem at all with that number. That means 70% come from other places. Hardly sustaining this article. And there isn't a requirement that states that you have to use multiple sources (although this article uses more than 80 different sources, so it would pass anyway). Whether or not there should be is an open question, but there isn't now. Can I at least get some support from somebody that it's OK to have 30-40% come from MULTIPLE RELIABLE PEER-REVIEWED textbooks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment read. You're shouting now. No other response at this time. Thanks. Gotanda (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

More comments[change source]

I don't think this is near GA. I agree with many of the criticisms above, but will just mention here some other angles.

  1. There are problems with the perspective and quality of writing. The intro is a good example. It has no perspective. A series of short sentences that don't flow together, and seem jerky. I could run a seminar on the first paragraph alone. ("The United States was settled mostly by England": No, literally wrong, confused and ungrammatical; "English people went to Jamestown, Virginia": No, they didn't). By contrast, the enWP intro has a bit of class. There is some scene-setting, and the prose (though too complex for us) is better written.
    There is too much vague hand-waving of the "...people in the Northern states and people in the Southern states did not like each other very much, mostly due to the issues of slavery in the territories (parts of the United States that were not yet states...)" kind. It's so badly written. Does it mean people in the northern states were more concerned about slavery in the territories than they were about slavery in the southern states? I don't think so, but who knows?
How does the sentences being jerky mean it's lacking in perspective? Perspective means context, not flow Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. Very serious indeed is the insertion of many POV clauses all through the article, most of which are not supported by refs. I think the article may be flaggable on that score alone. I enjoyed this bit of POV-by-omission: "In 1845, Texas, which was a nation after it left Mexico, joined the United States." A reader would no doubt be surprised to find out from en:Texas Annexation what really happened!

Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mac, I hate to say this, but your historical assertions are somewhat wrong. The things written that you mention are true, just lacking in clarily. Jamestown was settled by people from England...John Smith was from; John Rolfe was from Norfolk, &c. To say that it wasn't settled by English people is a grave inaccuracy. It is not wrong to say that the United States was settled primarily by people from England (as long as you point out that this is in reference to the colonial period); more people from England came to the colonies than anywhere else, and the English way of life was (and still is) dominant in American society. I have reworded that sentence to clarify that it is referring to the colonial period. There is nothing wrong or POVy about the way the Texas Republic and annexation are described, the events are accurate as described...Texas left Mexico, was an independent nation and almost immediately tried to become part of the United States, succeeding in 1845. That's "what really happened" . In English article relating to this period, there is no mention of the Texas Republic (so we do it one better) and it says "American annexation of the Republic of Texas in 1845 was unacceptable to Mexico and led to war"; I've simplified it to "Texas...joined the United States. Mexico did not like this", and talk about how the war started later in the paragraph (I seem to recall this isn't the first time you and I have come into conflict on Mexican War-related information; you've argued that the Mexican War had immense importance; whereas I relegate a little further down due to the fact that its importance was more limited). Furthermore, you ask the question "were people in the Northern states more concerned about slavery in the territories than in the Northern slaves", and the answer to that question is essentially "Yes". A broader base of people supported ending slavery in the territories than ending slavery everywhere; the Free Soil and Republican parties ran more on platforms of Free Soil (meaning stop slavery in the territories only). People supported this not only because Free Soil was a more stomachable position politically, but also because many felt slavery would eventually die out if confined to the Southern states. Part of the reason some of these sentences sound quirky because we are limited to mostly BE1500 words, and also because summary style dictates relegating some explanations to daughter article. With regard to POV, I see no POV tags, and I believe that any that are placed are in error Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. I was not making comments about historical facts; I was making comments about inexact or incorrect use of language.
  2. Others can see how many unsupported evaluative statements or remarks there are in the article. Dozens, possibly hundreds.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. I would seriously doubt that there are that many. Your apparant assertion that the article is non-neutral is completely untrue Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
He does have a point there are a fair number of comments that contain a POV. One example that immediately jumped out at me since you two are talking about the Jamestown stuff is "interested in money and adventure". Who says they were interested in money and adventure? Do you say it? Does the source say it? Based on your edit comment I am guessing the source doesn't say it because you are just commenting on if Jamestown happened or not. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It does too state it in the reference Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately since you used a paper reference I can't verify it. But with the inaccuracy of your other references I am not totally convinced. -DJSasso (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Another example right from the lead. "The growth of the English colonies was not good for the Native Americans" Says who? There is no cite showing who says that. Many people argue that while there was a hardship to them and wars that it was a good thing. Bringing advancement etc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And "Many of the people who helped write the Constitution, such as Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris, were among the major thinkers in America at the time." Who said they were major thinkers? Washington certainly wasn't. Again no cite here to prove what you are claiming. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The first one has been reworded, and was cited down in the body. I have added a citation for the other one. To say that Washington didn't give a hoot about political theory (which is what you seem to be implying) is somewhat inaccurate...prior to the Constitutional Convention, there was a lengthy correspondence between Washington and Madison on the nature of the nation. Do you really believe that there DOZENS or HUNDREDS of these evaluative statements? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hundreds maybe not. But I only read about 4 paragraphs and found 3. So it wouldn't be a leap to think there are a couple dozen in an article this long. -DJSasso (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Djsasso. Another unreferenced, border line OR statement: Under Monroe, the United States' policy in North America was the Monroe Doctrine, which suggested that Europe should stop trying to control the United States and other independent countries in the Americas. Albacore (talk · changes) 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's nowhere near OR, and a misuse of the term OR. Apparantly, I'd have to cite "California is in the United States" to please you nitpickers Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably the best article here. I'm all for it. Reverter (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Close as not promoted: Per the consensus, though if you want some hard numbers, knowing what you're like, 5/2 are against promotion. Pretty conclusive. Keep working on the concerns, keep getting reviews and then come back once it is completed. Thanks, Goblin 09:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24!

