Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 2

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

Requests

Chris Thile

This article was just nominated for GA but failed because there were only two voters. Both were supportive votes, and I think this article deserves another go at GA. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted, there was no vote --Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mount St. Helens

This article was just nominated for GA but failed because there were only three voters. All were supportive votes, and I think this article deserves another go at GA. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted, there was no vote --Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Carbon

Spent a long time improving, and it is one of the better chemistry articles. My first attempt to make a good article, and I am looking for feedback. Tanthanyes (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: failed, with 1 for and 3 against.

George Müller

I have been working to make it bigger for a while now. Please correct any errors that you may see. -- AmericanEagle 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not enough sources for such a long article. Some of the sentences could use copyediting, and some need shortening. No red links, good other websites section and fairly decent references all make this a possible good article, however, you would need to fix what I said in my first article. Cheers, Razorflame 00:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: no vote, not yet ready.

Billy Graham

I have been working on this article for a long time, but now I think it's ready to be put here. I don't know how much, if any, work needs to be done, but I think it is a "Good" article. AmericanEagle 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This deserves to be a good article. However, can you complete the last reference? Chenzw  Talk  02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Done ~ AmericanEagle 04:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Support This is a great article and is GA quality.--CPacker (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Result:Not a proposal anymore, is now being voted on. Razorflame 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Spurgeon

Spent hours shortening and simplifying, and it seems to fit all nine requirements. But can somebody look it over a couple of times and simplify, correct, link, etc. That is, do anything that needs to be done before voting. But I think that it may be notable and well done enough to be considered for a "Good" article status. AmericanEagle 21:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Result promoted, with 80% support (4 out of 5 votes) --Eptalon (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

World History

This article has been in the works for more than a month now, and I believe that it meets the criteria to become a GA. It has no red links at all, it has excellent sourcing (44 references), it has a good other websites section, the sentence structures and fluidity are excellent, and overall, it is a very well written article. This failed a bid earlier, but now, I do not think that it will fail this bid because of all the work that has been put into it. Razorflame 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No red links at all?... --Gwib -(talk)- 16:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope. I just created the last red link on the page Western Front (World War I). Cheers, Razorflame 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll repeat. No red links at all?... --Gwib -(talk)- 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha! I was only looking at the last section! There are some red links, but I believe that they can be created as this process goes on. Do you think that they are important enough that they need to be created before this article can become a GA? If that is the case, then I had better get cracking to help remove those red links! Cheers, Razorflame 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
These are also no red links; But I think we are talking about Good article here. There are certainly only few red links (given the total number of links). I do think however, that given the size of the article (about 60kb at the moment), we do have too few references (esp. in the sections Globalisation and later). There also seems to be an issue with citing one book. Yes, the article has improved a lot in the last months, but I think (a lot) more work is needed; What about a wikiproject? - I do however think that we can probably talk about awarding the good article flag if he have more references; in the order of one per third-level heading (or theme complex). What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, while I agree that there is still a lot more work to be done on this article, I still believe that this article is referenced enough to deserve the Good article flag. 44 references for a single article is a ton for an article on this site, but I guess if we were to get one reference per third level heading that we could give it the good article flag. Cheers, Razorflame 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it still needs some more improvements except from references. So your suggestion seems a bit early. But with combined effort it should not take too long to get it ready. --Cethegus (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC) To be more precise: I think I'll concentrate my work at this wiki on that article for the next two month. --Cethegus (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Fairly good article, may need some cleanup. I just had one problem: The first picture says "A reconstruction of Australopithecus afarensis, a human ancestor which had developed bipedalism, but as yet lacked the large brains of modern humans." There are literally hundreds of theories that go against that. Including the most believed theory of Intelligent design. But the says nothing that it is a believed theory, just that is how we began. Read Neutral. -- AmericanEagle 19:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for you: I have embedded the image in a little (20k text) which is a short overview of how humans evolved; you were right, it was a little at a loss.
I just noticed something, there is nothing in the article that goes against Evolution! The entire article explains that we all evolved, with no section or even a paragraph to go against it. Every debatable needs to show both sides for their argument. And this article is debatable. Besides the now fifties of Red links that it has, if afraid that I cannot vote for the article as is. Like I said: read Neutral. -- AmericanEagle 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Massive time has been spent on this article; principally by three editors (Isis,Cethegus and myself). It has been more or less continually in the works since June 2007. As it is now, I can easily see another 2-3 months work. Charles Darwin came up with his idea of evolution over a hundred years ago, even then it was disputed (esp. human evolution). The problem remains that to date, it is the best explanation we can come up with. --Eptalon (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Sapere Aude! [Dare to know!] Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Immanuel Kant - What is Enlightenment? (1784)

--Eptalon (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just another idea that sprang to my mind: Currently, Cethegus is doing the bulk of the work (Isis and myself lack the time at the moment). If the number of editors could be increased (to say 3, working on different sections, and coordinating their work), this aricle would be ready faster. --Eptalon (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Result:Not promoted. Not yet ready. Razorflame 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Berlin Wall

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

Article still has a few red links (read: about 5-10). It is of a decent size. I am not sure about comprehensiveness, therefore I would first like to the "Good Article" tag. At first sight, the article should meet all the criteria. --Eptalon (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At first sight, this article seems to be comprehensive, but I am uncertain about the sentence fluidity and structures. Could someone maybe do a complete copyedit of this article, while in the process, getting more comprehension into the article? Cheers, Razorflame 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 Comment - The article looks good to me. It has plenty of detail and hardly any red links. --Terry Talk - Changes 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It does not have any references at all...--Eptalon (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment - Red link-wise, it's fine. But I have a reference fetish which needs to be satisfied and the 'Other Websites' is a tad complex. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not suitable for GA status. No references what-so-ever. Cheers, Razorflame 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maltese people

