Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 14

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

Archived requests[change source]

Commodore Nutt[change source]

Commodore Nutt (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have devoted much time and research to this article and believe I've found and included just about every scrap of information on this man. More information will turn up, I'm certain, but I believe there is enough information now to make a good article on Commodore Nutt. His story is heartening and tells me that those who may be perceived by some as disabled can make a productive life for him or herself and may even find great fame and fortune. I hope others will enjoy reading this article as much as I enjoyed writing it! I look forward to your comments and will respond at once. Oregonian2012 (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a good read of this tomorrow. Very good-looking article, as we've come to expect from Oregonian. References all look reliable with a single exception - this one needs replacing - unless Heather Rojo is considered a reliable source in this field, it's a personal webpage. Will comment further after I've had a proper read through. Osiris (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I will say I really enjoyed reading the article! I didn't review links, but core content is very nice.
In my opinion, by the way, if you can't find a better source in place of Heather Rojo, I'd be ok with that one in the context of all the other high-quality sources here. It would probably interfere with VGA, but I don't think needs to interfere with GA.
Vocabulary-wise, I think you're in great shape. I'd only change two words. There isn't a link to bruited on simplewiki or simplewikt, and that's a pretty non-simple word. (I have a large vocabulary, and I had never really seen it in English before this, though I understood it from French.) And while "Lilliputian Love Triangle" is a charming heading, you can't really do that without a link on Lilliputian—and we usually don't like links in headers. I'd defer to those more experienced than I on that question.
Sentence structure is not simple yet, however. I think we'd all go stir-crazy if we never used subordinate clauses here. But you still have a lot of them. There are a couple of editors/admins here who are good and fast at this, but I don't mind helping out myself (though probably not today).
Question for more experienced hands: A couple of pictures seem odd here. I appreciate wanting to illustrate concepts when possible. But the photo of Lincoln (especially) and the photo of the NYC Police Commissioners don't really have anything to do with Nutt's interactions with them. Are they relevant here?
Terrific start, Oregonian! StevenJ81 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Did a quick read and liked it. The only concern that jumps out at me that the other two haven't already mentioned is the number of very short sections near the end. I might try and find a way to make those into a larger section. For example the one about Return to New York only has three sentences. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking your time to read and comment on the article! I've followed your suggestion and have made the shorter sections into a longer one or have ombined with existing sections. Thank you again! Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
After a brief reading, this should be simpler. Just in the lede, some of the vocabulary is idiomatic or complex where there are simpler alternatives or should be linked. I'm looking at: attraction, lavish, "the hand of," forswore, "struck out on." Sentences such as "Thumb won Lavinia, and, Commodore Nutt, once he had resigned himself to the loss of Lavinia, stood Thumb's best man at the couple's 1863 wedding in Grace Episcopal Church, New York City." should be refactored into simpler, more direct structures. Interesting story, so it would be great to see this simplified further. Gotanda (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for comments. I've taken all the comments into consideration and have significantly altered the page. I've simplified vocabulary and sentence structure, tightened a few things up, and added a few images. I'm getting down to the three week deadline on this and hope it will pass! Thank you for all your help! Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I just cleaned up/copy edited and simplified the main/first paragraph. I believe that it is good article status now. If there are any concerns still, I'd be happy to clean that up on the article, too. Thanks. WorldTraveller101  ?  23:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No concerns at the moment. But thanks for the offer! Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's there quite yet—still some non-simple sentence structure, and a word or two here and there. But Oregonian is working hard at it, so I suggest we let this keep running for an extra week or so to try to get this over the top. (Three weeks is standard, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule.) StevenJ81 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually I passed a week in hospital so I've only had two weeks to actually work on this. Oregonian2012 (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended to 14th August 2013: As above. Goblin 11:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!

