Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 12

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived requests[change source]

Scallop[change source]

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

I've worked a lot on this article in the last few days. I simplified all the content, which came from enwiki, and referenced it extensively. The only issue I see, is the number of red links, but this can be fixed quickly. Any comments are welcome. Yottie =talk= 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a short list of comments on the talk page. :) Take your time on them! ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 01:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, but there are some problems which I've mentioned in my review. The number of red links is quite high even now though. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week: Not really any consensus either way as yet, and to give time to fix the comments that came quite late in the day. Goblin 12:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

  • Comments ref#3 needs the ISBN spaced out ---> 978-0-7614-7282-7 (unless Simple allows this, admin please notify). Also for ref#3, ref#9, ref#10, ref#11, ref#19, ref#20, ref#22 and ref#36 remove the extra "p" from "pp. 709" to look like "p. 709" (example). Can you provide a retrieve date for ref#7, ref#8, ref#29, ref#34 and ref#35? For ref#35 can you replace "page. 169" with "p. 169". Also why is "Further readings" in three-headings section and not in two? Molecular phylogeny of the family Pectinidae needs an ISBN. Hope this helps, AJona1992 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rate this an average article, not a good one. Taken originally from a C-rated enWP article, ours has not found and corrected the weaknesses of the original. We have many biological pages better than this. Technical ground for rejection: incompleteness; more comments on its talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Your wish is my command - I was just thinking the same thing. Closed per Macdonald's comments and Barras' link. Goblin 15:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

John McDouall Stuart[change source]

John McDouall Stuart (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article currently meets all the requirements for a GA. It is in simple English, fully referenced, comprehensive, and no red links. It is also about an important topic which is used in Australia's new National Curriculum. Please leave any concerns on the articles talk page. --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I can't see any issues with the article and it is definitely one of the best candidates to come to light for a very long time. Excellent work, Peter, as ever. Goblin 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]

Oppose - basics...

  • Can you make the date formats consistent in the infobox?
  • You link "water" but not "sources" which is a little incongruous to me.
  • "huge growth of sheep and cattle farming." -> huge growth of farming sheep and cattle (to avoid huge sheep!)
  • " and almost forgotten" sounds like POV.
  • "In 1839, he moved.." he-> Stuart
  • "European" and "relatives" are dab links so need to be resolved.
  • " to try finding water " -> "to find water"
  • " for...six " spaces either side of the ellipsis.
  • "Finke and Chambers were rich men and they paid Sturt to explore for them. They wanted him to find them new farm lands and water, as well as minerals like gold and copper." ref?
  • "The 1858 expedition" -> "1858 expedition"
  • "1000 square miles " -> 1,000
  • "realized" is this US/Aus English? If not then it should be changed.
  • "He took more equipment" who's he? Lost it, so replace He with stuart.
  • "They rode south back to Port Augusta and then took a boat back to Adelaide." ref?
  • "kilometres" most of this article appears to be in USEng, so kilometers, surely?

That's about half-way. And a quick glance too. Let me know (by email) when you'd like me to continue the review! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything, with a few uncertainties. I am unsure of AusEnglish uses metres or meters, and I am unsure if "realized" is AusEnglish, so I've left those undone for now. Albacore (talk · changes) 01:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • "Stuart's Second expedition" ->second
Fixed.
  • 2000 -> 2,000
Fixed.
Linked
  • "bogged in mud" simple?
Reworded
  • " good grasslands" what made them "good"?
Reworded
  • Where are last two sentences of Third expedition section referenced?
Don't have access to the book, and Google Books doesn't offer a preview. When Peter returns I'll bother him about it.
  • scarce - is that simple?
Linked to wiktionary
  • " to get going to the " -> "to go to the"
Reworded.
  • 2500->2,500
Fixed.
  • "Sixth expedition 1861-2" -> "Sixth expedition 1861–62.
Fixed
  • "...George Waterhouse" needs a full stop.
Fully stopped.
  • Strange linking going on in reference two.
Fixed.
  • Ref 4 needs an en-dash for the year range.
Fixed
  • Refs 7, 8 and 12 also need en-dash.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything fixed. Albacore (talk · changes) 02:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep everything looks good to me, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Self-explanatory. Goblin 00:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]


Oyster Burns[change source]

Oyster Burns (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Meets GA criteria, I made enWP article a GA, so the simple version should also be a GA. Albacore (talk · changes) 15:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good article no doubt at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Yep, a good article. I the article gets promoted, it deserves it. Good work as always Albacore! Orashmatash (t • c) 15:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Support is there, albeit only a couple. Goblin 00:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

Dulce Amor[change source]

Dulce Amor (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article meets the GA criteria. However, point GAR#3 (no one writes perfect articles); I am the only user that have edited the article. But the article does meet all other points. I didn't want to nominate it for WP:PR because I already nominated four articles and I don't want to overwhelm users with Selena-related articles. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. AJona1992 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Now, because I have looked at several of your articles, I am perfectly aware that you are very knowledgeable about Selena, but there are a few points that should be fixed.
  • There should be references in the intro. Just because it's not in a section doesn't mean it shouldn't have references to back up the info.
  • It needs to be checked by a native English speaker. While I'm aware that you have done a good job of writing this article in English when it's not your native language, some of your word suffixes need fixing, and that can be discussed further on the article's talk page.
This is just some constructive criticism, and shouldn't be taken personally. I would give my advice some thought, because it contributes significantly to the quality of the article. Happy editing! Orashmatash (t • c) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I am a native speaker, as shocking that might sound :). I don't mind adding sources to the lead, but I thought that the lead serves as the introduction of the article and should contain all the major aspects of the subject. I think I covered it all on there, if not please point them out. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: - The lead does serve as the introduction, and it is written very well. However, if the same information is elsewhere in the article and it is backed up by a source, then the intro doesn't need sources. My mistake :$ Orashmatash (t • c) 12:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok :) Is there anything else that needs some fixings? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it. Orashmatash (t • c) 18:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Time limit has passed, no consensus for a promotion of the article to Good Article status. Goblin 00:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge![reply]

Jagadguru Rambhadracharya[change source]

Jagadguru Rambhadracharya (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on this article from a long time, and think it can be a GA now. It has come on DYK already, and satisfies most of the requirements for good articles. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article really needs a copy-edit from a native English speaker. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good start, but doesn't yet meet all of the requirements for GA. I'll leave some comments on the Talk page. My main concern is comprehensiveness. I cannot read the featured/starred articles in Hindi or other Indian languages, but En has quite a bit more about his later life. Gotanda (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - It's of very good quality, but it's quite long. It also has A LOT of un-translated Arabic writing, and that should be fixed, mainly in the Infobox. That's really the only problems I can see in this article... It will be ready for GA status soon, but his later life section could use some more information. Keep working on it! Orashmatash (t • c) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is no Arabic, its Indian English, it will be tough to translate them, but i will try to do that. Vaibhav Jain Talk Email 09:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: - Okay, there are a few tools that can help you with the translations. You can use Babylon, you can use Google Translate, and I'm sure there are others. Good luck! Orashmatash (t • c) 12:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Goblin 23:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

List of Selena songs[change source]

List of Selena songs (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The only thing anyone has to worry about is the lead, since this is a list of songs. Everything is also referenced. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdraw, far too many open nominations with common problems. Concentrate on one at a time. It may be you wish to focus on this list, but if you'd prefer to focus on one of the other articles, I'd remove this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Nominator withdrew the article. Goblin 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda![reply]

Enamorada de Ti[change source]