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)[change source]

Tropical Depression Ten (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

No reason why this should not be a good article. Its content and size is similar to that of its English Wikipedia counterpart, which is an FA. It appears comprehensive enough and has sufficient sources, so I think it can easily be made a GA with few fixes. NotImportant (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Neutral - my standards for hurricane articles are usually at least 15 refs. --SEPTActaMTA8235 12:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you could point me to facts that could be cited instead of mentioning an arbitrary number of references? It would be very helpful if you could provide such a list. Thanks. NotImportant (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      And, more importantly, no-one really cares about your own personal arbitrary rules - those that matter are the PGA criteria and any other policies relating to the article subject field. Goblin 13:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!
  • Anyway, looks good overall. --SEPTActaMTA8235 13:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments not bad at all.

  • Can we use the en-dash for the Saffir–Simpson link please, like our own article?
    Done by someone else. NotImportant (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there no separate article for "depression" because this is a very specific use of the word that doesn't relate to the more common "emotional" version of the word.
    Tropical depression links to Tropical cyclone, so I've linked depression to tropical cyclone. NotImportant (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "of the worst hurricanes " do you mean "most destructive"? I think it's wise to be be specific, even if that may slightly compromise the simplicity. And if possible, you can link a more detailed explanation.
    Done. NotImportant (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Consider linking "west".
    Done by SEPTActaMTA8235. NotImportant (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you link the miles/km using the convert template?
    I used the template, but it appears that it doesn't link the units. NotImportant (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "undergoes southwesterly mid-level shear beneath the otherwise favorable upper-level outflow pattern" is in no way simple!! Perhaps paraphrase it and remove the direct quote.
    I'm not sure how to paraphrase this quote: could you suggest something please? I have linked most of the complex words and the technical terms either to Wiktionary or to the local Wikipedia page (which all exist surprisingly). NotImportant (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    I've got no idea really, it's not my field. There's a good chance it can't be paraphrased. In any case, as long as all complex terms are suitably linked, no worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Link "National Hurricane Center" first time.
    Done. NotImportant (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is "advisory" simple?
    Changed to warning and linked to Wiktionary. NotImportant (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "helped to form Tropical Depression Twelve formed over " incorrect grammar.
    Removed "formed". NotImportant (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is "weather systems" simple?
    Linked. Page created as redirect to weather per the English Wikipedia.
  • "There were no damages," normally damage is singular, so "There was no damage, ..."
    Looks like it has been fixed. NotImportant (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Check refs 1 and 10 (first seems non-specific, other seems dead).
    Ref 1 changed, ref 10 removed as the fact is already sourced.
  • Don't mix date formats in the references.
    Fixed. NotImportant (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is the title of ref 6 in italics where no others are?
    That is because it is the name of a book. NotImportant (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 needs an en-dash in the date range of the title.
    Done. NotImportant (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all those comments, The Rambling Man. I'll certainly take a look at them and fix them later today. NotImportant (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Feel free to give me a nudge when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. It might need to be a little longer, but it's still a good article. Reverter (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me, the language is simple and clear. While I would prefer longer articles I do not have any useful suggestions to make. It is a good concise article. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Peter, surprised your "simple" statement didn't mention the "undergoes southwesterly mid-level shear beneath the otherwise favorable upper-level outflow pattern" quote...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
        • TRM has caught and bowled Peterdownunder! As punishment Peter will transwiki Rainband to create a needed link. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Short articles for GA are OK with me, and may even be better. I do have some vocabulary points that may need some checking or changes to keep it simple.