I will read it later and give my comments about it. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is good now. Great job on the references, all look reliable. The only one thing I would mention is that there are quite a few quotations, however brief, with quite complex terms (I had to look up what "drollery" meant). There are several possible ways of dealing with these: you could rewrite them in your own, simpler words, while still attributing them as indirect quotes; or you could append a brief explanation of what they meant; or you could link the terms to Wiktionary. Whatever you do, they're short and used sparingly so it's not a deal-breaker for a good article as far as I'm concerned. Osiris (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Osiris! I've gone through the article and have linked where needed. More links than I thought! Thank you again! Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in favor of promoting. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support! Keeping my fingers crossed! Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Article seems a worthy nominee for a GA. I'm in your favor. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I left a few comments on the article's talk page. Once those are fixed, I'd be happy to support this article's promotion to GA status! -Barras talk 09:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • These concerns have been fixed -- I hope to everyone's satisfaction! Let me know. Thanks, Barras, for your support! Oregonian2012 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yup my concern was addressed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that article really is a good article for me! -Barras talk 06:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed as promoted: Overwhelming support for a PGA in the current climate, so congratulations and well done. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that I look forward to more! :D Goblin 11:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

  • Thanks to everyone who gave me so much support on this promotion! Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Jumbo[change source]

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

This is an article about the western world's first animal superstar. Jumbo gave his name to the English language to mean 'enormous'. I'm "bridging the pond" with this one. Jumbo was a hit in Britain and America. This is one of my favorite articles. I hope it will go to GA. Maybe then I'll try it at VGA. Please read on. I look forward to your comments. Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator: diff Goblin 12:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

Coppélia[change source]

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

This ballet is one that modern balletomanes have relegated to children. With The Nutcracker, it is indeed one of the first ballets that children encounter. I've tried my best to write the article with simple vocabulary and a simple style for our young readers. Your comments, especially for improvements, will be welcome. Thank you! Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not yet. Some more sources to start would be a good idea. -- WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no minimum number of sources required for a good article. However, there are nine sources listed. How many more do you think it should have? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator: [1]. Goblin 01:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!

Nelson Mandela[change source]

Nelson Mandela (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've worked long and hard into making Nelson Mandela into a good article. Nelson is a very important figure in World history and is a very kind leader. He brought kindness to a country that needed a leader. Any suggestions that will help make this article into a good article will be fixed quickly. Nelson is my favorite world leader and even my favorite Simple English article. Although I'm still a rookie, I've worked hard and added a lot of effort into this article. I hope this article becomes a good article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to meet the requirements for good articles. I'd be willing to officially consider it a good article, but I want people to give their suggestions first. -- WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 20:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks great to me. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd support this. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Good to go! Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Making a change on this. I think improvements can be made and I have sent some suggestions to the article's talk page. Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, there's much room for improvement in this article. I'm pulling my approval and suggesting the article be temporarily withdrawn for further work. Articles passed at GA or VGA serve as examples of excellence for other editors. I don't think this article can do that at this point. I also suggest that the nominator/editor work with an experienced editor to bring this article to excellence. Oregonian2012 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I fixed the article by using all your suggestions and I guess I do need some help though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Contact Auntof6. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The last time I looked at this article, I didn't think there was a lot wrong with it. If you're seeing significant things that needs improvement, you're the only person who can describe them. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You admit then there are some things "wrong" with it. What are those things? Once those things are "fixed" would you give it your support and approval? You could "fix" those things yourself, you know. This is called copy editing. No one owns an article and the nominator has admitted that he needs help: "I guess I do need some help though." Please add your name to the list above when you've "fixed" what's wrong with the article. Thanks! Oregonian2012 (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean it like that. I fixed your issues about the article, but I need someone else to help me look for anymore errors in the article because so far you're the only user to find these issues. Personally I can't find anything else that's wrong with this article. Hey if there is I'm open to it, but I need something more specific. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Whoa! Oregonian, did I miss something? I don't remember committing to fixing this article. No one owns an article, but no one is obligated to work on an article, either. I'm just saying that you can't declare that an article needs a lot of work and then tell someone else to fix the problems you see. You're the one who said "there's much room for improvement in this article". How am I supposed to know what issues you see? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This isn't about me. It's about you. You admit that there are some things "wrong". What are those things so the nominator can "fix" them. If you approve of the article as it stands, add your name to the list of supporters. If you can't add your name to the list of supporters, it will of course be read as disapproval and non-support. How can you approve of an article and not add your name to the supporters? Oregonian2012 (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I said I didn't see much wrong the last time I looked at it. It has changed since then, so I have no idea what shape it's in now. I am neither supporting nor opposing this promotion. You're making me feel pressured to express an opinion, and I'm not comfortable doing that under pressure. Back off. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We can wait for your review. Take your time. We have all the time in the world. I didn't vote for your promotion to admin because I think you're incompetent. You do a fine job with the categories but I think you fall far short of what an admin should be. You simply lack the requisite social skills and tact. Now ban me forever because I've dared to tell you the truth. Oregonian2012 (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Can we get back to discussion of the article please? Goblin 23:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Auntof6!
Thanks BG7 and thanks Auntof6. Since Oregonian retired I'm not sure what to do here. Do any of you personally think the article is ready? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, they don't or they would have given the thumbs up a long time ago. Give it up. Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
When will you give up the Wikipedia Oregonian! I'm surprised your not even suspended from here. Anyone! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments are now at Talk:Nelson_Mandela#Comments_from_Bluegoblin7. Goblin 01:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Auntof6!