Enamorada de Ti (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I also believe this article meets the requirements for being a GA article. It too went through a review. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet - there is a quote to say that it is a "dance-pop croker", never having heard the song it can only make me wonder about her tonal quality. Also the term "guy" is used throughout the article, in my understanding this is a slang term for a man, or an effigy to be burnt. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well not every music critic is going to agree with each other. In a 1997 special they told fans that the song was a mixture of "Black Urban Pop". Most critics states it to be a freestyle music. I'll fix the "slang" but I don't think because of the "mix genres" that the music critics gave it shouldn't play a role in the promotion of the article. here's the link to the song, if curios. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdraw, far too many open nominations with common problems. Concentrate on one at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Nominator withdrew the article. Goblin 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda![reply]

Trouble (Coldplay song)[change source]

Trouble (Coldplay song) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Similar to enwiki counterpart, which is a GA. The article is not perfect at the moment, and I need to do some more changes to it, but it's close to GA and can do with a review. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues by AJona1992 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Eh? Why would it be on hold? A second opinion is also not a requirement, when the article is ready it's ready. We wait for a consensus, not more than one review. Goblin 17:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]
Because this is my first review, I don't want to pass the article without someone experienced telling me if the article meets the criteria. Best, AJona1992 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't personally pass an article, it requires a consensus from the community on this page in order to be passed. I suggest you go and read up on how the process works. Members of the community will leave comments on how good or bad articles are, or simply just whether they are for or against a proposal (But not simply a support or oppose, as it's not a vote). If a consensus is reached either way, the article will be promoted or otherwise. You seem to misunderstand how it works. Goblin 17:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Alright, thanks for clarifying this. Best, AJona1992 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support editor has fix most of the issues discussed on the talk page. AJona1992 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a vote either, nor is there any need to hide your concerns if they're resolved or not. Again, please actually read up on how this process works, as a continuation of assuming that it works in the same way as the English Wikipedia can be seen as disrupting the project. Goblin 20:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
    • An editor did the same thing (look above). The template is only there to keep this project running smoothly, instead of having a lot of comments that are resolved. Its better to navigate in a way. AJona1992 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that if you remove the 'support' tag from the comment above then it is still, quite clearly, a comment made that supports the promotion and leans towards that consensus. However, with yours, that is not the case. Also, the process and project has been running smoothly for years without such pointless templates that add unnecessary bureaucracy and make it harder to see how things are going. Please stop overcomplicating things with the enWP process as that is 100% completely against the entire ethos of this Wikipedia. And, once again, read up on how the process works here. Goblin 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]
  • Thanks for all those comments everyone, they were really helpful.</sarcasm> Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "produced it along with " no need for "along" (BrtiEng rules)
     Fixed
  • "as a single" link single.
     Fixed
  • Is "inspiration" a simple word?
     Fixed
  • A few too many sentences starting with "But.." for me.
     Fixed
  • "F♯4 to A5" while that's cited, it should be explained. It's not Simple.
     Fixed Linked.
  • "unrequited" doesn't exist at wikt.
     Fixed
  • Is Wild West really a red link on this Wikipedia?
     Fixed
  • "MTV Video Music Award " should be linked.
     Fixed, but it's a red link.
  • Check en-dashes in the Australian single ""Don't Panic" - 2:19"
     Fixed
  • Peak Position -> Peak position.
     Fixed
  • In the Charts table, some are referenced, some aren't. Would suggest referencing them all.
     Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for two weeks until 11 October 2011: Your wish is my command. Longer than usual extension to note that it had feedback arrive after the initial 'deadline' had passed - anything less would be unfair, as experience shows that the nominator does tend to address concerns that are raised promptly. Goblin 23:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]

Have my remaining points been fixed? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one, additional week, until 18 October 2011: Then it really will be closed! Basically, this is down to a lack of support, it seems, and is practically there now. If people disagree, feel free to close it. Goblin 22:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

Comment yep, happy with that now all my comments have been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. (Although I would probably rename the page since we have no other articles named Trouble right now. No point in early disambiguation. Alternately someone could create a second article called trouble but that would probably be too much trouble lol) -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Got what I was waiting for, had the feeling I'd be lynched if I'd 'made' this decision on Tuesday. (For you pedants out there, by 'made' I mean enact the wishes of the community, not my own agenda as some of you appear to think. As ever, anyone else is free to close a nomination or to override my 'decision', without asking.) Goblin 14:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

Como La Flor (song)[change source]

Como La Flor (song) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe the article now meets the criteria for GA. It went through a peer review. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Being the issuer of the peer review that promoted this article's nomination, I think the article is well written, well sourced, and simply written. All important information is there too. Well done. Orashmatash (t • c) 18:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as with all of your nominations, poor & non-simple English is all over here. The following words/phrases are not Simple and should be linked or rephrased: lyrics, single, credited, produced, peaked, various, recording artists, certified. You said it is the third single on the album, then said it was the lead single. So, which is it? "...some being none-Hispanic" Some what? And why does it matter? And, of course, it should be non- not none- . The phrase "number-one" generally doesn't need a hyphen. In the lead you say "It remains one of Selena's most popular songs" however you never show in the text that it remains so. The only link for its popularity is an article from 1996. And this is only looking at the lead of the article. Nowhere close to ready. Only (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being oh so WP:KIND with me. Anyways, the article Yellow (song) was the model article. All of those are simple and are also on a WP:VG article. If they are not, then what would you suggest? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdraw, far too many open nominations with common problems. Concentrate on one at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stay with two at least. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere near good enough I'm afraid - quick comments on the first few paragraphs.

  • You refer to Selena as "Mexican-American" in most other articles, but not here, why not?
  • " It was for her third..." -> "It was for Selena's third.." and link album.
  • "third single off of the" ->"third single from the"
  • "in both countries" because there's a sentence which doesn't relate to the "countries" between this one and the one where you actually mention the countries, this is unclear. Suggest a minor reorganisation.
  • "number-one" no need for the hyphen.
  • " This gave Selena her first number-one song that credited her as a solo artist." remove "that credited her".
  • "some being none-Hispanic" -> you mean "non-Hispanic"? And "some being...." is awful English.
  • " It has been certified Diamond in Mexico and Gold in Argentina. It remains one of the Selena's most popular songs." what does Diamond/Gold mean? Who says it's one of her "most popular songs"?
  • "had written the song" -> "wrote the song"
  • "He had helped from" -> "He was helped by"...