Maltese people (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

To me, it meets the GA criteria. I'm not so sure about the referencing on the top half of the article. Anyway, I think the length reaches 3.5. and there aren't too many red links. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Added the tag. In my opinion, needs a thorough copyediting. Once all terms are linked (which will result in more red-links, probably) their number should be reduced to about half of what they are now, this can be done by creating stubs). There should be no redlinks like the missing image in the box at the side. In general, I think this looks like a good candidate.
I can do a copyediting of the article. I'll probably create most of those red links into stubs also. Thanks for your suggestions and opinions. I'll try to fulfill most of them. --RyanCross (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would argue against it based on the need for simplification.
One unusual example of this is the exile to Malta of all of the male population from the town of Celano (Italy) in 1223, the stationing of a Norman and Sicilian garrison on Malta in 1240, the expulsion from Malta of Arabs (presumably, those who refused to convert to Christianity) commencing in 1245, the arrival of several hundred Catalan soldiers in 1283, the European repopulation of Malta that began in the 13th century, the settlement in Malta of noble families from Sicily and Aragon between 1372 and 1450, the arrival of several thousand Greek and Rhodian sailors, soldiers and slaves with the Knights of St. John, the introduction of several thousand Sicilian labourers in 1551 and again in 1566, the emigration to Malta of some 891 Italian exiles during the Risorgimento in 1849, and the posting of some 22,000 British servicemen in Malta from 1807 to 1979.
That sentence scares the hell out of me.. "One unusual example.." and 140+ words and 11 examples later we finally get to a period. I can at least agree with the unusual part.. Toss in more than a handful of terms like Advent, commencing, expulsion, exile, repopulation & depopulation, emigration, geneticists, continuous and coincided and simplification is definitely needed. Plus as Eptalon pointed out, the redlinked image is a bad sign and the edit links for the template really should be cleaned up (or removed) to be more presentable. -- Creol(talk) 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Result: Withdrawn by nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gothic architecture

Gothic architecture (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well-written article; probably needs a copyediting (linking all terms, if possible once), and reducing the number of redlinks. --Eptalon (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I like this, and would certain support in the vote. If the red links could be fixed, I would even support this as a very good article. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig van Beethoven

Ludwig van Beethoven (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Looks like a well-written article, but lacks external references (either as works cited or as links ot othr websites). More "other websites" would be good too. --Eptalon (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is well written, but it needs referencing and more other websites for it to be fully approved for WP:GA. I noticed in the article, at the bottom of the lead section, there is one sentence saying "He moved to Vienna in 1792 and lived there for the rest of his life. He never married.". GAs shouldn't really have 1 sentence paragraphs. That one-sentence paragraph should either be expanded or merged into a another full paragraph. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Johney (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Fairly good upon first glance, could use some more "Other websites"/good website references and maybe some scattered work, but it is pretty good. -- America alk 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this looks good. I would suggest moving to a vote. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    It is already up for a vote, but there does seem to be an issue with adaquate referencing and simplification (starts out well, but as if goes on it get less and less simple - by the end it doesn't even bother to link Johan Brahms and "Audiences applauded enthusiastically" is hardly simple). -- Creol(talk) 16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
So it is, and I voted. How embarassing... Hippopotamus (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Powderfinger

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

Meets 7 of the GA criteria - has the capibillity to get to GA. --  Da Punk '95  talk  07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done most of the work on this one. I noted on its talk page the criteria it meets, and have been (slowly as I've been busy with other stuff) working on the remaining few criteria in the meantime. —Giggy 07:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Now at voting; see below. —Giggy 06:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniform

Baseball uniform (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe this meets the Good article criteria. It seems well-written, well referenced, and simplified. There aren't any redlinks in the article either. It's pretty long also. I would like to propose this article for WP:GA. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just found out there is one read link, detachable. But that shouldn't be a major problem. I might create it if I know how to start it. -- RyanCross (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Detachable is not an encylcopedic term. It should either be replaced or wiktionaried. -- Creol(talk) 07:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I stopped looking for problems with complexity and ambiguity a couple of paragraphs into the article. Too much of the page needs to be either translated into Basic English or linked to articles and wiktionary definitions (which likely do not exist yet). -- Creol(talk) 07:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reworded the "detachable". Better? And we'll our best to try to reword the article to Basic English and link the wiktionary definitions. -- RyanCross (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a little too complex at the moment for my liking. Also the article only seems to cover history. With some copyediting this could be a good article on "History of baseball uniform", but adding paragraph or two about the present day would be better. There isn't mention of gloves and someone unfamiliar to baseball may wonder why they aren't "uniform". You call uniform a kind of sportswear, and by that article it would include gloves. You also have a picture of the catcher and all his protective equipment. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done major copyediting to the article. Does anyone still spot anything wrong? -- RyanCross (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a well written article, but I still think that apart from the lead it's all history. I just noticed that there's no mention of helmets and the catcher's uniform isn't explained at all. I would probably merge baseball glove into the article. Hippopotamus (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I don't think the baseball glove is actually part of the "uniform". I think I should remove that and forget about the merge. And I don't think there is a history of catcher's baseball gear. Catcher's still wear uniforms, but the things out side of it is just gear for protection, not part of the uniform, exactly. -- RyanCross (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If a glove isn't part of the uniform, you need to explain why, as it wouldn't obvious to someone who didn't know much about baseball. The word "uniform" isn't widely used for sportswear outside of North America, and isn't the Simple English definition, so you need to be careful to explain. Also you've almost made my point about the article being all history but saying that there isn't a history of catcher's baseball gear. Apart from the fact that there almost certainly is, the article is called "baseball uniform", not "history of baseball uniform". Hippopotamus (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- Okay. I've done one last thorough copyedit to the article. I think we can put this up for !voting soon, or even now. Thoughts? -- RyanCross (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to support at the moment as I don't think the balance of content is right, but others may disagree, of course. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm, "balance of content"? Do you mind explaining more about it? I may be able to fix it. -- RyanCross (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on my above comment. Most of the content is on history, and the definition of uniform is not well explained to the casual reader. Why is piece of clothing X part of the uniform, when Y isn't. Why is there a picture of a catcher when all the equipment pictured isn't being classed as uniform. If you're going to use the traditional definition of uniform you need to explain it fully and use appropriate pictures. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see your above comment. Okay, I'll consider doing what you pointed out. It may be a bit difficult, but you may always help. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- Voting is now below. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, -- RyanPublic (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