  • The opening sentence uses tropical in the definition of a Tropical Depression. Both "tropical cyclone" and "tropical wave" are linked, but the single word "tropical" is not simple and is never linked or defined.
    Tropical is now linked to the page of the same name and cyclone to tropical cyclone. NotImportant (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • According to Simple WP How to, avoid idioms. Idiomatic died out/remains in "It mostly died out on August 14, but its remains later helped to form another storm, Hurricane Katrina." And here, "However, its remains produced a few bursts of thunderstorm activity for several days, before completely dying on August 18." And later.
    First instance linked to Wiktionary page. NotImportant (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • But follow the link. The given definition is the literal and actually more complex "extinction". A lot of the Wiktionary entries are quite weak and it is always important to check that the linked definition matches the usage in the passage. Best to just avoid the idioms, I think. Gotanda (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggestions? I was considering "came to an end", would that be any better? NotImportant (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I gave it a try. Please see my recent edit. What do you think? Gotanda (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks for simplifying the article. :) NotImportant 06:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "Thunderstorm" is not simple. Linked.
  • What is a "rain band"? I think I know, but it isn't very simple.
 Done see above comment. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Paraphrase this quote, please. Some of the words are linked, but still very complex. "beginning to look like Irene-junior as it undergoes southwesterly mid-level shear beneath the otherwise favorable upper-level outflow pattern".
    To be honest, I'm not a technical expert, so I don't know how to paraphrase it, and it's likely that if I did paraphrase it, I would miss out/misinterpret technical terms. For now, I've split it into two sentences: "Late on August 13, a weather forecaster said that it was "beginning to look like Irene-junior". They said this because it was undergoing mid-level shear towards southwest "beneath the otherwise favorable upper-level outflow pattern"." Weather forecaster, undergoing, southwest, beneath, favorable, pattern and otherwise have been linked as they are somewhat complex. Shear and outflow have been linked to their respective Wikipedia pages. I think all the complex words have been linked now, and a reader can easily use the links to know the meanings of the words. NotImportant (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Landfall" is not simple. Needs attention.
    Linked. NotImportant (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Just read the article and at its current status it looks like it qualifies to be a good article. -Barras (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree fr33kman 15:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I was rather surprised at first when I clicked the page, as it seemed to be the shortest FA I've ever seen on enwiki (or maybe there are shorter ones). But of course, quality is more important than quantity, and I read it over and found it neat, the references being reliable and certainly good enough for GA. So I think it's pretty much ready now. ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 06:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed as promoted: Nice work, a good article with the community's support to promote. Cheers, Goblin 09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

Saturn (planet)[change source]

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

When demoted as VGA, this article had two sections flagged for 'no refs'. Its content had already been somewhat improved. All sections are now ref'd, and I think the article is clearly GA, and we should promote it right away. I'm not its 'keeper', but just one of many contributors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


