Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 20

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please list latest discussions at the bottom.

Logic gate[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Logic gate (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Very simple compared to the English ver and gets the job done. Has pictures, captions, tables, et.c to get the point across better. Paradox Marvin (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, just no. This article is way too short, and it lacks a lot of information. It doesn't really explain what they are or what their uses are. Since you want to compare it to the standard English Wikipedia's version, that version has several more sections that describe the history and development, applications, similar tools, etc. that this version does not. This is a hard no for me. ~Junedude433talk 15:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Article not fleshed-out and does not contain a single source. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think this is too far from GA status to be considered here. For one, it has no sources, which means it could not be made a GA in anything like the current state. --IWI (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  (change conflict)   Comment: - A good article is supposed to be some of our better-best work, not just something that just "gets the job done". Every article should "get the job done", but good articles need to do more than that. And as IWI states, there aren't even any sources, so it's hardly job done. Just a comment. --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO! Obvious. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Yeah, an article with no sources has no shot at GA. Darubrub (Let me know) 18:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Even if it is for GA, I would have expected that there article mention ,that there are currently at least three different notations for these gates (DIN 49700, ANSI and IEC/ANSI, While two of them look "similar", the third one does not (IEC/ANSI is noticeably different). Also the ones listed are just examples; note that Peirce showed that with NAND (or NOR) gates it is possible to design circuits with one type/kind of gate alone. Also, I'd expect De Morgan's laws to be mentioned (they are commonly used to transform expressions). This article currently is a listing of a few "common" logic gates; it is very far from what I'd expect a GA-level article to be. --Eptalon (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely does not qualify as a GA. Esperento (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No sources, how can it be promotes to GA. --Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 16:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This quite clearly falls way short. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Singapore[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Singapore (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not many country articles are rated as GAs on the Simple Wiki, so I'd thought I would help grow it. Singapore is already a good article on the regular English wiki. By Simple English standards, the article seems both well-detailed and sourced. Bishibitsu (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the redlinks, looks good to me. Darubrub (Let me know) 13:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good article... The redlinks shouldn't take too long to deal with. --Ferien (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the article, it helps to garner a summarized understanding of Singapore without taking too long to read as well as the need to know much vocabulary. I support its inclusion as a GA. Esperento (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article is well detailed. --Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 16:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me. It's definitely GA material. It is well written and referenced nicely. John Fibreson (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Introduction is good, but the section 1919 to 1940 is very poor at present. You really need to read the corresponding section "British colonisation" in the En wiki page, and then do justice to this, the most critical stage in Singapore's growth. It has a main article which also needs reading. Very interesting Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what I can do. Bishibitsu (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all the redlinks and expanded the history section from 1819 to 1942. Let me know if there's any more questions. Bishibitsu (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the issues Macdonald-ross brought up --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Result: promoted--Eptalon (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Least weasel[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Least weasel (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not many animal articles are rated as Good Articles on Simple Wiki. So I'd thought I would help to make that number to rise. By Simple English standards, the article seems both well-detailed and sourced. It is also rather large as it is more than 11,000 bytes long with very few red links and a few interwiki links. Space chinedu (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Darubrub (Let me know) 15:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a non-native Engish speaker: what probably needs linking and explaining are the specialized words describing young animals: Up until now, to me a "kit" was a collection of components; also seems to be a young animal of different species (or a group of pigeons). Is this the correct term? - Should we perhaps talk about "kitten" (no idea, needs verification by a native English speaker). If used, the same applies for terms describing groups of animals. At the start, a "bitch" was a female dog/canine, and not a derogatory term for a human female.
  • Sections should be longer than 3-4 sentences.
  • Given the length of the article, and the different sections I'd expect an introduction/lede that has 3-4 times the length of what it is now. If I only read the intro, I should get a fairly good understanding of the subject.--Eptalon (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed some issues with the article, which including some copy editing, replacing Wiktionary links with simple text, linking some complex terms, and simplifying words and sentence structure. Some of the terms I linked are usually simple words, but not when used in a scientific context; they included family and order. I also used the {{convert}} template for measurements. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have a question. The article said the least weasel was "[[Extinction|extinct]] from [[New York City|New York]]". Which is it, New York (the state) or New York City? I changed it to New York City since that's what it linked to, but it's not usual to say an animal is extinct in a city. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the equivalent of en:Kit (a disambiguation page), or should that content be linked to Wiktionary? --Eptalon (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think we should just say "the young weasels" or "the baby weasels". The enwiki dab page just links to the main general articles on the animals. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sort of thing I hate about this aspect of our wiki is when an editor follows the original so closely that they include stuff which is just not appropriate for our kind of customer. It's a sign that the proposer just copied blindly what was there with superficial changes to wording. Here's what I mean:
"There are many ectoparasites that infect weasels [So far, so good...]. Some of them are the louse Trichodectes mustelae and the mites Demodex and Psoregates mustela. It may get fleas from the nests and burrows of its prey. Fleas known to infest weasels include Ctenophthalmus bisoctodentatus Palaeopsylla m., P. s. soricis, Nosopsyllus fasciatus and Dasypsyllus gallinulae.[8] Least weasels are often infected with the nematode Skrjabingylus nasicola".
Who on Earth except a specialist knows what these parasites are? In fact all mammals (actually all animals in the wild) have plenty of parasites. No-one but a specialist would know what the names refer to, and the senseless listing of technical details is exactly what we should not do on this wiki. The text is far too close a copy of the original. I don't mean to discourage, but just ask yourself, how you would have felt on the receiving end if you were sitting in a classroom and a teacher had said or written that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the paragraph, no species are mentioned anymore. I would like to point out though that it is a bit on the short side now....--Eptalon (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Promoted--Eptalon (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing ​[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article of the former French president has been a project of mine since December of last year. I feel that the article contains sufficient simple information on the subject and is well sourced to be a good contender for GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He died a few months ago, and certainly was a great politician. As to the article: I didn't have an in-depth look yet, but two things (which are hard to put in words): I think reading-ease/fluency is not yet there, in some sections (for example, in the into). The other: There are many sections with just 2-3 sentences (we might want to expand these a little, esp. since many are just a summary of a longer article.--Eptalon (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, thank you. What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surname of Giscard d'Estaing needs to be consistent throughout.
  • Under Domestic activities the last sentence is incoherent. Language breakdown in a few cases like Personal life, 3rd para.

Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support : the article is well sourced and comprehensive for GA. Frontfrog (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Promoted --Eptalon (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Tropical Storm Arthur (2020)[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia. This article is in the en.wiki and did cause some damage, so it is notable.
The article must be fairly complete. This article is almost 25,000 bytes long.
The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. User:Darkfrog24 helped me simplify the article. If you look, there are also quite a few revisions.
The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. This article has multiple interwiki links and is filed in appropriate categories.
The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). This is true, the last few revisions were simplification and grammar fixing.
All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. Important terms are linked to their respective articles. To the best of my knowledge, there are no red links.
If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. Of the three illustrations, 2 are pictures of the storm, and one is its path.
There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. There are no templates, nor does the article need them.
Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. There are 38 references.

This article meets all of the criteria and is well and simply written. Please consider it, as I have put a lot of time into improving it and getting it to this wiki's standards. Thank you for your time. CodingCyclone (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"see also" "external link" --> These are signs of copy paste from enwp, please simplify the page completely before nominating, thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I changed those. If you can, are there any other things I should change? Thanks. 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. We don't use other articles and outside links. We use related pages and other websites. Please read MOS again in depth, this can't be accepted as normal article, let alone GA. It's not easy, but we are significantly different from enwp, will leave some links on your talk, read them carefully and happy editing first before GA. CM-Public (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many examples of links to enwiki within the article. All of these need to be changed to local links, and if none exists then it has to be created. --IWI (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Readability scores[change source]

  • The Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score is 71.4 - (70.0+ = Fairly easy to read)
  • The Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 6.6th grade
  • The Gunning Fog index is 7.3 (fairly easy to read)
  • The Coleman-Liau index is 8
  • The SMOG index is 6.9 (Seventh grade)
  • The automated readability index is 5.6 (10-11 year olds; fifth and sixth graders)
  • Overall readability consensus - Grade level: 7; Reading level: fairly easy to read; Reader's age: 11-13 yrs old (Sixth and Seventh graders)

(note: used this website and copied the main text of the article. I ignored the infobox, table of contents, the section and sub-section titles, and the references. I also deleted the artifacts of the references (i.e. [3], [9], [23] etc.))