NASA

I know I mostly wrote it so I might be a bit biased but I think it really does deserve to be a good article. There are no red links at all and the article has a good structure. It has good quality simple English, good pictures with appropriate captions and many intra and interwiki links. --The Flying Spaghetti Monster (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you use {{cite web}} templates for the references? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I can probably do that. Just give some time. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone do the references for me as when I tried to use the cite web template I nearly messed up the whole article. Once your done could you please give me a quick idea of how to use it on my talk page, I would be very grateful for any help. The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Here you go: [1] Let me know if you need any more help after checking out the diff. The article isn't a GA yet; it's really on the short side, there are a lot of one sentence paragraphs, and I'm sure there's more to NASA's history than a few missions. Also, quotes shouldn't be in italics and quotation marks; it should be one or the other. —Giggy 09:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Warner

Kurt Warner (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've done much work to this article, completely expanding from EN:WP (including creating about 30+ stubs for it). I'm pretty sure it needs some copyediting/typo-fixing/grammar-checking, but I think it is overall Good. I'll try to tomorrow go through and fix OVERLINKS and such. I think it is very close. Cheers -- AmericanEagle (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Hm, if you look here, there's a link that leads to World Series. I believe he's a football player, not a baseball player. It's probably a wrong link. Could you fix that? Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It says "The advertisement, which was played during Game 4 of the 2006 World Series..." It's just saying it was played during the World Series, not that he was in it. Cheers -- AmericanEagle (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: Promoted - with 7 supports and 2 opposes (78%). -- American Eagle (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

Billy Graham

Voting ended on May 4, 2008

  • Support ~ Nominator. It met all nine requirements ~ AmericanEagle 04:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good!--   ChristianMan16  06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - based primarily on the failure to meet criteria 6 (all needed terms linked - a (THE) main point in simplification). Throughout the article, multiple terms are just italicized rather than linked to appropriate articles (most likely red-links). Italics are fine for a new term you are going to immediately explain (example: "....he was penalized for clipping, when one player hits another from behind and below the waist. Clipping causes that team to..."). Each time italics is used in this article that is one more link that should exist. -- Creol(talk) 08:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - However, does the fact that you were the author in 90% of the revisions fail the article? Chenzw  Talk  09:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as more references might be nice, some of the language is still a bit {{complex}} tag esque. Microchip 08Sign! 11:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Getting there, but it's full of unsourced statements. Majorly (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Microchip08. Necknoise 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted: I'll stop it till I fix some things (i.e. More references, less useless things not proved, and more Italic to links) and relist it when it's fixed. AmericanEagle 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Carbon

Voting ended on 11 May, 2008

  • Support - Nominator. Simple, Wikified, informative, cited, long enough, linked. --02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Tanthanyes (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose- No, too short, not enough information. Razorflame 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Has potential, but not yet ready. But could be in the future -- AmericanEagle 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Razorflame and it need more pictures.--   ChristianMan16  04:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted Final tally: 1/3, needs 5 supports to pass. Razorflame 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Spurgeon

Voting ended on 12 May, 2008

  • Support - Quite a good job of simplification. However, it could be better if there was an article about one of his sermons. Chenzw  Talk  05:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I think that is notable, fairly simple and well informed. About one of his sermons, I think that I can do that in the near future. But this is a good article anyway. -- AmericanEagle 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 Comment I created article for Accidents, Not Punishments sermon -- AmericanEagle 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support--Lights Deleted? 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support Sentences are too long, and some of the sentences flow kind of funny. Otherwise, this article would gain a support vote from me. No red links and good sourcing and other websites section makes this a fairly decent article. Still lacks information in sections, but that can easily be remedied at a later date. Cheers, Razorflame 00:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - need more sourcing.--   ChristianMan16  04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 Comment I would like to see a bit more references for such a long article. Also the "Other websites" section needs to be shortened to avoid confusion, there are many issues of multiple linking, particularly of the word "sermon", but others as well. Finally, there is a problem with the "Later years" paragraph, this could just be my browser but the picture is covering the first sentence. --Gwib -(talk)- 08:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I added a reference, got rid of the unneeded external links, fixed all multiple internal links, and I believe fixed the Later years section (although I never saw the problem on IE). -- AmericanEagle 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: Promoted with 4 votes for, and 1 against. (5 total votes)