  • Support - I'm satisfied that this article is in good shape and meets the requirements. My only hesitation is Mandela's ongoing health problems. The nominator is aware of these, and has agreed to address them to GA standards as they occur. Goblin 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Mh7kJ!

Looks pretty good to me. Only thing is that there are two dead links that expired recently. I can not find a capture of them on any of the usual archiving sites. If they were copies of articles published in newspapers or something, you can just remove the links. If they were web-only sources, however, you'll need to replace them. Osiris (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Having had another scan there's still issues with date formatting too. A little bit disappointed as I think I've raised all of these points already, but my fault for not checking more closely that they were fixed. Goblin 05:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!
I fixed the one link I couldn't find the other and I need some specific areas on where the date format could be fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
In the references, you use three different date styles: YMD (e.g., 2013-06-14), MDY (e.g., June 14, 2013), and DMY (e.g., 26 May 2008). You need to make sure all of them are in the same style as the style used in the article's text (which is DMY). Osiris (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Found them. Fixed them. Check it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Ref 45 still broken. Goblin 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!
Fixed --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There are two references 33-34 that need to be worked. They are both the same and are referenced in a very short paragraph. You only need one at the end of the paragraph.
  • A careful reading of the article will reveal "style" shortcomings and confusions like this: "Although in favor of freedom of the press, Mandela was important of much of the country's media." I don't get this. And here: "As South Africa's first black President[16][17], Mandela became ...". Properly the citations belong after the punctuation. When I find time, I'll list others here.
  • I would like to see a Background sort of thing before I give this article the thumbs up. Mandela comes from a complex culture of African village life. This village life is not what one would find in Western village life. His father had four wives, for example. In the western world this would called "polygamy" and regarded with some questions and reservations. In western life, it may even be illegal. In African village life however this appears to be legal and a normal way of life. Some authorities have indicated this village culture affected his entire life. It is likely unfamiliar to many, many readers. He is a world figure. He may die soon. This article will be accessed by many, many people at his death, especially American school children who will probably be given assignments to write a paper on Mandela. I think it essential that this village culture be briefly explained in the article. It doesn't need to be exhaustive or lengthy, but it should give the reader a good sense of Mandela's "roots". There are many biographies of Mandela available in public and academic libraries and on Google Books. Mandela has written at least two autobiographies. I am surprised that these materials have not be referenced in creating this article. This article must be exemplary because Mandela is going to die and many children will be accessing this article. Oregonian2012 (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This might be me being paranoid, but I'm not sure about why or whether some of the references used in the article are reliable sources. Examples are number 4, 6 and 15. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Support I think it meets the requirements. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Extend for one week: Currently at a no-consensus level. Seems to be some outstanding concerns so let's give it a week and see what happens. Closes 23:55, 17 September 2013. Goblin 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!

