Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 16

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

Archived requests[change source]

Michigan Stadium[change source]

Michigan Stadium (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has enough information about one of the largest stadia in the world. It's copied and a little simplified (if something is looking strange and difficult or smth is missed please tell me) from Main English Wikipedia. It has a list of evolution of the attendance records, some interesting facts, etc. --EKBCitizen (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Article deleted under WP:QD#A3. It was a direct copy of that on En wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders[change source]

Bernie Sanders (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on this article during the summer during his surge in the polls and the article is in good condition for a GA (IMO). The article is well sources, has the proper information on the article and is updated. The article may need help in simplifying, but hey that's why I'm here. Any support and or comments to help improve the article is welcomed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Has there been any progress here? Seattle (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Seattle - I've been fixing and updating the article around the clock but no one has been adding their comments/suggestions here! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Haven't read it. But some of the links don't work and the citations need filling out properly. "Who's Who in American Politics – Google Books. Retrieved December 4, 2013." The author(s)? The year? The publisher? The edition? Google Books have nothing to do with the publication. Refs 66–75 all probably have authors, dates, etc, too. Tedious work, but it should be done for a good article. Osiris (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Osiris: I've added the information requested for refs 66-75. Removed the Google ref. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • K. There's nothing else that really stands out at the moment (which is good), so I'll give it a read over the week and get back to you with some comments if I have any. Osiris (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • From a quick review, the article looks pretty good especially after the recent changes and I would support promotion to GA. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The references still need looking at, but other than that I believe it now meets the criteria for GA. Good Work :) --Yottie =talk= 11:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Left some comments (to be continued) for the first time after several years. -Barras talk 11:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Really interesting read! Very well written, greatly and quickly improved. You've really done a great work on that article! Clear support from me to give GA status! -Barras talk 23:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • promote: yes, it's made it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: closed as promoted. Chenzw  Talk  16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Manchester United[change source]

Manchester United F.C. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has a lot of information about the team without going too much in detail. It talks about recent history, and talks about Sir Alex Ferguson's time as manager at the club. It also has a squad list and a lot of interesting records of the club. If the article missed something, tell me. Bandideux (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just glancing at the article, the introduction section could use a good beef up. eurodyne (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I did the introduction and it has a very brief history of the club plus a summary of some of the trophies it has won. Bandideux (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Categories and level of simplicity are good. It seems inconsistent about whether to refer to the team as singular ("it is") or plural ("they are"); my understanding is thst British English would treat as plural. There are several links to disambiguation pages. If you run the page through the Dab Solver, it will identify them for you. Fixing dab links isn't required by this process, but it makes the article better. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the article is just too short. The Ferguson era is covered in around 4 sentences, there's nothing about the Glazer takeover, it doesn't mention the ground(s) - overall it needs a bit more information for it to be considered for GA imo. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree; article too short; mostly statistics. Oppose for GA status until expansion proper. Seattle (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seriously incomplete: omits almost entirely the club's greatest period, and the significance of its greatest players. If one said that no player in the present team is in the same league as Duncan Edwards, George Best and Bobby Charlton, no United fan would disagree. The period when Matt Busby was manager coincided with these great players. The Munich air disaster is tossed away in a sentence. The transition from being a British team, British owned with British players to the present club and side is not handled, and it should be. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
OKOKOK. I don't know much about United (you got a Barça fan right here) but I can try to expand it. Bandideux (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: not promoted - no response from nominator, and no further attempts to improve the article. Chenzw  Talk  16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WizKid[change source]

Wizkid (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
I think it has the requirements needed to be in the GA Trunzep 09:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Article QD'd as an unsimplified copy paste.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar[change source]

Hebrew calendar (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Expanded on article to give what I believe is about as complete a picture as a lay person would want. Article is reasonably sourced, and to the best of my ability is in Simple English. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing else to add at this point of time. Perhaps someone else wants to take a look, too? Chenzw  Talk  16:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This article is much the best of the ones on offer at present. I would make just two suggestions:
Change from BCE/CE to BC/AD because the latter is overwhelmingly better known to non-academic readers round the world. The systems are optional on our pages, so you do have a choice.
Consider the history section, which seems to me to be rather involved and less readable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
First, thanks to Chenzw for all your help.
Second, thanks to Mac for your kind words and suggestions. I will have a closer look at the history section, which already existed and which I did not work on, in the next few days. As for CE/AD, there is a strong preference for use of BCE/CE in Judaism-related articles because BC and AD both have specifically Christian overtones. (See Common Era.) What I would appreciate your advice on, though, is the following: right now, "CE" simply has a link: CE. Would it be better to replace that with a more explanatory footnote, viz., "CE year numbers are the same as AD year numbers"? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Usually we let the links do the work. That's what they are there for. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
My feeling, too. But it was worth asking. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: Have a look now, and tell me if it works better. I fully understand that there are a couple of redlinks in this article, and I will commit to creating those pages when this is finished. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Metonic cycle has been created. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Chenzw, Macdonald-ross and anyone else interested: All red links in the body text have now been turned blue. (There are a couple of red links left in the table, which I will get to in due course.) Do people think this is promotable now? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is about good to be promoted, but I want to raise one issue. There is a mention of the Hebrews receiving their first commandment "in Biblical times". That might make some think it was about 100 AD, when the full bible was assembled. I'm sure the Torah is much older, and I guess 500 BC would be closer. I wonder if there is a phrasing which is not so likely to be misread. One way would be to rephrase along the lines of "the first commandment to the Hebrews is reported in Genesis..." (etc). Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a great point, Mac. Christians tend to think of AD 100 as "Biblical times"; Jews tend to think of 2500–500 BC as "Biblical times". I'll fix that. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright, IMO a disinterested admin could now promote this to GA. Well done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, there has been a lull in editor activity lately, and I am glad that we finally have some more activity over here at PGA; thank you StevenJ81 for your patience and determination throughout this nomination! Chenzw  Talk  14:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both for your help and support! (When I am back from Wikibreak, perhaps you can tell me what further work would be needed to move it to VGA.) StevenJ81 (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ☑Y Given no objections after 3 weeks, I am closing this as promoted. Chenzw  Talk  05:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I took the liberty of updating the badge at Wikidata. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Exo[change source]