Giant Panda

Giant Panda (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ended on May 20, 2008

This article just failed an RfGA. I'm skipping straight to the voting as it's already been discussed on that page since May 3rd. (The discussion may be viewed here). The article is obviously not ready for VGA status as it didn't pass, but I think it would be a fine addition to our GAs. There are some continuity errors that I would like to see fixed (there is switching between "Giant Panda" and "giant panda", and mixing of systems of measurement, sometimes pounds, sometimes kgs). Also, the few red links will not be a problem as it was for it to become a VGA. Some people also feel that it was on the short side to become a VGA. All in all, the requirements are met and I think it would make a good GA. · Tygrrr... 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I changed all giant panda to Giant Panda (revert if not wanted). It gets my full support for Good -- AmericanEagle 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That really isn't a valid reason to oppose a promotion. · Tygrrr... 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, it's stupid to oppose the promotion of an article simply because you don't like the classification "Good Articles". Please keep in mind that your voting privileges may be removed if you don't take the process seriously and vote without reason (see bolded section above). Seeing as how you have provided no valid reason to oppose promotion, I see no reason why your vote should be counted. Do you plan on opposing the promotion of all articles because you don't like GAs? If that's the case, you should refrain from voting at all. Thank you. · Tygrrr... 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't ban people for having different opinions. Maxim(talk) 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Who's talking about banning anyone? I'm asking you not to vote if you're not going to take the process seriously--which you obviously don't. If your opinion is that you don't like GAs, don't vote in them. If it becomes clear that you are only going to vote oppose to all articles simply because you don't like the GA classification, your votes will not be counted. · Tygrrr... 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You were talking of banning me from voting. I don't take this process seriously at all, I think it's a joke -- I have every right to assert that. Maxim(talk) 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Voting is a privilege, not a right. If that privilege is abused, it may be taken away. · Tygrrr... 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
On another note, I'm rather pissed off you didn't consult me before nominating here; this is a drive-by nomination, you don't seem to have done major work on the article. Maxim(talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Anybody can nominate an article -- AmericanEagle 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: you're pissed off I'm nominating an article for a promotion? Are you serious? The article ran longer than its week-long course on the VGA nom page and didn't pass. I saw that it met the criteria for a GA and so nominated it here. That's how it works. Anyone can nominate an article for a promotion. And I've never claimed to have done work on the article. This process isn't about "ownership" of articles (which doesn't exist, btw). It's about nomming worthy articles for a higher status. I think this article qualifies for GA status even though it didn't pass its VGA nom. · Tygrrr... 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I was also away for a bit so I couldn't take an extra look at the previous nomination. I'd much rather you had pinged me or given more advice (since the previous seems to be mostly resolved). I'd prefer continue with the very good nom. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I gave a very lengthy reasoning behind my vote at the VGA page (which isn't necessary btw, but I was being helpful). I gave a number of tips for improvement there and in my nomination paragraph above. Unfortunately, you can't continue the voting on the VGA page as it has already run longer than the week it is allowed and has been closed as unsuccessful. If I were you, I would follow the advice other users have given for improvement and nominate it after it has spent some time as a GA. · Tygrrr... 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to mindlessly follow process? If consensus has not been established, don't close it, irregardless of some arbitrary voting period specify. Secondly, the point of "voting" on an article is to give constructive criticism to make it better. Just saying "oppose" won't help make of better quality and is thus illogical. I don't think a GA process on such a wiki is a good idea, and I that is why I'm opposing this nomination. I'd prefer to continue on with the Very Good article nom. Maxim(talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. That same user should be a major contributer to the article capable of addressing concerns, or at least have the decency to try and contact a major contributer. --Maxim(talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I did contact you. And actually, no one owes it to anyone else to contact anyone about nominations. I simply did it to be polite, not because it's required. · Tygrrr... 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between "should I nom this" and "I have nommed this". Maxim(talk) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No one had to contact you so it's a moot point, regardless. Also, if you read here (particularly step 2), I believe you'll find that any named contributor can nominate an article. I'm not sure where you got the mistaken idea that only major contributors can nom their "own" articles (again, doesn't exist) or must be contacted about "their" articles (for a third time, doesn't exist). Perhaps you need to read the intro to this page and the criteria page more thoroughly to help you understand and to clear up your misconceptions about this process. · Tygrrr... 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't read pages like that, for a good reason. I work by my rules of logic and common sense. They're very rarely different. Now, by my experience nominating articles, it's the contributer who does it because he knows best how to alleviate concerns. Seems we disagree; however, you prefer to explain things by pointing me to a page; I offer my own explanations, independently of some other pages. Maxim(talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. I'm done with this conversation. It's obviously going nowhere and you're wasting my time. · Tygrrr... 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Maxim(talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We abide by general policies, not by what we think that would work. Tygrrr is right by pointing to Wikipedia pages to back up what he is saying, that is how it is supposed to be. -- AmericanEagle 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the relation between WP not being a democracy and following policies. Your argument is ridiculously weak: you have not given any reason on why not not following a rule or two expect "policy". It's high time you both read this page, as I know for a fact a policy that isn't written here but is at enwiki applies here, too. ;-) Maxim(talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I quote form the page "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Nomming an article does not in any way "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia", let this go. In the future then we can worry about VGA, "Good article" is a good class, and does not in any way hinder anybody. Let it go for now. Please? -- AmericanEagle 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Perfectly good class and article. Cheers, Razorflame 14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I support. IuseRosary? (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support support per Razorflame. --CPacker (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Tygrr, and Razorflame - as a small clarification: All VGAs are also good articles. The real difference between the two categories is that VGAs need more support, they need to be a little longer, and they need to be what is called comprehensive. There is no damage done in first voting an article to GA, and later improving it to VGA - It is actually easier that way. --Eptalon (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. · Tygrrr... 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Result:Promoted, with 6 votes and 100% support (or 84 percent support, if we count the Oppose of Maxim) - In any case, this is unlikely to get 3 oppose votes today, therefore I promoted it; now that this is a good article, work can be focused on making it very good.. ;) --Eptalon (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Billy Graham (Second Nomination)