It seems that you need help from a native English speaker. Your grammar isn't good enough I'm afraid for Simple English readers. Seriously, and I mean this, don't just fix these points and say "is there anything else?" because I haven't got the energy to read the rest of the article if it's as poor as the lead. Ask some good copyeditors to look at your work. Don't expect this nomination to last more than a few more days if you don't make massive corrections. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed since WP:PR is no longer here, I deserve a proper review. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you must do is to ask a few people to copyedit the article for you. At its current level of quality, I am not prepared to give you comments on every single sentence, which is what has happened thus far. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has a life, this isn't a place where you are forced to read and review. If you don't have time then that's fine, otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time by asking users who clearly aren't too helpful around here. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're quite right, I certainly don't have time to review this article sentence by sentence. I'm sure pretty much no-one does. I'm believe this to be far from GA quality, that's my position clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's nowhere else to get a review (thanks to the community) so even if it fails, I can always nominate it again. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss the point, an article this bad would probably not get reviewed at Peer Review either. You are expected to have a pretty good article by the time you ask for help. Once you get to review its basically to dot the i's and cross the t's to make a few minor changes. As for nowhere to get reviewed beforehand....you have been told by a number of people how to go about doing that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has a life, I'm not going to waste my time by asking users who clearly aren't too helpful around here. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that different than asking on a page then? It is the same people. People are plenty helpful here, but they can't do all the work for you. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I really reading this? 'Users who clearly aren't to helpful around here'? Seriously? There are more than enough people around to give you feedback on your articles, but they won't spoon feed you and you should do some (well, most) of the work yourself. Articles should meet all (most) of the criteria before being nominated, and part of me wants to close this for that very reason as I did many moons ago before I started to give editors more of a chance and be extremely liberal with the rules (spirit, not letter). Calling TRM 'unhelpful' is ridiculous, and I think you've just blown your chance of ever getting an article through the process successfully as it's pretty much an unwritten rule that articles need a TRM review to be up to standards. If you continue to re-nominate an article after it gets closed then please do note that this can (and will) be construed as disruption to the project, which is a blockable offence. There are plenty of ways to get reviews and it doesn't mean the article living here - indeed, this page is not for reviews and should instead be used for the last few fixes and support or oppose comments. If you want a review, ask someone on their talk page and then bring it here. Don't like it? Tough. Goblin 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]
I already did but only one user (who I can call helpful and about two more users) actually did a small review of the lead and gave positive feedback. However, not everyone here are too helpful and I will not clutter their talk pages for requests. If I want a review I'll come here since the community agreed that the two should be merged into one (WP:PR). Don't like it? Deal with it. Rules do not clearly state that an article has to be well-written enough to be nominated, take you're fairy tale rules away from here and into your user page where it belongs. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I personally agree with Goblin. The Rambling Man is a bureaucrat for a reason. He is one of the most helpful users on this wiki, and i'm sorry, but I won't stand for people saying otherwise. If you need a review, leave someone a message. It's pretty much what talk pages are for. Requesting help (which reviews fall into). Yes, you are correct that the rules don't state that articles have to be well written enough to be taken here, but again, it's something that common sense should tell you. Reviews aren't given here. More often than not, you are informed that they have been reviewed here, but the review will (should) be on the article talk page. Orashmatash (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate weather or not he is a "helpful" user here. I don't know him and we have clashed here. He maybe a helpful user to others and that's very nice of him. Anyways, the community agreed that WP:PR should merged into here, so therefore (believing that the article was well written) I had nominated it. I see that the community agrees that the article is not well written, well then review it instead. Why come on here and just be like "withdraw too many errors" wow that's soooooo helpful, like thanks! No, there's no other place here where I can get feedback. Goblin wanted WP:PR gone well there's always a consequence with every temptation. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, if you want a review, leave someone a message. This aint the best place to get one. Orashmatash (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus it is. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per consensus maybe, but per the experienced editors who contribute here, it isn't. Orashmatash (t • c) 16:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus wasn't that it be merged here. The consensus was that it be deleted. The rules don't specifically state it has to be well written to come here because its expected that a person would know that is supposed to be the case. If you bring an article that is far away from being a GA you can expect it will likely get speedy closed. And if you keep doing it to prove a point you can expect that you would likely end up blocked. None of that is productive, if you truly want help do it in the ways you have been asked. -DJSasso (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso basically just summed up the entire discussion. :) Orashmatash (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Goblin can you close this as not promoted? I'll work on this article after improvements have been made on the Selena article. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about you not expect other people to run around clearing up your own mess, and instead just withdraw the nomination yourself? Goblin 14:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]
BG there was no need to get snarky. He might not know how to close it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not promoted - Nominator requested closure, and as Djsasso said, may not have known how to close it. Orashmatash 17:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena[change source]

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

I'm pretty sure the article will fail because of word choices. I tried to keep the article as simple as possible by only adding basic information about the singer. However, even though its basic information, I did not leave any major aspects out of the article per WP:MoS. I believe the article is in good shape but I would like other editors opinions that can help the article become a GA. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - It's not that the word choice is wrong, it's just the suffixes you use on the words. I will give you an example, because I fixed a sentence that read: "Selena did not believed her best friend could do that to her", the word "believed" being the mistake, that should have been "believe". On a more positive note, it's a very well sourced and written article, everything about it is great except the word suffixes. Fix those, and I'll support this article all the way. Good luck! Orashmatash (t • c) 16:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed I re-read the article and fixed what needed to be fixed. I hope I took care of that, if not can you tell me what else needs to be fixed?. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some English words that are still not used correctly, for example "Selena was given a museum..." The article will need full checking to fix this and similar problems. Also, as I do not know anything about her or her career, I am curious about her death. How and why was she killed? --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well how would you state it? "Mirador de la Flor was created in honor of Selena"? In the "death" section it states that she was murdered by her friend/employee because (1) she was obsess with Selena (2) Selena was ending her friendship with her because she stole money from Selena (3) she couldn't bare the thought of losing Selena (4) she had homicidal impulse. Well #4 is on the Murder of Selena article which I am expanding. I'm not sure if that should be included in the article, please correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments many issues. A sample from first para of the lead:

  • Disambiguation links, including Madonna and pitch.
  • Don't wikilink dates.
  • Shouldn't Mexican American be hyphenated?
  • Where's the reference for "Mexican Madonna"?
  • "was born as the youngest child. " obviously. There couldn't have been a younger child than her when she was born (I assume you mean her family)?
  • "She continued to do so for eight years straight" -> "She won the award eight consecutive times" or similar.
  • "a female–singer" no need for en-dash.
  • "In 1992, Entre A Mi Mundo helped Selena to tour in Mexico." sorry, not sure how an album helped her tour?

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Selena was born the third (last) child of her father and mother (5) how is consecutive simple? (7) in Latin barriers, a female is not seen by males as a "competitive" in any form of music. In Mexico, they do not like Mexican Americans for some reason, Selena broke that chain with Entre a Mi Mundo. The source is there, I'll fix the others. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're missing my point, I found that much wrong in the first paragraph of the first section of the article. It needs serious work before it can be nominated as a PGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added over 50,000 bytes of sources and I'm not going to give up on the article just yet :) Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually almost frightened that you might have too many sources. Do some of these statements really need to have 7-9 sources? The excess of numbers in superscript interferes a bit with the reading flow. Most of the issues in this article are on account of the English being slightly awkward in areas. Here are a few quick comments relating to that, although this isn't an exhaustive list in any way.

  • "A lot of candlelight vigils were made" - I'd say "held" instead of "made."
  • Overall, the introduction seems really choppy. I know that you're trying to make it simple, but sometimes it reads like a laundry list - "This happened. This other thing happened." and so on.
  • "When Samora had seen a second doctor" - "saw", not "had seen".
  • "Selena's father Abraham Quintanilla Jr," - either put commas around the name or remove the comma entirely.
  • "Abraham was amazed that his daughter had a perfect pitch" - I think - and I'm not sure - that you don't need the "a" before "perfect pitch".
  • "He built a dance floor where his children can perform together." - "could", not "can".
  • "Because he wanted them to grow up to know what their heritage is." - Sentence fragment.
  • "Because of her performance schedule was becoming much bigger." - Another sentence fragment.
  • I've noticed that you seem to do weird things with appositives. Consider setting them off with commas. (e.g. "In the same year, Chris Perez who was a Rock musician was asked to join "Selena y Los Dinos" - "who was a rock musician" should be set off with commas.)
  • "Selena confronted her father the next day after radio stations publicity announced their marriage." - "publicly", not "publicity"

There are more problems, but I'm a bit short of time right now. I would suggest that you fix these and proofread the article a bit, because a few of these are quite obvious. Hope that helps. [+piccolo] 01:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed (the ones you pointed out). Any more? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, you need to ask for someone to copyedit the whole article. I can find problems with just about every sentence in the article and I don't have time to (a) fix it all for you (b) comment on it all for you. It's just not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per above. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per above. The article is nowhere near good enough for GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just c/e the article of the best of my ability. Is there anything that I missed? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say it's still inadequate. For example, let's look at para three of the lead:

  • "Selena's death became a sad event" no, it "was" a sad a event, and it affected people in Hispanic communities. It did not "become" a sad event.  Fixed
  • "A lot of candlelight vigils were held, as well as tributes from fans" this sentence structure implies that tributes were "held", you don't normally "hold" tributes, and what, exactly, do you mean by this anyway?
  • Don't link dates like April 16. Particularly when there's nothing of relevance on that page.
  • "It helped Selena to become the second–fastest selling female artist, only behind Janet Jackson" second-fastest should use a hyphen, not an en-dash, and you don't need "only" here, as since she's second, it should be obvious that there's "only" one person ahead of her.  Fixed
  • "Her album sold 175,000 copies the first day when it was released" -> "Her album sold 175,000 copies on its day of release".
  • "The album then became the second–highest debut" highest what? Presumably you mean "The album went on to be the second-highest-selling debut album..."?
  • Again, don't need "only".  Fixed
  • "In 1997, Warner Bros. released a movie about her life which helped Jennifer Lopez's career." be clearer here, was it the movie or "her life" which helped Jennifer Lopez's career?