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

This article has not been GA in any Wikipedia article. I think it would be a good opportunity to nominate as it is extensive, it contains references and is a well known group. SuZumiya (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • It needs simplifying (compound sentences need to be divided; complex words need to be linked, replaced, or explained; it has the wrong heading for external links/other websites). Some paragraphs could also be divided for better readability.
  • All substantive edits have been by the same editor.
  • The awards and nominations paragraph consists of only a {{main page}} template that links to a nonexistent page. Red links are allowed, but it doesn't help when a red link in a template is the only thing in a paragraph that way.
  • It could use some more links.
  • It needs copy editing in some places. For example, some sentences don't make sense.
In short, I think work is needed to meet requirements 6 and 8, and we could do a better job of meeting #3 (the multiple editors part). --Auntof6 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This article is almost unreadable, and comes nowhere near the standard of our regular articles. I don't regard it as a suitable candidate for GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
☒N Closed as not promoted - no follow-up from nominator. Chenzw  Talk  16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Esperanto[change source]

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

In this article they can find a lot of information about history, today's use and grammar of this constructed language. It is also well illustrated with multimedia files and naturally referenced with information from external sources. Venca24 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • One reason why articles on artificial languages are unconvincing is that they are so obviously written in favour of the particular system, with no balance and no genuine discussion of their many weaknesses. This article, which leans heavily on the En wiki version, is absolutely typical of the type. Too POV for me, Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If there is more needed then only make the section "Criticism" better, can you say what these "too POV" are for that they can be neutralised? --Venca24 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Please tell what exactly should be better in the article. Any subject can get a good article, no subject is "too dangerous" for it. Just because you do not like artificial languages does not mean that there cannot be a neutral description of such a language. Czech, Slovak and Spanish Wikipedias have a good/featured article about Esperanto, so several Wikipedia communities have already got to this level. There are also descriptions of Esperanto by people who do not speak it, such as director Sam Green and neutral comparsions of various artificial languages by scientists such as Arika Okrent. This article has used parts from the article on Czech Wikipedia, which has been considered featured article with no disputes on neutrality for 8 years now. (CoI: I speak Esperanto and write about it for Wikipedia, but I also speak about it to journalists quite often, so I can tell facts and figures from opinions and convictions.) --Blahma (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Venca24: Have you received any other reviews? Leaning towards closing as not promoted; it's been over three months since you nominated. Seattle (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything I received is on this page. In fact I don't see any constraints on time in the guideline about GA (maybe it is in any other place or it is a custom at this WP). According to the guideline the proposal needs only anyone to start the voting or saying what are the weak parts of the article (which requirements the article doesn't fill). I think I can't start the voting as I am the proposer and one of the main contributors of the article (at least in recent time).
Maybe there is not so many people regarding the GA proposals, because some other proposals have also several months long gap in their discussion. :-) --Venca24 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The article fails because it is so clearly POV. The editor is wholeheartedly an advocate, and that is the root of the problem. There are arguments against artificial languages in general, and arguments against Esperanto in particular. An article cannot be one-sided and be a GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Macdonald-ross: Can you name the POV in the article, please? So can I or someone other correct the article and make it more neutral. In the section Criticism are listed the most widespread arguments against Esperanto and there are also references to articles with more detail criticism on the language (so you can get inspiration to make the article better). --Venca24 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think the article is ready yet. However, for the most part, I do not agree with Mac that the article is fatally POV. Here are my concerns:
    1. The language is really not simple enough yet, IMO. The vocabulary (mostly) is, but there are still many complex and compound-complex sentences. We try to minimize those when we can.
    2. Some of the grammar and usage is not quite correct yet.
    3. I would reorganize some—for example, I'd put Goals of the Esperanto Movement before Esperanto Culture, because it's actually a good bridge between History and the rest.
    4. The article is mildly POV. I think the section on Criticism is written in too dismissive a way; the POV of that section is that the criticism is undeserved. Most of the rest of the article is written reasonably neutrally, though it would be worth adding in references to failures in Esperanto goals and culture.
I would be happy to help out with items 1–4 (next week at earliest, not now). I think others with more knowledge need to address #5. Make no mistake–item #5 must be fixed if this article is to have a chance. To that extent I agree with Mac. But I don't think the article is fatally flawed. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
☒N This nomination has been open for more than a year already. Given the relative slow progress of this article, I don't think the article is ready for GA any time soon. The nominator is free to re-nominate when further improvements to the article have been made. Chenzw  Talk  16:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)