Billy Graham (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends on May 26, 2008

This is it's second nomination (see the first here), and as I see how much has been done since that time, I cannot believe it was even before considered for GOOD. Now with much work done by Cethegus and others, I am going list it. -- AmericanEagle 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • Support - per nominator -- AmericanEagle 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Much better this time. You've fixed all of my concerns that I had with this article in the past, and to top it all off, it meets most or all of the criteria for GA's. Razorflame 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - good article. my support all the way. Baseball16 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a superb article. It contains almost all the most important/usefull information. Djb26 (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - . --Gwib -(talk)- 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me! Scanna (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Good article --Terry Talk - Changes 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — Great job. Maxim(talk) 01:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

  •  Comment - This article seems to already have the {{good}} tag. Should it not have the {{pgood}} tag until voting is finished? --Terry Talk - Changes 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Razorflame awarded it, based on the fact that it is unlikely to get 3 oppose votes tomorrow. I have done similar things earlier - so don't blame him. --Eptalon (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Needs 4 oppose votes at the current stage. --Eptalon (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but he could have said something here. --Terry Talk - Changes 22:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I did say something here, but Gwib reverted it. Cheers, Razorflame 00:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. --Terry Talk - Changes 08:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Result

This article was promoted with:

Support - 8
Oppose - 0

Ludwig van Beethoven

Ludwig van Beethoven (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote started: July 1, 2008; ends: July 8

Well-written, well referenced article. The potential problem this article has is that the refrences are in the form of books; it may not be easy to see what book a specific statement is from.--Eptalon (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • Weak support. I would prefer the references to be easier to follow, but the criteria says a list of publications is fine, and it is well-written, etc. Hippopotamus (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You can still make the list easier, I have started copying footnootes from EnWP...--Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominated this one as well. I think the article is well covered with the books cited. --Eptalon (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Aside from 4 red links and a strange reference section, it looks like it meets the criteria, well done. -- America †alk 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportI feel it is good, though I may be wrong. Prime Contributer (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose Too many concerns right now - see the comments below. Happy to change my vote if they're fixed though. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with The Rambling Man. There are too many concerns with this article currently. The first concern is that it needs to be longer. The article in its current state is not long enough (in my opinion) to have it denoted as a Good Article. Also, there are some red links that I believe need to be fleshed out before I am willing to allow it to become a GA. You need to create a page about the parents for Lugwig van Beethoven. Also, sentence fluidity, structure, and length are very big issues with this article. Furthermore, there are not enough references to allow me to vote support for this article at this time and you need to simplify the language used in this article more. Hope this helps you get it off the ground. Cheers, Razorflame 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The article is virtually reference-less. Sure there are a load of books that anyone can go out and find but surely some of the text can be referenced? Four references, three of which are discussing his year of birth and the fourth is in German! Not exactly Simple English. Some claims really need some kind of substantiation, like "He thought that everyone was expecting him to be the next Beethoven." - who said that? I won't oppose right now but if these are not resolved then I may have to. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the following terms need explanation or linking...
    • baptized
    • instruments
    • compose
    • publication
    • the Septet
    • Napoleon
    • Baron
    • "dedicating works to them in return for fees"
    • "op 97" (is this opus 97?)
    • choir
    • torchbearer
    • frustration
    • Johannes Brahms
    • Gustav Mahler
  • "We know very little" - this isn't how to write an encyclopaedic article.
  • "10.000" should be 10,000.
  • Stamp image should have a caption.
  • Russell Martin's source needs fixing.
  • There are many WP:MOS problems (e.g. using a hyphen instead of an en-dash for page ranges in the books)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have put most of my time into Gothic Architecture; for lack of time, I will therefore focus on getting that to GA status; it also looks more promising. --Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest, to focus the community, you withdraw this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gothic Architecture

Gothic architecture (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote Started: July 1, 2008; ends: July 8

I will give it a go at voting; the article is well referenced, but has a decent number of red-links; most of these are to cathedrals built in gothic style, and to monarchs of the time. --Eptalon (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • I nominated it; the few re-links that are left are mostly cathedrals and Churches built in gothik style. --Eptalon (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Aside from the cathedral red links, it seems to well laid-out, fairly simple, and is overall pretty well-done. Good job -- America †alk 16:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the above. —Giggy 07:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose Not ready. Not enough references (the notes section), and sentence fluidity and structure and length are big issues for this article at this time. There are also many words that could be simplified to make the article easier to understand. Sorry, but it is not ready yet. Cheers, Razorflame 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    Can you give examples for sentence fluidity issues? --Eptalon (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    The very first sentence is a great example of what I am meaning by this. Cheers, Razorflame 23:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    What's wrong with "Gothic architecture is a type of architecture"? This is supposed to be Simple English. —Giggy 04:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    He was referring to this version. I have simplified it since then. --Eptalon (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 Comment - I'm working hard on filling those red links. Couldn't you withdraw it until I've finished? I've already done around 10 of them and it's quite fun to do. --Gwib -(talk)- 08:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think you'll be able to do izt in a week? - Should we withdraw it? --Eptalon (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I can try. Done 23 of them at the moment. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Will help. -- America †alk 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There are less than 12 red-links left (about 10 to Churches/Cathedrals). I think given the mere size of the article; it is worth of a good article tag, even if those are not fixed. --Eptalon (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless I did not see them; we are down to three redlinks (in Depressed Arch, all Churches or Chapels).--Eptalon (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Result: Passed, 5 votes total, one oppose: 80% support--Eptalon (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Manchester