Just not good enough I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few of these in my copyedit yesterday without knowing you had listed them here. Goodvac (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Early success" section comments:

  • "He later said that he felt guilty about having Selena to get married." What does this mean?
  • "The song peaked at number-one on the Billboard charts." Remove "at number-one". "Peaked" means "number-one" if I'm not mistaken.
  • "Selena was called the "Mexican Madonna" but always believed in family values and never swore." Make it clear that this is a contrast. Selena, unlike Madonna "believed in family values and never swore".

Goodvac (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Selena's father felt that it was his fault (being overly protected) that pushed Selena to elope Chris. (2) well "Peak" in charts means the highest ranking of the song/album/etc. So if a song debuted at 26 and it peaked at 2 this means that the song had the highest chart number at 2. I hope that explains it :) (3) well Selena empathizes family values and she had never used curse words. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding of "peak".
So this is supposed to be a contrast to Madonna? Goodvac (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will copy-edit the article for you, as well. This is a well sourced article, it's long as well, it'd be a shame if it was un-successful. Orashmatash 18:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buddy! Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Goodvac, she was described as the "Mexican equivalent of Madonna" but Selena valued family and never used curse words. I don't know about "contrast"? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, did Madonna use curse words and not value family? That's what the "but" implies. Goodvac (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't listen to Madonna's music but Madonna was or still is a "sexual symbol". Selena's image was clean, not too sure about Madonna's so I would suggest "She was called the "Mexican Madonna" but unlike Madonna, Selena valued family and never cursed"? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Does the source say that? Goodvac (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This states that "Like Madonna, Selena was known for sexy stage costumes, including high boots and bustiers. But she was also emphasized family values and was married to band member Chris Perez." Perhaps add the part about "sexy stage costumes"? Goodvac (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orashmatash, I think you may have changed the meaning of a sentence in your copyedit: "She completed mailed homework..." → "She did and mailed homework..." The former statement means that homework was mailed to her and she completed it. The latter means that she completed homework and mailed it somewhere. AJona1992, can you clarify which meaning is intended? Goodvac (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 comment for "Death" section: "This event had mixed to negative reactions from other Americans as well." What does this mean? Goodvac (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to raise a few points I ran into while copy-editing (I'm not done).
  • In the "Early success" section, how did Selena help other artists sign with recording labels?
  • In the "Early success" section, what does "He later said that he felt guilty about having Selena to get married" mean? That will need re-worded. Orashmatash 18:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AJona1992 answered that above: "Selena's father felt that it was his fault (being overly protected) that pushed Selena to elope Chris." Feel free to implement a clarification. Goodvac (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yes, that will need to be put in. I have another issue:

Source problems

Suggestion : Since there seem to be a lot of issues/collaboration going on here, might I suggest closing this and moving this talk to the talk page? It makes more sense since this clearly needs a lot of work for GA status. Only (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amenable to that. Will move shortly if there are no objections. Goodvac (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted - per Only's suggestion. Discussion moved to talk page. When this article is to be nominated again, please do it under another header, this section will probably be removed shortly, as the discussion has been copied to the talk page. Orashmatash 19:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional closing comment: Yes, I'm adding some additional red tape and bureaucracy. Yes, I realise it's slightly hypocritical. However, it was introduced as a requirement for repeat nominations so I'm bring it to everyone's attention: please allow one, full nomination cycle (i.e. three weeks) between this close and any further re-nomination, meaning that the article can be re-nominated on Saturday, 6 November 2011 at the earliest. Nominations made before this will automatically fail. This was brought in to stop articles living at P(V)GA and effectively getting a free pass, though, again, I appreciate that this isn't in the criteria so is perhaps unknown. I will set about updating these soon, promise! If you want to get feedback in the meantime, please ask on an editor's talk page, who I am sure will be more than happy to help review the article and get it up to scratch. Indeed, by the time the re-nomination comes the article may be in perfect shape and we can snow close it one week in. We'll see... Goblin 20:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
I'll add that to the criteria, Goblin. Orashmatash 20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a discussion that resulted in consensus to add such a requirement? Goodvac (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Goblin 20:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]
Where? Goodvac (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Normandy (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. What's so difficult with providing evidence of consensus? Goodvac (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States[change source]

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

Has been peer reviewed several times, and the vast majority of issues brought up in peer review. Main outstanding concern was a few unreferenced statements; but now, with the exception of the lede and topic sentences, a reference for just about anything can be found within a few sentences. To those who say "Throw out this article and start over", I would point out how much time has already been put into this article, and how close it was Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just a quick couple on a first glance, don't mix date formats in the references (all MDY or YYYY-MM-DD, but no mixture; compare refs 233, 234 and 235), be consistent, page numbers either have pp. or no pp., but not a mixture (compare ref 144 with ref 146) and ensure all online refs have accessdates. Much more to come I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed most of the things you speak of. FYI, here's the diff between the last time it was at PGA and now; as you can see, most of the prose (which we were already OK with) hasn't changed; there are just an extra reference or two per paragraph Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest closure since the nominator has been given a minimum one-month block from the Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are others who will step up and make the remaining changes. It looks as if we are very close and it is a matter of footnote formatting. Racepacket (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not close to GA standard, and it is certainly not just a matter of footnote formatting. Agree with TRM. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been nominated and closed several times. Issues that were raised at the previous nominations remain. In particular, not just the dates of references, but the relevance of some references remains an issue. I did a spot check of two online refs that had problems in previous noms and they have not been changed at all. I haven't re-checked all of them yet, but these are substantive problems, not just cosmetic ones. Agree with TRM's suggestion. Gotanda (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD doesn't say anything about the size, so the answer to that question is no. --Orashmatash 19:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted It has been four weeks since this nomination, and nothing has been done to the article at all. Since the nomination, the nominator has been blocked, and no one has made a constructive edit to the article. Only (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works of Jagadguru Rambhadracharya[change source]

Works of Jagadguru Rambhadracharya (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I am really not sure if lists are appropriate for GA status but i think this meets most of the WP:GA?. Its already a FLC on en wiki an hi wiki. I will be happy to answer any query or fix any problem. Thanks for the consideration. Vaibhav Jain Talk Email 18:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far too many redlinks to be close to GA status. There are grammar errors in the first paragraph and long sentences that need to be simplified as well. A lot of areas need explanations as well. Who filed the writ against him? Who didn't accept it? A lot of complex words that need to be explained through links to Simple articles or through parenthetical explanations. Only (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed as not promoted: Basically, per Only. Goblin 03:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

List of Selena songs[change source]