  • Section: Anti-apartheid activity ...
  • "sent on trial" I've never heard this term before. What does it mean?
  • "He was sent on trial which was ... He was sent on trial because of " Awkward echo. Reword.
  • "In 1990, he was let out of Victor Verster Prison after 26.5 years after State President of South Africa Frederik Willem de Klerk." Was de Klerk in prison too?
  • "He ordered for Mandela's release." Never saw this construction before. How about "He ordered Mandela's release."?
  • "He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 together with former State President of South Africa Frederik Willem de Klerk." "together" can be safely dropped.
  • "Mandela is considered a hero both in South Africa and most of the world because he helped end apartheid." Needs citation, otherwise sounds like editor's opinion.
  • Many words in this section like "sabotage" need to be linked or defined inline.
  • Reference no. 6 is a citation to a liquor store in Cambridge, MA. A better source should be found. Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: This one's overrun the extension by a few days so is probably around about time to be closed to avoid things dragging on. There's still no consensus for a promotion and, although in my opinion it is close - if not there - there still seems to be concerns so it would be improper to promote at this time. Fix any outstanding concerns and I expect it'll pass. Goblin 23:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Mh7kJ!

Well I already fixed the concerns by Oregonian, is there any other concerns? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Para-alpine skiing[change source]

Para-alpine skiing (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I was one of the main writers of the English Wikipedia article that passed GA over there. I have been slowly working on simplifying the article on Simple English Wikipedia. I made the sentences less complex. I tried to use simpler language. (I think I did this well, but if not, please make suggestions for improvement. Simplifying some complex ideas is difficult.) For some of the specialized ski words, I created stub articles that explained more about a topic so there would not be so many red links. The article is fully sourced. It covers the topic comprehensively. I think it is an important article to work on with the 2014 Winter Paralympics coming up. I think it should be a GA because of the things I talked about. LauraHale (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC) First scan:

  • In simplifying the article, it has become almost incomprehensible in some places. This, for example: "Para-alpine skiing is an adjustment of alpine skiing for with a disability, a condition of being unable." And this: "With a upright drop of 300 metres (980 ft) to 400 metres (1,300 ft), this is one of the more need to be very correct when turning the para-alpine disciplines". And this: "A factoring system was made come into existence for para-alpine skiing." Some sentences are too long for Simple like this: "In this type, skiers going over snow quickly between alternating red and blue gates that are 25 metres (82 ft) apart, with men needing to go between 35 gates and women needing to go between 30 gates." Also there is an abundance of red links. Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I have addressed all the grammatical errors and simplification issues you have mentioned. On the issue of redlinks, the remaining ones are all about proper nouns. I have included them for two reasons: 1) I want to know what articles I should be working on creating, 2) I think they would be useful articles to have to allow people to know more about disability sport but are not fundamental to understanding, from a Simple English point of view, the article topic.--LauraHale (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I am also seeing some very awkward phrases. For example, in the section on classification, some of the descriptions in the tables either don't make sense or are poorly worded. Sometimes we have to use words that might not be on the various lists of Basic English words. For example, "elbow" is much simpler than "angle of arm", and most readers will know what that is even if the word isn't on any of the lists. Take a look at the change I just made for more examples. I will look at more of the article when I get a chance. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Further thoughts: one way to simplify a long article is to leave out parts that don't contribute as much to understanding the subject. For example, the section on "types of skiing" seems to have a lot of general information that isn't specific to the "para" aspects of the sport. To me, that could be trimmed. (I think it could be trimmed in the English article, too.) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I had thought possibly that there might be a good case for putting some of that information into separate articles: creating a new article about downhill skiing, slalom skiing, giant slalom skiing, etc. Some of the information applies to alpine skiing in general. (Though not always. They adapt courses for people with disabilities. There have been cases where sit-skiers have done test runs down a competition course and broke their backs because the landing was so hard. The same course has no problems for able-bodied skiers. ) If the issues are too many, I would be okay with withdrawing the nomination. I had thought I had done a much better job at simplifying and fault would be mine. I still obviously need work at simplifying and will continue to work towards that. --LauraHale (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
        • We already have an overall article on alpine skiing. You could just refer to that one, either with a "main article" tag or by creating separate redirects.
          I'm trying to think of how to help you learn to do this kind of simplifying, other than by critiquing what you do. I could point you to articles I simplified from enwiki, or I could re-simplify part of this article. I'm not saying my work is perfect, either, but it would give you examples. Let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Continuation of my comment on Simple Talk:
However, I ran it through the other software, and got a much lower score: 52.6 on the Flesch scale, and grade level 10.4, years of formal education 11.7. Then I read some more of the text. Overall, I think the prose is rather clunky. On that alone I would say the article is not GA. One way to proceed is to use the first formula on my page, and go through the sentences it suggests you revise. Another way is to get a few young persons of secondary school age to read through it & underline things that are not clear. Although it's just a personal opinion, I think (like many pages brought over from En wiki) that it is rather too detailed and complicated for our readership. A more ruthless weeding would improve it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Closed as not promoted. There haven't been any comments here in almost a month, so let's close this. Can always be renominated. I'm sure the reviewers would be more than happy to be contacted directly for more suggestions. Osiris (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Don Giovanni[change source]