Manchester (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote Started: July 3, 2008: ends: July 10

Suggestion completed. Moved to voting per suggestion. Rudget 18:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  • Weak oppose - Pretty good, but it has many red links and an {{complex}} tag, "There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. These templates include {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them." So I must give a weak oppose. -- America †alk 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm going to oppose for the moment as it still needs much work, possibly too much to meet the deadline. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think you probably just say that some people don't think Manchester United are not in Manchester instead of the slightly cryptic sentence and footnote. Alternatively, I'd just leave it out. It's not unusual for a team to play outside their city limits.
    • While not a realy needed part, I did copyedit the section to make it a little clearer. -- Creol(talk) 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The sentence "During this period, there were revolts about the living conditions for workers, the most notable being the Peterloo Massacre which ended up with 15-20 people being killed, and hundreds wounded" is far too complicated. The sentence could be split into two, or shortened. I'm not sure "revolt" and "notable" are Simple English. You use a simpler words than "period" and "wounded." "Peterloo Massacre" would really be wikilinked, so you may want to write a stub or short article and link to it. Hippopotamus (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Copyedited and wikilinked. The phrase "living conditions for workers" was not fixed though.. not certain what to do about that bit. -- Creol(talk) 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I went over the entire article and copyedit/linked a lot. Much of the complex/non SE problems have been dealt with for the most part although there is one paragraph that needs more attention (Culture - first paragraph: vibrant, revival, spirit, MadChester, etc) and the section has been tagged as complex. Some issues with completeness have dealt with by including the infobox (area, population, etc). These changes have added a number of red-links but I do not think they are numberous enough (or important enough) to prevent GA status (some are allowed for GA, none for VGA). -- Creol(talk) 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks better. I think a few of the red links can actually point to Wiktionary, e.g. motto, building, ... I'll have a look tomorrow if I get a chance. Hippopotamus (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The complex tag porbably kills this article? --Eptalon (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I think it probably does. The first paragraph of the "Culture" has too many problems. I'm guessing "revival", "partly", "vibrant", "spirit", "fueled", "population", and even "culture" could be seen as complex. There are perhaps a few too many red links too. Perhaps the rivers, the "Free Trade Hall", and "Manchester Metropolitan University" would have articles created with a short paragraph and picture. Hippopotamus (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
        "Population" has been previously linked (in the infobox and in the opening statement of the history section) so it is acceptable. "Culture" is not actualy used until the third paragraph of the culture section and is linked with its first use. "Some of the <revival replacement> is because of" would deal with the "partly" problem. The rest.. thats a little more difficult. And yes, the tag is a killer at this point. -- Creol(talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw request. I don't have the time on here or on en.wiki to do this right now, and I apologise. You may wish to unstrike some of the aforementioned if you feel up to doing it. Rudget 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: request withdrawn The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Powderfinger

Powderfinger (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote Started: July 11, 2008; ends: July 18

Stayed above for a while, no issues have come up. The Rambling Man went through it and left some comments on its talk page. They're all addressed so I'm bringing it up for a vote. —Giggy 06:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • Support. I think it meets all the criteria. It could be a bit longer, but it's more than the required 3.5 KB of prose. Hippopotamus (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm happy with this article now although I think it could still do with some kind of article on each of the band members in the future. But for now it's ok. The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
  • Support I put it above - its ready. --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - fairly good, only two red links, it's good. Cheers -- America †alk 20:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - certainly on a par, if not better than, existing GAs here. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Theres still a few red links and I think the article suffers from lack of links to band members, albums etc. If any of those issues could be adressed I would be happy to vote for this article, as otherwise its very good. --The Flying Spaghetti Monster (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A few redlinks are allowable under the criteria, but I would tend to agree - band members could be linked as they're quite important. Albums, I'm not too fussed about however. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
More 'Other Websites' would be nice. A discography, photos, videos etc. Check Jimi Hendrix or Justin Timberlake for some examples. --Gwib -(talk)- 11:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done. I only found two though. -- RyanCross (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ryan. I'd be happy to put links for band members and albums, and to create articles for all those as I get to them (I work slowly at creating articles... :-) I'll try to add another website and photo as appropriate. —Giggy 08:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome. I also managed to find this website with photos of Powderfinger. -- RyanCross (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I think that we should not have red-links in the footnotes/references for the article; they can quite easily be removed - In the case of newspapers you could also provide a stub if you think that the newspaper is sufficiently important. --Eptalon (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two redlinks left; I'll try to get them created today. —Giggy 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniform

Baseball uniform (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote started: July 12, 2008; ends: July 19