  • Like Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune, Saturn is made mostly of gas and does not have a solid surface. Arguable. Universe Today has an article saying it might have a solid surface.
I believe the problem is caused by the ambiguity of the word 'surface'. enWP 'Planet' says clearly "Jupiter and Saturn are believed to possess cores of rock and metal surrounded by mantles of metallic hydrogen".<ref>{{Cite book| first=Linda T.|last=Elkins-Tanton|year=2006|title=Jupiter and Saturn|publisher=Chelsea House|location=New York|isbn=0-8160-5196-8}}</ref>
Somewhere there must be a ref as to how the term 'surface' is used in describing gas planets. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Other websites should be in {{cite web}} format
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 2 should be simplified
 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of the references aren't in {{cite web}} format
 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 47 has 2 periods
Could not find it --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • All conversions should be in {{convert}}.
 Done except for km/h to mph --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Saturn's field is unique in that it is perfectly symmetrical, unlike any other known planet (i.e. the field is exactly in line with the planet's axis). Reference needed
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 needs a page number
Do not have the book --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done used a different reference
  • Ref 9 has not in italics but ref 36 has it italicized. Check other refs so that the publisher and work are properly italicized.
Traditionally, publishers are never italicised. In books, titles are italicised, in serials (journals of regular publication) the journal title is italicised. With the web we do whatever cite web does.
Have looked at a few and fixed where possible --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a problem with an older version of the cite template--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll just say I'm willing to tackle the science issues; others will need to tackle the cite formats (I'm heavily engaged elsewhere at present). Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

More to come. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Universe Today seems to be a self published blog. The source used for the mythology is someone's personal website; there are many books on the subject so, I would use a better source. The image confuses me. If you are providing a source for very basic information then there should be an encyclopedia that has the fact in it. (I'm sorry if I am working off of a different standard and generally being a pest. Feel free to ignore me) --Guerillero (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with making comments; that's what this page is for. But I'm not clear which image is confusing you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The image that is used as a source. (ref 5) --Guerillero (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ref 5 points to a table of invariable planes of the planets. I have looked into this, and believe the reference is good (scientifically). Also, the ref stands up in enWP, where Saturn is an FA. No reason to change IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: Another regretful close here really, and in many ways a summing up of the general state of the wiki at the moment. There's still some outstanding work to do on the article and it's been here in excess of a month now. Many apologies, but criteria be criteria really, I guess... :/ Goblin 22:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

I'm sorry, but this closure is incorrect in my opinion. All/most (of) the concerns of the reviewers had been addressed. If there aren't enough people willing to review an article, then the nomination should not be closed till there are. IMO, while this has been waiting for a month, there is no real hurry to close PGAs, particularly ones that are being actively edited. Personally, I suggest this decision is reviewed. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Also, in my opinion, this article now quite easily passes the GA requirements. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the community here is almost bordering on lazy. If the community don't want to actively engage in ensuring high-quality content then I see little purpose in this Wikipedia. Forgive me but I see not one single indication of support for this as a GA, just a couple of people upset that it wasn't promoted, including one who didn't participate in the PGA at all. Plainly ridiculous. As my grandad would say "put up or shut up". Complaining that a system is failing or that decision isn't bang on is okay if you actually actively get involved in the process or actually actively get involved in discussing changes to the process. We can't have PGAs etc hanging around for 6 weeks, it's bad for the environment (makes this Wikipedia look lazy and under-subscribed), it's bad for article quality (if the community can't be bothered to get involved in promoting the best we have, what hope is there?) and it's hardly going to encourage other nominations. Get it together, renominate, (it's free, after all), get a bunch of people involved, remember it's a Wiki and do something positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Amor Prohibido (song)[change source]

Amor Prohibido (song) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I had created the article, not too long ago, based from the English Wikipedia version. Now that the article is a GA on their Wikipedia, I helped expanded the article here. I subsequently nominated the article at WP:VGA, but was opposed because of issues of redlinks, too complex or does not make much sense to readers. I have since fixed all issues by reading several guidelines and rules. I also had some help from a couple of editors. If there are still any work to be fix, please address them professionally instead of opinions like "this article is whack, oh no not another worthless article, or hell no it needs a lot of work" - if this is a community website, lets please act civil to one another. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Hello again Ajona1992. I'll add a few opening comments on the article talkpage. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. You don't need to warn other people to be civil; the expectation that they will be is already there. As for the article, I still see a bunch of language errors of very awkward English and typos. Just within the first paragraph there are multiple errors such as an unnecessary "had" in the third sentence, lyric needing to be lyrics, and the final sentence of the paragraph not actually being a full sentence. There are changes that need to be made per WP:MOS as well such as placing the references after a period, not between the last word and the period. These are just some of the changes I see that need to be made from a first glance. More copyediting and fixes need to be made before this comes close to Good Article standards. Either way (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. But I have just  Fixed what you had just pointed out. AJona1992 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There are still many grammar errors such as subject-verb agreement. That final sentence of the opening paragraph still is not a full sentence. Also, the last two sentences of the opening paragraph are also two of the four sentences of the "composition" section, word for word. This needs to change somehow.
I'm having trouble understanding, sorry. AJona1992 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What is it you are having trouble understanding? There are issues with subject-verb agreement in many sentences. The final sentence of the first paragraph lacks a clear subject and predicate so it is a fragment, not a complete sentence. The last 2 sentences in the first paragraph are the same as the last 2 sentences in the "composition" section. In other words, the article repeats itself word for word, so that needs to be fixed so one of them is worded differently. Anything else I can do to clear this up? Either way (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have  Fixed what you have stated. If it didn't seem like I did or if there are more issues to be fixed, please state them. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You still haven't addressed the fragment in the first paragraph. You still have a bunch of subject-verb agreement errors as well. I still see other grammar and spelling errors throughout. Either way (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Many errors in the ref section, spelling mistakes, questionable websites, how reliable is a review by "JB" for example, repeated refs, this needs a lot of editing first. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: Little or no consensus to support the promotion of the article, with numerous outstanding concerns and a seeming lack of edits following the 'immediate' rush of nomination hype. Drive-by...? Goblin 08:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda!