List of Selena songs (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is only a list of songs recorded by Selena herself. The only written content of the article is its lead. It is well sourced and I believe checking against the criteria would be very easy. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing really quickly at the tables: what does "none album song" mean? Should we really link every instance of an album? Shouldn't it only be the first mention? Only (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, purely because I don't feel that 'lists' can be good or otherwise. There are no criteria for such things and so, if we are going to accept them (which I don't think we should) then we need a wider criteria first. Goblin 21:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]
(e/c) @Only A duet that is not included in any of Selena's albums but the partner's album. If you consider it I'll gladly just link it once. @Goblin, well you want to oppose the article because lists were never discussed? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think lists should be our first choice for good articles, i'm afraid. Orashmatash 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? lists are just like regular articles except in list-format. If they are sourced and are notable then why not? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@AJona, yes, that's correct. Glad you've read my comments for once. Goblin 21:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]
@AJona1992 - Because Good Articles should be articles that are interesting. Lists aren't really interesting, no matter how complete or detailed they may be. Orashmatash 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Orashmatash you are confusing this with DYK, articles are not meant to be interesting but have to be notable for inclusion in any Wikipedia. Lists are no exception from being an article, except it is a list with a lead that is equivalent of an article's lead. @Goblin, well I guess I have to start one then. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously misunderstood me there. You want people to read articles. We all do. And nobody is going to read a boring article. That's what i'm getting at here. I did not say anywhere that lists couldn't be nominated. I didn't say that they shouldn't be nominated. All I have given you is an opinion, and I am not confusing this with DYK. I am experienced enough to tell the difference. Orashmatash 22:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of our purposes is to promote and recognize excellence in content. I think that either lists should be allowed at PGA, or there should be a separate process for recognizing good lists. If we don't have a separate process for lists, then where do we critique and promote lists? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't really looked at the subject list (but don't worry, I will...), but as long as it's referenced, well-written with decent prose, illustrated nicely, sortable (where applicable) and accessible, then I don't really have a problem with it being at PGA. But it does raise a question of precedence and it's probably worth a quick discussion and maybe a glance at en.wiki's featured list process for some guidance on whether we should crowbar lists into GA or develop a separate concept. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for reviewing the article. I'll make sure I fix every single concern (if any). Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Racepacket - Again, a matter of interest. I did not say anywhere that lists could not be nominated. I did not say anywhere that they should not be nominated. I agree with The Rambling Man, if it meets that criteria, then I don't see why not, but lists are pretty boring in my opinion, and there are better nominations out there. –Orashmatash 18:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the albums they were listed in. Hope that helps, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question of whether lists should be GA or not may be a separate question. However, this article has several issues. It is almost entirely the work of one editor. It needs better formatting; there are no headings to organize the content. There are several grammatical errors (see "had became", "had wrote"). GAs usually have at least one image. I know that may difficult in this case because of copyright, but it is usual to have something visual. A sidebar or infobox outlining her career by album would probably be helpful too. Finally, for a list of songs, songwriter and producer information is probably needed to make it really complete. Gotanda (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made some of the changes I suggested above. But, now the intro bio needs attention. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your doing that. I'm very sorry I have been not been near my home laptop for awhile. I'll fix the remaining issues. Again thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I  Fixed the outstanding issues that remained. Are there any other obvious ones I might of missed? Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't read much of the article yet, but from what I can see, it looks pretty clumsy to me. Can we please use one ref once in a paragraph please? Repeated use of the same ref in the same para is annoying; I don't want a para like "It was featured on Ones (2002).[16] "Puede Ser" was a Spanish rock duet. It was featured on Momentos Intimos (2004).[16] "Lo Dejo Solo" was a polka song and was on the Classic Series Vol. 1 album in 2007.[16]". Use refs covering facts for the whole para at the end of the para. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now  Fixed the overkill. Are there any other issues? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments added to the talk page. This is very far from being a GA in my mind. And totally pointless for me to have added all those comments because there is still no consensus saying lists can be GAs. Only (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the following concerns. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: This one has gone on for long enough now, I think: around 6 weeks or thereabouts, when the normal time is 3. Furthermore, there is no consensus to promote the article, nor is there any consensus nor criteria for having 'Good Lists'. All in all, stacks for a no-promote. Goblin 15:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge![reply]


Wheeling Tunnel[change source]

Wheeling Tunnel (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is a simplified version of an En. good article that I expanded a bit with some extra sourcing. I've already had several grammar reviews of it. I have about 5 more redlinks to fulfill (3 in text and 2 in the infobox), and there are a few redlinks in the reference section as well (I don't know if those "count" so to speak). What else needs to be done to raise this to a GA? The lead looks skimpy, but I'm not sure what else can be included there. I think this only misses criteria 6 (redlinks) of the GA criteria in its current form. Only (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Quick comments
  • "It has two travel lanes in each tube" and "The westbound tube was closed in February 2010" "Tube" is an unfamiliar term. It needs to be either linked, explained parenthetically, or revised to "tunnel" (if that's what it refers to).
  • "The Division of Highways had to give the contract to the German company" What is "The Division of Highways"? Add an appositive introducing the organization or whatever it is.

Goodvac (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both...the Divisions of Highways will be an article at some point, too. Thanks for the comments/copyedits. Only (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • You don't need both $ and dollars in "$13.7 million dollars."
    • Done.
  • Don't mix date formats in the refs (see ref 7 for instance).
    • Hmm...I can't change the format of ref 7. It's because of Template:Inflation-fn which uses the year-mm-dd format in it. Suggestions? (I'd rather not change every date in the other sources).
  • "sits between " since this is Simple English I'd avoid this vaguely euphamistic terminology. Maybe "is sited" or something more precise.
    • Done.
  • "run concurrently (on the same road) " don't think you need "concurrently" if you define it in parentheses thereafter.
    • fixed
  • "travel lanes" travel lane as opposed to what other type of lane?
    • emergency lanes? I'll take it out though.
  • Consider linking mph and kph in the infobox as their abbrevations may not be Simple to some.
  • Same with mi and m.
    • Linked them all.
  • "2011[7])" -> "2011)[7]"
  • "Then governor" hyphenate.
  • "a lot of carbon monoxide gases" no need for gases here.
    • Yup, redundant.
  • Is there a reason why they needed to rebuild the tunnel?
    • Not that I've found yet....I'll keep looking.
    • As indicated in the article, the old tiles were falling off with the potential of hitting passing cars. Finding an acceptible replacement technique was done by trial and error. Connor, Fred (July 17, 2007). "Tunnel Tribulations Continue". The Intelligencer - Wheeling News-Register. Retrieved 2011-11-28.Racepacket (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NAACP " spell it out first.
    • Spell out.
  • "The West Virginia Division of Highways (which is in charge of the tunnel) had to give the contract to the German company because no other company could finish the work within the time frame needed. " bit too long and too many clauses for Simple English in my opinion.
    • Reworded a bit.
  • Odd format after "The westbound tunnel"....
    • Seems to be fixed?
  • Since you have it in the infobox, it's worth noting in the prose how busy the tunnel is.
    • Put into lead.
  • Ref 3 needs an en-dash.
  • Ref 8, what's the "-. " after the name of the publication? What's the hyphen for?
  • Refs 6, 9, 16 and 17 are showing as dead.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref issues and dead links are fixed. Goodvac (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed them all other than the issues with reference #7. Those problems are because of the template, so I'm not sure of the best way to go about fixing it. Only (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7 now fixed. I just moved {{inflation-fn|US}} after the parentheses. Goodvac (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left some comments about the last section on the Talk page. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more concerns at this time? I have fixed all issues brought up here and at the talk page except for the date format on reference 7. I do not know how to fix that without changing the template or rewriting every single reference in the article to match the one there (I think it'd be really ridiculous to change the format of 20 references to match the style of 1). There are still some redlinks (West Virginia Division of Highways, Semi-trailer trucks, and Interstate 470 (Ohio–West Virginia) in the body; plus redlinks in the references). Only (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date syntax of ref 7 fixed by substituting the template. Goodvac (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the redlinks in the text have been fulfilled (some still remain in the references). Is there anything else that needs to be done to get this to full status? Only (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Article
  1. The lead is very small, though there aren't any rules that indicate a length rule, I think it would be best to add a bit more information from the article body to the lead.
    It's fine as is per the lead guidelines.
  2. Maybe this is just me but this sentence in the lead Opened in 1966, the Wheeling Tunnel cost $6.9 million to build could be better if it was written like this Opened in 1966, the Wheeling Tunnel had cost $6.9 million (and then add "created" or something else that would represent the word "built"; per tense writing, "had cost" would be suitable then "cost..."
    No, this wording works better.
  3. Also this sentence in the lead In 2009, an average of 59,600 cars used the tunnel every day doesn't sound too right. If this statistic is from 2009, then why would it say "every day"? (we are in 2011 ;-) Maybe saying As of 2009, an average of 59,600 cars use the tunnel every day or something like that (or even "on a daily basis" if that is simple), maybe even finding an updated statistic would be best.
    Because the statistic is from 2009. No 2011 data has been made available as far as I know. There is nothing wrong with this phrasing.
  4. The second sentence of the first section Wheeling should be wikilinked as its now a fresh start.
    Nope. Previous reference to the city isn't far enough away to justify linking again.
  5. "Then governor William Wallace Barron..." then governor of what city? (remember to WP:PCR Provide Context to the uniform Reader.)
    The governor of West Virginia.
  6. Is this picture before or after the tunnel was rebuilt? You would want to add that to the caption of the picture.
    Doesn't matter. The renovations to the tunnel were inside the tunnel. Nothing would change in a satellite image.
Reference checking
  1. Delink Washington, Pennsylvania for Ref#1
  2. Ref#2 is not being consistent with all the other refs. Why is the date in MM DD YYYY format? Also delink The Intelligencer & Wheeling News Register
    ALL the references are MM DD, YYYY. I don't know what you're seeing.
    Hmm must of been seeing something else, alright
  3. Delink WTOV-TV. in ref#6
  4. And delink Charleston Daily Mail. in ref#19.
    Delinked all.