I've done a thorough copyedit of the article when it was first proposed to fix all the problems addressed. I believe this article meets all of criteria. Let's check: 1.) Yeah, it obviously belongs in Wikipedia. 2.) It's longer than 3.5 kilobytes from character counting. 3.) It's gone through some reversions, yes. Users actively editing the article were User:Gwib, User:The Rambling Man, User:American Eagle, a bit form User:Creol, and me. 4.) There is one interwiki and I believe the article falls into the right categories at the bottom. 5.) The last few reversions were copyediting and minor things, yes. 6.) Absolutely, no red links are found it the article. I think everything that is supposed to be linked has been done appropriately. 7.) Generally complete. 8.) There are no {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} or {{wikify}} tags on the article. 9.) Everything seems properly referenced with {{citeweb}} templates and there is a <references/> tag at the bottom. So anyway, I believe this article can become a WP:GA. Do you? Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • Support - Long, simple enough, well-referenced, it's a good article. Congrats! -- America †alk 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support No major (or minor) problems to me. RC-0722 (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - although I'd like to see Baseball helmets appear in the article, they seem a necessary part of the baseball uniform. --

Gwib -(talk)- 08:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Agree with the "baseball helmets" sentiment, though. Hippopotamus (talk)
  • Support - It's nicely referenced, seems to cover the subject decently, and has good simple prose. I'm not entirely familiar with what articles would be considered as meeting the GA requirements, but it looks to me like it satisfies that criteria. JamieS93 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I hope Ryan addresses my concerns below before going to VGA but I'm happy to support this for GA. —Giggy 06:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose I'm afraid. Seems it should really be titled "History of baseball uniform". Also if I knew nothing about baseball, I'd wonder what the gloves are in the pictures and wonder why they aren't uniform. Similarly, I may switch on TV and see batters and infielders wearing helmets. Both fall under the definition of sportswear, so it should be explained why they aren't included in the definition of uniform. Hippopotamus (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I'll consider it, and I've started to add on to the article. Oh, and your saying I should move the article from "baseball uniform to "History of baseball uniforms"? -- RyanCross (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough, I'll reconsider if it looks good. The choice seems keep the article as being about history and title as such, or add more content and keep the current title. Hippopotamus (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, do you mind looking over it again? We're still doing some work though. -- RyanCross (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Still seems to be mostly history, but I like the expansions and will strike the oppose. Hippopotamus (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) But could I have a yes or no answer if I should move the article to History of baseball uniform at it's current state? Thanks in advance. -- RyanCross (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think yes. Effectively there is one section and it's about history, so it would make sense to rename the article, remove the one section head, and change all the subsections into sections. The article is certainly comprehensive as an article on history. Hippopotamus (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I added this section to the article explaining a little bit about today's uniforms. Is that enough to keep the title of the article baseball uniform? -- RyanCross (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It's good. I'm happy. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yay! :D -- RyanCross (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The Today's baseball uniforms is awkward, especially considering most of the article's images are of "today's" stuff (eg. "today's glove" just above that section). I think you should put information about how (for instance) a baseball glove is utilised today in the Baseball gloves section, as a new paragraph. (That's assuming something's changed since the 1940s, which the last paragraph talks about. If there's only minor change perhaps merge with that paragraph.) Am I making sense? I don't feel like I can support the article at this stage as the current layout is too awkward, in my opinion. —Giggy 09:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking of removing the paragraph and moving the article to History of baseball uniforms. What does everyone think about it? I might be able to do what you said, Giggy, but it seems a tad complicated. -- RyanCross (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point in renaming the article; we'll then lack an article on modern day baseball uniforms. I'd much rather we use modern day information - I just would like to see a good layout before I can support. —Giggy 09:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine then. I'll see what I can do at this point. -- RyanCross (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NASA

NASA (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote started: July 14, 2008; ended: July 21
Results: Failed: 2 support, 4 oppose. -- Creol(talk) 05:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, this article has now been copyedited by myself, Rambling Man and to a certain extent Giggy and RyanCross. As far as I can see it meets all the criteria to a certain degree. There are no red links, the last few edits have been minor edits, according to [2] readable prose is over 3.5 kb long, there are no red links, it has appropriate pictures with appropriate captions and is in the correct categories. I think it should be a good article, lets see what the vote says. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • Support - I did some work to it, and it's okay. It has some good references, zero red links, fairly simple and over-all a good article. Will need to be greatly expanded before PVGA, but I will support its PGA. -- AmericanEagle (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I see no problem with this article because we have got enough stuff about Space Shuttles inside Simple. ONaNcle (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose - The article drifts off pretty badly and is very incomplete in the Space Shuttle era, doesn't include any of the heavy criticism over Challenger or Columbia, and completely omits Discovery or Endeavour, the other two shuttles in the fleet. If I recall correctly, Endeavour was built after Challenger exploded. Cassandra 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sadly. I agree with the above. It's just a little disjointed with the short sections and needs more content. Hippopotamus (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Some important facts are not included in the article as what Cassandra pointed out. I know it's over 3.5 kb, but the overall content about the subject is incomplete. Would be a good candidate in the future with improvements though. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs better flow and more content. Otherwise, a great start to an article.--TBC 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I can't yet support per my comments in the above section; I still think it needs a bit more expansion. —Giggy 08:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Couple of things:
    • "NASA spacecraft such as have visited " - such as ... ?
    • " with space exploration and aeronautics, the operating and designing of planes." - not very good English.
    • "Soviet Union (Russia)" - try something like "(now called Russia)".
    • "Nazi's" no apostrophe needed.
    • "May 15th 1961 " be consistent with both the format and linking of dates.
    • " 1980's" etc - remove the apostrophe.
    • The lead could use an expansion beyond one normal and two tiny sentences. It needs to cover the major aspects of the article briefly, e.g. you could mention Apollo program at least, specifically moon landings.
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done