Linda McMahon[change source]

Linda McMahon (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It has a lot of red links, but it's well-organized and well-written. With a few tweaks, I am confident this will make it to Good Article status. Screwball23 (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: I have deleted this article under the quick deletion policy for articles. It fell under "A3: Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change." The only changes made to the article was a rewording of one sentence, and a change in the interwikis. In the future, refer to Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia and Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages when creating pages and copying them from another Wikipedia. Either way (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Titan's Curse[change source]

The Titan's Curse (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

So, this is the third PJ book I'm nominating for GA. Not much different from its predecessors (1 and 2). There's a little bit of work to do, such as simplifying the reception section and creating few red links from what I can see, but other comments are welcome. ATM, it's pretty close to GA from what I can see. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Left some comments on the article's talk page. -Barras (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Extended for one week: Somewhat pre-empting this as I doubt it will get any more comments in the three days that are left. Extending for one week so the PGA nomination will now close on Sunday, 21st August 2011. Thanks, Goblin 00:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

  • Looks good. I think it's ready for good article status. Either way (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Looks good now as it is. -Barras (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on talk page, a few things to tidy up just before promotion please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

These have been fixed now. Thanks for the reviews everyone! Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Jean Balukas[change source]

Jean Balukas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is an extensive article on the life and career of an interesting athlete who was quite important in her sport. It had been promoted to GA a while back, but was demoted earlier this year. Clearly, this was an important topic to a formerly active editor, Fuhghettaboutit. It has edits from several experienced editors and several people noted problems during the PAD. In particular, Albacore and Peterdownunder looked over the refs and pointed out errors. I think I've fixed those. I think all of those problems have been addressed and more through a line-by-line edit for vocabulary and simple sentence structure. I've tried to improve the article a bit with additional links, a couple of images, and the appropriate infobox. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 4.9, so the writing is quite simple, even if the article itself is long. I'm not a big fan of billiards, but I hate to see articles get demoted. Gotanda (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Left some comments on the article's talk page. -Barras (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I just re-read it and think it is good now as it is. My points on the talk page were improve. I'm happy to let this article become a GA. -Barras (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Extended for one week: Somewhat pre-empting this as I doubt it will get any more comments in the few days that are left. Extending for one week so the PGA nomination will now close on Tuesday, 25th August 2011. Thanks, Goblin 01:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

Support— all outstanding comments have been addressed. Best, Casey, (Albacore (talk · changes)) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Support - The article is in wonderful shape! Great work, Gotanda, and Albacore's comments seems to have been very helpful. ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 13:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the support, Bella. Yes, Albacore's comments and careful review were very helpful. Barras pointed out some weaknesses also. A big "Thanks" to both of them. Gotanda (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed as promoted Since there are no further comments here and there are no oppositions, but some support, and all raised issues seems to be fixed, I declare that this article is now one of our good articles. Congrats and I hope to see more such work here! -Barras (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Promoted - I close this now as promoted. All outstanding issues have been fixed and there is (sadly only) little agreement to promote. I don't expect more comments here, actually. Good work everyone! -Barras (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)