Hope this helps, I usually don't review articles but since no one else had commented further I felt to do so myself. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed or commented upon all your concerns. Only (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more of supporting the article in passing, its well-written, sourced and simplified. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support good article, by all means. Albacore (talk · changes) 23:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I added comments on the talk page. When/If fixed, I think it'll be good. Yottie =talk= 16:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go for me. Yottie's comments don't concern me (not sure about this "passive" obsession at all); it's a "good" article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The passive voice makes the sentence more complex. This issue isn't new, and people have talked about it before. Also, my comments aren't all about the passive, but also about general simplification, and some small things which need fixing. Bonne journée :) Yottie =talk= 11:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the comments relate to the passive issue. How do you reword "the westbound tunnel was also closed" (for instance) then without adding more complexity? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By adding a subject in the first position of the sentence (if that is clear?). e.g.: The authorities also closed the westbound tunnel. (authorities, being replaced by whoever closed it - this is how we recommend people to write simple phrases). Kind regards, Yottie =talk= 11:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So increasing the word count to reduce the perceived complexity, an interesting approach. I guess I'm no good at this writing lark after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply a case of how ESL speakers/children learn the language, and the easiest and usually the first way they learn it is subject - verb - object. Starting a sentence with an object may seem rather unnatural for those people. These may think that the object is actually a subject (as unlike German, the words do not change according to what case they are being used in). Also, when you add a clear subject it makes the statement more precise (win-win situation?). Word count doesn't always make sentences more complex, indeed. Kind regards, Yottie =talk= 11:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure sure. I'd forgotten for a moment that we should focus on basic writing, not elegant writing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed Yottie's comments to the best of my ability. Are there any other concerns out there? Only (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Self explanatory. Goblin 18:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]


Ryan Stiles[change source]

Ryan Stiles (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is a complete article that shows much detail and thoroughness. No tags are placed on it. Many different editors have comtributed to it. There has recently been a minor edit to it. The subject belongs in Wikipedia. The article is in the right catergory. These factors point that the article can be promoted to good article status. Shakinglord (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First thing I notice: many redlinked pages. They should be created. πr2 (talk • changes) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost identical to the en version...although if it is simple I suppose not a problem. Personally for ga and vga articles I like to see articles written from scratch...but thats just me. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not ready at this time. Among the problems: too many redlinks, one line is tagged as needing sources, there are no sources in the Whose Line is it Anyway? section, undue weight given to Whose Line... section, unreliable sources and an image in it that was directly uploaded to Simple Wikipedia (I've since deleted it). Lots of work that needs to be done to get this to a GA. Only (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed as not promoted: Far from ready, largely per Only & DJSasso. Take a close look at the criteria, give it some work and then come back at a later date. Goblin 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

Selena[change source]

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

A lot of editors here and myself have worked very hard on this article. I believe it meets the criteria at WP:GA? But if there are still outstanding issues, then I'll fix them ASAP (as soon as possible) :-) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some technical comments left on the talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed see talk page for replies. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some things too: here Normandie 13:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: No consensus for promotion. Goblin 14:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Couple of days too quick? Especially when there's been a burst of editing and discussion recently... Normandie 14:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me or to Bluegoblin? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gobby. Had until Friday by my count and people were reviewing the article. Normandie 09:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Kelly[change source]

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

This article provides a well referenced, comprehensive, and simple English account of one of Australia's most iconic historical figures. It meets all the criteria for a Good Article. Please raise any concerns on the talk page.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I gave it a review, and it looks fine for a GA. Albacore (talk · changes) 15:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed as promoted: 10 days, four supports, plus my own giving five. We always used to use 5 as the figure for making a snow promote in the hey-day of the process, and I think it's probably the most we'll get at this time of year. Only 10 days in which is slightly under halfway, but - yeah. It's a good article, there's no need to keep the red tape from promoting it so if you need any more justification, IAR (Though, incidentally, I've still not updated the rules for P(V)GA... is it nearly three years now? Time for a new rules discussion maybe to actually clear everything up?). Goblin 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

Mourning Dove[change source]

Mourning Dove (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've simplified and fixed this from the GA in enwiki, but I think I've reached my limits. :) I'm not sure how to make it any better now, so I would like some suggestions for improvement. It has been quite a long time since I was that active here, and I don't quite remember everything. Thanks! ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 08:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nicely well written! However, the referencing section is a bit messy. Please use a consistent date format (compare FN#1 and FN#4), what is FN#5? (I believe its a book, so maybe even adding a "bibliography" with all the books you used will be helpful), FN#6 publisher? year?, and remove redlinks found in references (FN#19). Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the redlink and decided to just make all the dates into today (:p I hope that's... okay). I'll try to work on the other things tomorrow. Thanks for reviewing! :) ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Osiris—all fixed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • There are a couple of time references that might need to be specified. Does "up to 70 million birds shot" refer to annually, or since a certain date? It might also be a good idea to replace the instance of "recently" with a year.
  • Need to add standard units to "weigh an average of 4 to 6 ounces".
  • The images need alt text for readers with disabilities. I can add these for you if you want.

Overall, the article looks very good, and is well written. Osiris (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional:
  • There are a few dead links (I can mark them for you if you'd like), so please go through and make sure they're all working and fix the ones that aren't. This page will have information on finding archived pages if you don't already know.
I looked through the links and fixed all of them, I think. I hope I haven't missed any.
  • This file may no longer be available under the licence it appears on commons, as the author isn't on Flickr anymore.
You're right; I removed the file. I don't think it's that necessary anyway. :)
Osiris (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was bored, took care of some. :) Osiris (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking care of the comments and the nice suggestions, Osiris! I could never thank you enough. I can't find where the word "recently" is used, however; would you please be so kind as to tell me where it is? ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 07:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It has also been found recently in the Florida Keys," under the species list in the Taxonomy section. Osiris (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just took out the "recently", as I'm not sure of the exact date myself. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 04:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Macdonald-ross (talk)
  • This is a suitable candidate for GA. I just want to remark on a few of the suggestions above. In order, from AJona and Osiris:
  1. Refs such as #5 must be expanded; but no book list is required for GA, and would not be wise unless you had reason to think they were the best available.
  2. Ounces are perfectly acceptable in English-language countries. What's needed is a simple parenthesis in grams, and don't take the grams into more than one place of decimals, if that (avoid pseudo-precision).
It seems like Osiris already put the grams in a parenthesis. :)
  1. I look forward to Osiris teaching us how alt-captions helps disabled readers! But, actually, this is not a requirement for GA. It is clear that the list of nine requirements is a pre-requisite, rather than a guarantee of GA success. That means editors can point to any deficiencies they may see in the article (and such comments should be taken seriously), but such items are not actually requirements.
  2. In general, ideas for improvement of pages should go on the article's talk page. Issues related to its worthiness for GA (or otherwise!) belong here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your words were very essential, Macdonald-ross. I look forward to learning the "alt-caption" as well! The references are now more specified and the deadlinks are all fixed. :) Let me know if there's anything else I can do. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 07:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments nice article. Some quick comments.