Don Giovanni (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is well written, simple, and appealing. We don't have an opera in the VGA archives and I am willing to work on this article to get it there. Because we don't have an article in the VGA archives, I don't have a model. Nor do other editors. IMHO, we need some classic operas and ballets in the VGA archives to serve as models for other editors and in the rotation on the Main Page. I need suggestions for improvement. The Flesch Reading Ease is 62.08 and the Flesch Kincaid Grade level 7.01. I don't think the article at Simple needs long lists of aria and ensemble titles in Italian. Do you? Actually I think the article grades high because of the polysyllabic Italian words in the article. However, I can't see ridding the article of the few that are there. At Simple, the Italian should be kept to the essential minimum to maintain the Reading Ease. I'm not sure our readers need an "Orchestration" section though both paper encyclopedias and enwiki have this sort of section. But these encyclopedias are not written at an 8th grade level either. I'm not sure those reading at an 8th grade level need such as section. The orchestra in most operas and ballets are the standard orchestra of the day: strings, winds, brass, and percussion. This is why I need your help. What should I include and what should I leave out to get this through GA and VGA? I want to produce a good, simple, interesting, informative article for 21st century 8th grade readers. Thanks for your help! Oregonian2012 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I appreciate your support. Oregonian2012 (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely GA material. Some things missing though, like the Koechel number (K. 527?) and the title in its original Italian (Il dissoluto punito, ossia Il Don Giovanni). Other than these two minor details a GA! Miley foam finger cyrus (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. Someone noted, either on WP:Simple talk or WP:AN, that Oregonian's banning was going to leave this nomination hanging. Was anything decided? If the only things that need to be done are the couple of comments noted here, I don't mind doing that and seeing this through. But if it's going to require some further serious work, we need someone to pick it up and run with it, and I can't volunteer for that. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've entered the Koechel number and the title in its origianl Italian. However, I'm not sure they've been entered in a preferred style. I don't think there's anything left to enter. It's a pretty thorough article at the GA stage. Miley foam finger cyrus (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Struck out sock's comments. Osiris (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not promoted - The article is listed here for more than long enough without any substantial reviews, comments and the proposer being banned. No need to have it listed here any longer. -Barras talk 16:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan[change source]

Ronald Reagan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article should be a good article because of the following reasons. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 21:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral Viewpoint
  • Detailed
  • Based Completely on Facts
  • Keeps Article in Simple English
  • Based Completely on Facts
Perhaps the two of you could review each other's proposals? Osiris (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
What an Idea. Nice to "see" you again. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
You too, Pending. I'll be able to have a look through the article in the coming weeks, but right now I'm a bit backlogged with other tasks. Basic things to keep an eye on are dead links (you can look for captures of them in the Wayback Machine and other web archiving services) and making sure that most things that need to be sourced have reliable sources cited next to them. Osiris (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
So Pending, how about I check Reagan and perhaps you can check Mandela. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds Like a Plan! I'll do it first thing Tomorrow. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 00:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Worked on the article and it seems that overall the article meets the standards and it is worthy of being a GA. I give it my full support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Still a long way short of meeting a GA level standard. Made some comments on the talk page, will do a further review next week.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Worked on it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is now in good shape. It's worthy of being a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Its in better shape - a few more things to fix, see talk page --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Closed as not promoted - Mainly as per the still not fixed comments from Peter on the article's talk page. Feel free to relist it once Those issues are fixed. For now I think it was listed here long enough. -Barras talk 16:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor[change source]