I have fixed all of those things TRM. Can you vote positive now? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 19:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Warner

Kurt Warner (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well, this article hasn't really been edited by many users, and therefor could require work - but I don't think so. I just completely copyedited it using Microsoft Word. It is very understandable, has 45+ references, and very good "Other websites" section, it is 23.6 KB/12.4 KB long, and I saw no other problems with it. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • Support - per nominator. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it's good. Sebb Talk 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Very well written article. I see basically no problems at all with the article's structure. But what Eptalon pointed out below, that could be a problem, but I have no problem with the promotion of this to GA. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - No real problems. A good article. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 08:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Yep, this one meets the criteria quite well, so I see no reason to oppose it currently. The language is written pretty simply, and it is very fluid and has good sentence structures. Razorflame 10:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support did some minor copyediting, will do more. —Giggy 03:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. - tholly --Turnip-- 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose - for an American Football player, references other than websites shouldn't be too hard to find. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? {{Cite book}}, err...? -- American Eagle (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Whoa, opposing because the citations are all online and available for anyone with an internet connection? That's amazing. You'd rather see ref's from books, newspapers which 99.999% of us can't get access too? And what part of the WP:PGA criteria mandates "non-web-based references"? I'm confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The web links are ESPN, Sports Illustrated, NFL.com – these are like the gold standard of all sports coverage. SI articles arel likely published as a hard news item, but I dobut if there's a big body of printed literature regarding Warner. Cassandra 03:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I see nothing wrong in using reliable sources to write an article. —Giggy 08:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree. An article not having any paper sources should not stop it being a GA. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Absurd. Another GA disappears because of this flawed system. And another editor left wondering he bothered. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Mmm, I'm sure there's a page some where on Meta saying you shouldn't use Oppose for silly reasons. - tholly --Turnip-- 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Gwib's good at that, e.g. "Oppose - Otherwise it'll pass, and apparently it needs more work." really informative stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for the moment. It doesn't really seem to flow at the moment, especially the short subsections in "personal life". I don't quite get the significance of the religious quotations in it. They don't seem unusual, so personally I would remove them. Hippopotamus (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    Oh my. The "significance? of his faith" Hmm, I'm guessing that none of you ever read his book. He said over and over it was the most important moment of his life. And that is the only place in the article is mentioned (I didn't add it to the opening, tried to focus on his career). But anyway, they should be kept in the "personal" section. --American Eagle (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Is it standard practice to not have the date created, the author, and the publication in references? Cassandra 22:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean the other three forms filled. Hmm, I know of no MOS thing involved, so I think consistency within the article is more important. Charles Spurgeon doesn't use it, so I don't think it is required or all common practice. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not required by anyone, but it is good citation practice to include publishers at least. —Giggy 10:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Re cassandra: Author/Publisher/Title/Year are pretty standard fields.--Eptalon (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The article still has some reading fluidity issues; I did a quick fix on one section; re:The stem cell research. bills either authorise or forbid things; I read this as the bill wanting to autorise stem cell research... should be formulated more clearly. Also, formulations like born to his parents, the boys ... when they were children are generally unneded (just spotted a few, have not done an in-depth check). --Eptalon (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the advertisement section, I think. But I'm not sure about the rest of it. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Section 3: "Nation Football League"?!?! I think this needs a good copyedit... Hippopotamus (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also is "starting quarterback" Simple English? Taking the Simple English definition of "start" I have visions of hitting an ignition switch... Then again, that might be useful for a few quarterbacks I follow... ;) Hippopotamus (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    "Starting quarterback" brings up an issue found in many .. genre is the closest word I can think of.. articles. Articles in a specific area tend to commonly use words which people familiar with that subject (in this case American football) are very familiar with but many people would have no clue about if they did not know about football. Sports articles (or the sports "genre" of article) tend to be the worst in this reguards. The problem being that if someone knew nothing about football, why are they looking at an article on a football player and expecting to fully understand the career section? Should some lee-way be given for commonly known terms in a specific feild when talking about sub-sets of that feild? Should a basic understanding to the main subject matter be expected for a reader looking into the small details of the subject? The phrase "In the first three times he started in his career", started certainly is likely to be misunderstood by someone who does not fully understand football. "He started his career three different times? That is odd." Strictly speaking, (and meta-discussion aside), main quarterback would probably be a better term. Also while the term "Attempt" is wikt:linked, the wikt acticle only covers the basic definition of the term (ie. try) and not the football definition. Replacing it with "threw" or "threw the ball 45 times" would also get the point across (although might still get confused). Strickly, 45 attempted passes means he tried to throw the ball 45 times. This is not in keeping with the football term attempted pass (ie. he threw the ball, whether it was caught or not doesn't matter) -- Creol(talk) 04:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
     Done - I went through all that, I just hope I didn't create more problems along the way. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: Promoted with 7 supports and a lone oppose Razorflame 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are still 20 hours go to in the vote, and there are two opposes. —Giggy 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I think time is up now, and it has 78% with 9 votes in total for the debate, so that's enough to pass. Still says "Nation Football League", though. I'll correct it myself... Hippopotamus (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
End Result: Promoted - with 7 supports and 2 opposes (78%). -- American Eagle (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)