  • Lead should really discuss where the bird is found. There's a category suggesting it's also found in Pakistan. To that end, why is the map in the infobox only of north America?
Yes, I was a little unsure about the Pakistan thing. I don't even think that information is really true, as I google-searched it and nothing much came out. I think I'll just take it out until I can find a reliable reference for it.
  • Suggest the Latin name is preceded by "Latin:"
  • Would describe the physical aspects of the bird in the lead before saying it's hunted.
  • "care for their children" would they be "chicks"?
  • "call" may need a link, as it's actually the birdsong you're referring to, perhaps it's not simple enough.
  • Images should not squash text between them, nor should their captions have full stops if they are incomplete sentences.
  • Where is the "Western Palearctic"?
It seems to redirect to the Palearctic ecozone in enwp, so I changed the name.
  • "They weigh an" vs "It has a" - plural to singular. I'm not fussed which you use but be consistent.
  • Four dab links :
    • "Scientific classification" redirects to "classification" which is a dab page.
    • "neck".
    • "egg".
    • "dust".
  • You link neck, but not wing, any reason?
  • "s shot up to 40-70 million times" not a great sentence. Perhaps "Around 40–70 million birds are shot as game every year."
  • Don't have mixed date formats in the references.
I fixed most of them, except one that keeps coming out in a different date format. I'm not sure what I can do with that one, so I just left it there for now.
  • Newspapers e.g. USA Today, should be italics (or use the "work" parameter in a cite template rather than a "publisher" parameter).

Feel free to email me when you'd like me to revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished! :) Please let me know if I've missed anything or if there's anything else to do. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 09:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All good, looks like a suitably good enough article to me. Well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two main trouble areas that always seem to stick out to me are word choice (staying as close to the Basic English word lists as possible for unlinked words) and sentence structure. The readability level on the article is a tad high (bit over 8th grade) but reasonable.
    1. The 15+ words per sentence average is high. Reading through the article, a lot of the sentences can easily be split. If a comma is used to divide the sentence consider if it is valid to be two (or more) sentences. For example, in the intro, the last sentence of the first and second paragraphs can be split and the first and last sentence in the 3rd paragraph can as well. (Para3, sentence 1 is 3 sentences). Short simple sentences makes it easier to understand.
      I fixed the last sentence in the first para and the first sentence in Para3, but the last sentence in the second paragraph sounds too unnatural split in half, so I just left it as it is for now. :) ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 04:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      ""Adult Mourning Doves almost always (usually? the 99% is explained later so almost always is a bit long) eat only seeds. The young are fed crop milk by the parents." - seems to flow fine. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 70.184.171.16! Your suggestion seemed good, so I changed the sentence the way you put it. :) ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 08:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. As to word choice - links the first time used for the taxo classifications (genus and species - you got family and subspecies linked), locations (West Indies, North America, Pacific Ocean/coast, British Isles,Iceland, etc - yet you got a ton of other locations linked.. consistency is needed), the bird it is confused with, the man who named it (and where he is from). Words like individual need to be worked around. Monogamous is immediately defined, but is the word actually needed or could you just use the definition in its place?
I linked almost all the words you mentioned. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 08:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Creol! Your concern is very appreciated. Please tell me if I need anything more to fix! :) ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 08:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Route 82[change source]

Delaware Route 82 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I got opinions at a peer review, and this page seems good to go. It has be simplified from the English Wikipedia version, which is a GA, and fully covers the subject with reliable sources. Dough4872 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted. No consensus to promote. -Orashmatash (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena[change source]

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

Its been a month since my last try. I believe the article is up to GA standards and if not, I'll fix 'em :-) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bluegoblin7
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Aside from anything else, "Its been a month since my last try" is completely the wrong attitude to have. This process is not a game. Goblin 01:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
I only added that comment based on the talk page archives about not nominating an article right after it was failed. Furthermore, I don't believe I had any "attitude", that's just my opinion. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment; a month is certainly a reasonable amount of time, though I must also mention that this is the third time that this article has been nominated, with previous commentaries available to view here and here. Regarding 'attitude', "A settled way of thinking or feeling, typically reflected in a person's behaviour" - your comment, previous comments and having multiple GAs on the go at once puts that across to me, and others. Though, of course, I may be wrong - you're perfectly entitled to your own opinions and ways of thinking. Goblin 02:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]
Well not everyone is "perfect" at writing articles that meets criteria. Well maybe to you it may come across that way, but saying "Best, or Thanks" is a nice gesture in my pov. I just like to be stupid all time time to lighten the mood :-) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I've not commented on this process at all... ever, I don't think. Perhaps once. I do however monitor it heavily. Now here is my question, is there a place where the articles can associate to a peer review in preparation for this proposed good article selection? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 03:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was redirected by the community. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 04:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is effectively going to be a three-part comment, in that three edits to this discussion will be made in fairly fast progression, all of which are adding to the conversation but in different places and on different tangents. This is being done to avoid a massive speech and potential edit-conflicts! Each will be indented appropriately below this comment, with an '@user' preceding it to make it clearer which point it relates to. This may give a bit of a messy output, for which I apologise for in advance. Goblin 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