Shraddha Kapoor (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I would like to nominate this article as a GA as i think it deserves to be one. I had worked on it since a few hours. Thank you OMGmelissa (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It still has a long way to go to make the language used Simple English. For example: "negative review", "positive reception", "endorsement". "portrayal", "commercial", etc. My suggestion is to have a really good look at the Simple English word list and see where simpler words could be used in the place of more complex ones. Where there is no suitable word, them link the word to wiktionary. Take your time and work through it all carefully. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, i'm really overwhelm by your gestures. OMGmelissa (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Another note is that "film" should be changed to "movie" and make long sentences short. Make some paragraphs and indent some more Start linking some words. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Closing as not promoted. No work has been done on the page and it even has a tag saying it's too complex, so it is pretty obvious that is not close to the standard required. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela[change source]

Nelson Mandela (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is my second attempt to make this article gain some recognition. Now I'm sure that there might be some mistakes, but I can fix them. This article is well written, simple, and hopefully amusing for our readers of all ages. I think this article is simple enough and of course worthy (my opinion) of being a GA. I'm not looking for a future VGA, but please just give me suggestions on how to make this article a GA. I know that some worries may be about Mandela passing away soon (sadly), but that shouldn't be in the way. I promise that if such an event happens I will give my full attention and my full awareness on the article. I want this article to be good and simple, so that future readers may learn about Mandela and his legacy. RIP. I hope the second try is the successful try. Write any suggestions on my talk page --> here. Don't write any one the article's talk page because it appears it has a glitch. Thanks for the support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. While the nominator tells us that Mandela is a "significant man", this doesn't come across in the article. On the contrary, we are told he led a student strike, was expelled, worked as a night watchman, was sent to prison, etc. There's not much in the article to indicate he was a "significant man". The article has a superficial character and dwells on little things like Mandela's batik shirts. It doesn't go into any depth on the man. Some finger slips on the keyboard. Not GA material. Sorry, doesn't make the grade. Miley foam finger cyrus (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • When I said significant man, I didn't mean it literally. If it helps I deleted those words. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Struck out sock's comments. Osiris (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Made some fixes to improve clarity. I do not know much on the subject, but the article appears to be in good shape. -Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Are there anymore suggestions or supporters? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I rarely comment on GA proposals. This one is a reasonable page, but I think it suffers from having almost too many details, yet missing the whole point of the exercise, which is, why is he regarded as a great man? (this is the elephant in the room) I also see some impossible sentences, which need to be disentangled. And it's not clear what is being said about M'Beki (Presidency, third para). Second para (same section): awkward phrasing -- I mean, do you really think the ANC had no knowledge of or in politics? Fourth para (same section) has unclear language. No, the more I look, the more I find. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting at. Can you write on my talk page with some more examples? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Closed as not promoted: I think this article is getting there, but there have been no content edits for a few months now, nor any further feedback given. There's no consensus for a promotion, and it has been here now for coming up to a year. Perhaps get some users to peer review out any existing issues, and then return when it's in tip top shape. Thanks, Goblin 15:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!

Kit Carson[change source]

Kit Carson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Kit Carson was a great American. He opened the American West to settlement by trailblazing and destroying the nation's enemies. This article is well written and researched with an eye to making things simple for our users and readers. This in itself is a reason for the article's inclusion in the pantheon of GAs. I will respond to all suggestions for improvement on this article. Thank you.SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  •  Question: You definitely want to create (or link to wikitory) frontiersman and trapper, as both of these words are not simple.  Done Explained within the text. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
First resolved comments from jonatalk to me 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


  • What are dime novels?  Done Explained within the text. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead needs to be expanded and reflect the main points that are talked about throughout the article, right now the lead only gives a brief and basic information on Kit.  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You need to provide the artist(s) name(s) on the portraits of Kit.  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence "He took part in many fight with the Indians"; first they are Native Americans, secondly you need to provide the total number of fights (if available).
 Done They are not "Native" Americans, but migrants from Asia. Indians is correct. Most scholars and historians use this term. It was current during Carson's lifetime. The number of Indian fights cannot be established. Scholars and historians estimate he killed thousands of Indians. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "Indian" was the term back then, and it's OK to use it in some cases. However, in plain text where we're writing from today's perspective, we use "Native American". You can avoid this issue in some places by saying which specific tribe(s) were involved where possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This sentence "Kit's manner was meek, even effeminate." needs major simplifying. DoneSeeSpot Run (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The period after FN#3 needs to be removed.  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we have a source for his first marriage and the death?  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to stop here as there seems to be a lot of issues with sourcing and such. I'll give this another review once you finish these concerns and use them throughout the article. Best, jonatalk to me 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 On hold You currently have this article at DYK. Since an article can't be at both GA and DYK, you need to pick one or the other. Since it was at DYK first, consider this GA on hold until the DYK nomination is resolved. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope, articles can be at both DYK and GA - it's VGA that can't also be at DYK, and then only after they get promoted. VGAs cannot be DYKs, but GAs can. Goblin 20:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24!
Oops, you're right. Carry on. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The article has been remedied per Jona! Please continue! SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just done some simplifying, some items for the second time. If you disagree with any of it, please discuss instead of just undoing it. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Second round of comments