@AJona: No-one is perfect at writing articles, nor are they expected to be. I'm certainly not, The Rambling Man certainly isn't and nor are any of our regulars; that is not what I am saying, and if you re-read my comments you'll see that. The idea is that you write an article to the best of your ability, ensure that it meets the large majority of the criteria and then nominate the article here, which is exactly what you've done. However, experience tells us that straight nominations are extremely unlikely to pass, particularly when it is a first or second time attempt. This is why we strongly recommend that you seek an informal peer review directly via a user's talk page prior to making your nomination, and I have suggested this to you many times now, yet you are still to actually take that advice. Of course, an article certainly isn't guaranteed to pass or fail if the approach is taken or not, but, as I say, experience shows that articles that go through this extra step tend to be promoted faster and quicker than those that don't. You certainly wouldn't be looking at a third nomination for this article if you'd heeded this step the first or second time round, I'm pretty certain of that. Instead of being so hung up about there being a Peer Review process (or lack of) adjust and adapt - this is entirely why we did away with the process; because it was never used as people preferred to go for direct, informal reviews as they always yielded much better results. It was - and is - completely redundant. Get it out your system because it's gone and isn't coming back. Anyway, I see you've also still not understood my comment about attitude - attitude doesn't necessarily mean bad, impolite etc - I'm perfectly aware that saying Best or Thanks is a nice gesture - it is in my POV - as well - and that's certainly not what I am saying. Again, re-read my comments and you might get there, eventually. Finally, Wikipedia is not a social network - if you want to dick about and act stupid all the time, go someplace else. We're here with serious aims and for serious reasons, the mood doesn't need lightening by people acting like dicks. Goblin 17:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
@Scream: There are two, possibly three ways to use the process. Any of them are valid and all can and should result in a promotion if the nominator puts in the hard work required. History tells us that some work better than others, though.
The first is the straightforward one - an article gets nominated here, users then come along and review it either by placing their points here or on the article talk page, these are fixed and then the discussion leads to a consensus, and a promotion. This is really how it should work, though is rarely the case for multiple reasons, that I think are self-explanatory.
The second is my personal 'preferred' method, and is the one that tends to have the most successful conversion rate, which is why I suggest it to all P(V)GA hopefuls. If you have an article in mind that you want promoting, work as hard as you can on it and get it so that you think it is perfect. Then, informally ask for a review from one or two of our 'resident' reviewers, which will appear in a reasonable period of time on the article's talk page. Fix everything (Or nearly everything) and ask for a second look. Once this arrives, fix them and, depending on how in depth it is, it could now be time to make the nomination. If it's long, wait until they're completed and ask for round three, or if you think it's sufficiently short enough nominate and fix whilst the nomination is in progress.
The third method is one I wouldn't recommend, but more and more seems to become the prevailing attitude towards the process. Any article is selected and random. That article is then made excessively long and complex, because, as we all know, that means that it is good (sic). It gets a nomination, reviews are made yet these are ignored and challenged at every possibility, with the nominator expecting the reviewer and community to be the ones to fix 'their' article. Invariably the review appears on the talk page yet that is always the 'wrong' location. Inevitably, the article then gets failed and said user cries that their article has been failed, stating that if there was a Peer Review process the article would have been passed - despite a review having taken place already - but, of course, a Peer Review is different, isn't it...? To the best of my knowledge, no formally Peer reviewed article has ever made GA, at least not in the 3+ years I've been a member of the wiki.
Take your pick as to which method you choose! And, finally, to answer your question far more simply, with just three words: the talk page. Regards, Goblin 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]
@AJona, see above, where I tackle your extremely unhelpful comment in both of my replies to yourself and Scream. Goblin 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Orashmatash![reply]
Goblin, I believe you may have overreacted to AJona's comment about joking around. From his work creating and expanding articles, he clearly has some serious purpose here. But that does not mean he can't joke around some. There is nothing to say that everyone has to be serious, and I didn't at all interpret his comment to mean he was dickish or doesn't take this seriously. Perhaps not as seriously as you do, but that's not necessarily wrong. Obviously, you are free to your own opinions, but I think you've misinterpreted several of his statements, starting with your reaction to his nomination statement. PrincessofLlyr talk 18:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your comment, I actually did asked someone to review this article before I nominated it. TRM and he did perform one while the article was nominated, though he did mention "I haven't started looking at the prose, so if we can get the technical aspects above resolved, I may move on to that later". Even though there were two-three users interested in performing a review (see talk page) you decided time was up, even though a user disputed it. I don't know, and please tell me if I am wrong, but I feel as though you have something against me. With the archival of the last nomination I didn't want to say anything because I don't want any bad blood between us anymore. I also asked User:Orashmatash I think once or twice to overlook this article as well. So saying that I have yet to asked anyone is redundant because I have. Secondly, my comment "No, it was redirected by the community. Best - was never a negative comment. It's the truth the community's consensus were to redirect and I explained it with the comment, I did not say "Oh yea the community wanted it gone (such a shame) and it was redirected" - now that is a negative comment. Lastly, I was never being a "dick" (though this counts as a warning for WP:NPA) I like to bring positively wherever I go (weather or not it is needed). You should try it though, instead of bringing to much negative to someone who did nothing to you, people would be more nicer to you. Also my user page here and on enWP is not a blog but a funny way of looking at a negative life I still have to endure for the rest of my life, nothing blogish at all in my pov. Happy holidays, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@PrincessofLlyr: I don't doubt at all the AJona has done some good work here, however I completely disagree that this means that he can joke around - and that, of course, goes for any user. I'm not saying that people should take the wiki as seriously as I or others do, I'm merely saying that everyone who wants to be an editor here should take what they do seriously. Unlike the much larger Wikipedias, our community is small enough that everything gets noticed, particularly by those at other wikis. We have a pretty bad reputation already; one that has improved since I arrived here but is still bad nonetheless, and immature acts such as those occasionally carried out by AJona (And others - not saying he's the only one) do nothing to help that. The bigger picture has to be seen here, and acting like a dick (And trust me, I'm not the only one to see it like that) doesn't help our wiki at all. This has been brought up on ST several times so I don't get why there's so much of an issue at me raising this point. I have quite possibly misinterpreted some of his comments, however if that is the case then maybe they should be worded less ambiguously? Goblin 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]
@AJona: I never said that you didn't ask for a review, and it's pleasing to note that you have taken on board feedback from previous nominations. However, that does not remove any of the points that I have made above, including the fact that this is a third-time nomination, you have one other on the go and your nomination statement showed - in my eyes - a lack of respect for the process. Regarding PR, this has been done to death and isn't the place to discuss it. If you want to continue, my talk page is open, however to finish it I will say that the way that you said that did not sound at all constructive, and you failed to highlight the true reasonings for the removal of PR. Furthermore, the consensus was never to redirect to GA - it was simply suggested that this would be the best place to point the link due to (perceived) similarities for the hundreds of incoming links to PR. The consensus was very much for a removal: I know, I enacted it and began the removal proposal. Finally - please don't patronise me. Pretty much the entire wiki knows that I couldn't care less about WP:NPA, and I speak my mind and am blunt - live with it. I'm not here to make friends and I'm not here to be nice; I'm here to build an encyclopaedia, which is why everyone should be here, first and foremost. A great deal of people here are 'nice' to me, as you put it, though as I have just said I honestly couldn't care if they're not. I'm not negative, I'm realistic. Again - deal with it. Finally, finally - for the nth time, I couldn't care less about enWP. If they like your user page, fine, however I feel that it is entirely inappropriate for this Wikipedia, per the link I gave above. There's more in it than just 'blogs', if you cared to read it in its entirety. Goblin 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]
  • The article is in good shape except for the sections Death and Legacy. Some bad English disturbs the reader: "She testified innocent". Good grief... I think she pled (or pleaded) not guilty and that, when she testified, she claimed the shooting was an accident. And what is "sold proof"? What does that mean? Does it mean sold out? Some of the comments on reactions to her death are bordering on POV. Both sections need careful going over. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Prohibido (song)[change source]

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

The article has been copy-edited several times and has been updated from the enWP article. If there are any issues, I'll fix them asap. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left some comments on the talk page. :-) -Orashmatash- 17:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All  Fixed Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All  Fixed Happy holidays, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed cite#13 and if there are any unreliable ones I'll replace. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is scheduled to be close on January 9, 2012. Are there any more concerns? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Process note: Article is scheduled to close on January 6, not January 9. 16+21 = 37, 37-6=31 (December), 6+0 = 6 (Jan), to give some rudimentary maths. Or just go count days on your calendar. As it stands, though, the article will most likely have a seven day extension applied; it's too early to make that call, though, imo. Goblin 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
My bad, math is my weakness :D Thanks for replying, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 03:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, don't worry about it! I'll see if I can take a look over the article in the next few days, too. Goblin 03:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Alright :-) Thanks in advance, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 04:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination extended to Friday, January 13 2012: Articles cannot be failed for a lack of input - give your thoughts please people! Goblin 21:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Don't you mean Friday, January 13 2012? If not, this closed almost two years ago :p -Orashmatash (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhhh! :P Goblin 10:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
It seems that the only problem with the article is the spot check (as the two reviewers stated above). Can someone just perform one? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments quick ones...

  • "became the most successful single, along with " not possible, only one can be "the most successful", not two.
  • Four dab links, "instruments", "directed", "relationship", "keyboards".
  • What is bajo sexto?

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've  Fixed all issues. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an unwise moment I looked at the page. Not for the first time I wished we had a criterion of "pages should not contain more detail than needed for the topic". Sadly we don't. Much on this page does not need to be there, and is just show-biz hype and sheer fluff. For example, what on earth is the long verbal description of the video doing? Videos are visual/aural happenings. Whatever their meaning is (probably precious little), words do not convey it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles/Archive_12&oldid=8893296"