Thanks for resolving those issues above, here are some more. I'm afraid that Simple's article on Carson lacks a lot of information (possibly important ones) that are on the enWiki and because of this, all of the subsections are small and pictures overlap them causing a lack of flow. Here are some more comments;

  • In the lead "He is buried next to his wife Josefa", which number of wife was she? Remember to add information to the uniformed reader  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you know where in Kentucky he was born?  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we have a name for his brother?  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There are some subsections that are extremely small and could be combined to make other sections bigger per above (his description and his illiteracy for example)  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Avoid overlinking (Oregon Trail, for example)  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Source needed for his reburial  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The infobox here could well be added to his article on this wiki  Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Best, jonatalk to me 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Will work on any other comments! SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we list the issues with articles on the article's talk page, please, to keep them accessible once this page gets archived? I'm also of half a mind to close this discussion as articles should meet the criteria before they are nominated and not be undergoing such important and numerous changes, but let's let it play out for now... Goblin 21:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!
I agree with Bluegoblin7. You keep adding unsimplified text. That makes the article not meet requirements #2, #5, and #8. I think we should close this nomination and let you keep working on the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I'll continue reviewing the article if the nominator still wants me to continue. Best, jonatalk to me 02:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't you who kept adding things, it was SeeSpot Run. For now, this is closed. It can be nominated again if SSR finishes adding to it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted per the conversation above. Too many glaring issues at this time for it to be close to good article status. If the suggestions being made were minor, it'd be okay to leave this open...but a lot of work is needed. Just glancing at the article, there are 5 paragraphs in the lead; an article of this size with its very small sections and very short paragraphs does not need five paragraphs in the lead. Only (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan[change source]

Ronald Reagan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ronald Reagan was a great leader and one heck of president. So, as my tribute, I would like to nominate the Ronald Reagan article for a GA status. The article is very simple, has large amount of pictures, goes through his life and presidency in details (which are supported by reliable references), and summarizes his life accomplishments in simple detail for our SE readers. Write any suggestions on my talk page --> here. Don't write any one the article's talk page because it appears it has a glitch. Thanks for the support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support - Looks like a pretty good canidate, a very easy read. I support. George.Edward.C (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 Question: The article looks fine, however, while reading I found several problems. Why are dates linked? (example in the lead), and decent, acquired, critics, legislature, interfere, are not simple words (wikitory them would help, or simplified them), Barry Goldwater is linked twice in the article body as well as republican and conservative. Can you provide a source for the last sentence in "honors"? Best, jonatalk to me 00:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. I simplified the article. Critics and decent are link to simple English pages to give a further simple def. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I Agree the article is GA worthy. Best, jonatalk to me 00:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hold on. Some of TDKR's changes created problems. Give me a few minutes and I'll fix them or note them here. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
How? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Give me a few more minutes -- I had to stop to feed my cats! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I have a fish myself. Pets I'm I right? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
At least a fish doesn't meow at you or knock things over when it wants to be fed! Anyway, I fixed a couple of small things. You linked "interference", but that article is about a specific scientific meaning of the word, not the meaning the article needed. (You really have to watch for words that have more than one meaning -- there are so many of them in English, and even words that are listed on the Basic English lists are only basic for some of their meanings.) I also fixed the phrase "got stuck the name", where it talked about his nickname.
Other than that, the article still needs quite a bit of simplifying. There are a lot of compound sentences. (If you don't understand what a compound sentence is, just ask -- I won't think badly of you!) Some of the easy ones to identify are where there are two sentences joined with semicolons, and some where they're joined by dashes. However, there are more besides those. Here's an example:
Reagan's favorite acting role was as a double amputee in 1942's Kings Row, in which he recites the line, "Where's the rest of me?", later used as the title of his 1965 autobiography.
That sentence should be divided into at least three shorter ones.
I also see some places that need copy editing. For example, "Although he used to be a Democrat who strongly supported the New Deal and admired Franklin Roosevelt." isn't a complete sentence. There are places that have some words that could be removed (in "They both became good friends", the word "both" is redundant). There are some misplaced modifiers. There is a link to the dab page Debut, which should probably be changed to a simpler word anyway. (Don't feel bad about not catching the dab link -- I have my account set so that they appear highlighted and I see them very easily.) Besides all that, there are some words that are just more complex than they need to be.
These are just the things I noticed giving it a quick read -- I'm sure I'd find others if I looked more closely. Don't get me wrong: large sections of the article don't have these issues. It's just that there are enough of them that I think the article needs a lot of improvement before it can be considered a GA. I'm going to stop now because I know you're waiting for my reply. Let me know how I can help. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I've simplified many complex words (sorry for not catching them) and I've shorten sentences and copy-edited. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm impressed -- you did some really good work there! A couple of the changes changed the meaning, though. When I'm back on my main PC, I'll give you the specifics. It's too cumbersome to work with long articles on my tablet. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Generally good, but I found this sentence under "Entrance into politics": "Although he used to be a Democrat, he strongly supported the New Deal". (Which of course makes no sense.) Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • From a first glance, looks good. I'll review it in depth if and when I get the time. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'd prefer to see "loved" changed to something less "intense". Here: "In high school Reagan loved to act.[1] He loved athletics ..." Thanks! SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    I changed the first love to enjoy. I kept the second love because I felt it sounds like a boring list..."Reagan enjoyed...Reagan enjoyed...". Feel free to respond to my decision. I can change it if it doesn't compute. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Fine for first "loved". 2nd "loved" you might try: "Reagan was athletic. He became a life guard. He was credited with saving 77 lives." Also too many compound sentences! SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    Done. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the intro "Reagan is known to have created a political right." sounds very peculiar. Of course, Reagan didn't create any such thing. You're probably trying to compress something which needs more space. Anyway, it's not clear what you mean there. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but now the into says nothing about his politics. I think that makes it rather bland. I would agree that it's difficult to summarise his politics, but without question it's an issue a reader would expect to see in the intro. Both Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had rather similar liberal-conservative economic policies, perhaps influenced by such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Anyway, his economic policy was a change from that of previous administrations. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • How about a short summary of his Presidency and Reaganomics? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Never mind, I added more information about his presidency and economic policies in the intro. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I made a large list of things that needed to be fixed last time this article was proposed (back in January 2014) See the article talk page. Many of these have not yet been done.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It's looking like a good article now :) --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Closed as promoted: This has run on for long enough (in what is supposed to be a three week process!) and there is clearly now a consensus to make a move towards promotion to good article status. Great work, TDKR. Goblin 23:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ DJSasso!

Kit Carson[change source]

Kit Carson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has improved considerably since its first submission. It is simple and well written in compliance with our guidelines, and presents an interesting picture of the American Old West for our users. SeeSpot Run (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@SeeSpot: Nicely done. But I'm new to the English Wikipedia, but is there supposed to be quotes which has complex vocabulary? I'll try to do a review after a familiar myself with the criteria. It's surprisingly different from the English Wikipedia. Thanks, TheQ Editor (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@SeeSpot Run: Echo did not trigger. TheQ Editor (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Quotes must be given exactly, but it's good to avoid using quotes that have a lot of complex wording. Also, quotes should not be used as a way to avoid simplifying. The important thing is that people with limited English skills are able to understand the article. If quotes with complex wording are used, the complex language should be linked or explained somehow. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've explained the quote in simple English before the quote is given. Hope this helps! SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: There's been little in the way of simplifying since this proposal was made, whilst the article also can't be described as simple nor stable - key requirements for GAs. Goblin 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!