I read through the article and, while I think it is rather short, it is pretty complete in its information. This is one of those types of articles where there simply is not much information to include. I think the simplification is pretty good considering the topic. I still have mixed feelings about it though. It meets the requirements, but it doesn't really feel like a Good Article to me, and I don't really know why (probably the length). If other users feel that this is a Good Article, you can consider me a supporter, but it may be tough to convince the others. ~Junedude433talk 15:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first paragraph does not run smoothly. Even if prose scores well on readability tests, it still needs to read smoothly. There's not much substance in the article, really. Notable, but not particularly interesting to read. I think it's not going to make it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is time to close this, the last comment was in January. While there were edits to the article since then, I think the time has come to decide. So: what do people think, about the article becoming a good article, in its current state - Note: I expect that this discussion be closed end of this month, with a decision ot either promote or not promote the aticle. --Eptalon (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the article is too short. I agree with Macdonald-ross. But anyway the article is generally good. Frontfrog (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Result: promoted--Eptalon (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Esperanto[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Esperanto (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is simple, well-sourced, doesn't have too many red links and it's nicely written. It's also fairly large by SE Wikipedia standards (at 67k~ bytes). Currently, there aren't any language articles in the GA category, so this would be a nice start. Etoza (?) 16:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously, it's not GA. Unsourced statements, Etoza didn't make any changes.Frontfrog (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left some comments on the Talk page. Biggest issues: Intro too short, small sections to be merged, grammar/language sections too specific. Also the last time, there were bigger changes to the article was in 2019. --Eptalon (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate for promotion. Propagandistic and one-sided on a topic which has always suffered by being able to see only one side of the issue. Also, overtaken by machine translation which copes with all kinds of language, not just European languages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have used most of the grammar-related stuff to create Esperanto language structure. I have then removed most of it from the main article, and referenced it. The sizer of the main article dropped from about 68k to about 45k. In my opinion, the article needs a lot more work like this. If really wanted, could we ask someone from the Esperanto Wikipedia to help? --Eptalon (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I read this I had already written on its talk page about how biased the article is. It has no hope of being a good article because its editors are from the start one-eyed. (That means biased in English). Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Result: - The last major edits to the article were in 2019, or so. As is, the article still needs a lot of copyediting (re-structuring, removing bias). This is not a good start for proposing it to be GA. So, I have decided to not promote the article at the current time; please re-submit once the various issues have been addressed.--Eptalon (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Bird[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bird (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been improved by a critique by user:PaleoGeekSquared, one of the contributors to the En Featured Article on Bird. I think now our version is worth a GA or pretty close to it. Compared to the En page, I've tried to keep in aspects which interest children whilst keeping the science straight. That has not been easy. Anyway, over to you guys! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • no in-depth look yet, but can the red-links in the orders/families(?) Infobox be fixed? So that we have at least a stub for each of these. Point of discussion: use common names? (No idea, not my subject area)-Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that infoboxes are not designed for us. They are brought over as is from En wiki (usually by DJS). I don't want to be forced to add content which is not suitable for us just because En wiki has it. I mean, just look at the detail here on this box. It's insane. The page is basically about what is common between all birds.
I would agree that for VGA there should be no red links, but this is just VG. I will do superorders as a gesture of goodwill... Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need them all? Yesterday I created a few of these orders, and some were really only made of 2-3 species, endemic to some island. What about having a selection of well-known/big groups in the infobox, and only completing a listing of all (in a section of the article) when we talk about VGA?-Eptalon (talk)
At heart we face the problem that the infoboxes are brought over from En and nowadays cannot be changed. Therefore they are suitable for En wiki, but less suitable for us. If we do things that way they are never going to be suitable for us in the sense of showing red links. The infoboxes should serve our needs, not the other way around. At the same time, I can see why DJS does it this way. Overall, the page has far more than anyone would teach at school and is more than most undergraduates would need. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what about no order/suborders/families (...) in the infobox, and instead have a section? In that section we are free to mention what we like, and if indeed that order with the two species, one on a Pacific island and the other in South American rainforest is important, it can be mentioned. Same with the three-species-in-two-families-on-Madagascar-order. more likely, it will be the swans-geese-ducks, the ravens/corvids, the parrots, emus, penguin, doves, other passerines?-Eptalon (talk)
Yes, I can live with this. Let's pause for a week or so for others to catch up. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update for those who don't read the TP: I have moved all orders/families to a section (which currently only contains these). For all orders/families (except for 3 or so), we do have a very basic stub, so they won't look red. The ones that are currently missing are Caprimulgiformes (which looks quite a big order), Otidiformes (I think 10-20 species), and Cathartiformes (the new-world birds of prey, about 20 species)
  • We have the New world vultures as Cathartidae. Cathartiformes would redirect there. We don't have Caprimulgiformes, which redirects to the clade Strisores on En. They include hummingbirds and swifts, so they are pretty important. We lack Otidiformes only in the sense that we lack bustards, which they are. I'll do that one next. We can call them bustards for the title.
  • I like articles like this but this article is little sourced. Frontfrog (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel pretty good about promoting this article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... whereas I'm having a bit of crisis of confidence at the moment... What triggered it was the realisation that the intro has topics with sources, and some without. That happened because some topics were expanded in the main sections, whereas others were not.
Another thing: it's OK to use a term if it has a link to an explanation. No science page can explain everything, and must use proper terms for accuracy. The only issue is whether the term has a link to an explanation on its first appearance. This we decided a long time ago, else all technical pages tended to be written in "baby language". Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, anybody can help. I'm in favour of sources doing something which is needed rather than just pro-forma. A ref in response to "What does that mean?" or "That's surprising, I wonder where he got that idea!" is obviously good. But some articles on En wiki seems to be built on the "pile it all in" principle. They lose their way, and readers who are not academics can get lost. Anyway, I'm going to read through the WP article on David Attenborough's The life of birds because for some reason I've not seen how WP tackled that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Promoted to GA. --Eptalon (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Neptune[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: promoted--Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neptune (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Together, we can make this article good. Frontfrog (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Statements in the intro do not need to be supported providing the equivalent passages in the body of the article are sourced. Many are not, and so this proposal fails at present. Sorry about that, the article is well written, which is something for a science article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm backing onto this one because I noticed the comment that Neptune's orbit moved oddly. That's not the way to put it. Sourced in the En wiki article is a phraseology which says the expected orbit had some perturbations. If we were to say something like "its orbit as seen had some differences from its expected orbit" that would be better. We don't want to move all the way from the science to street language, though we do want to be simpler. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, where it? Frontfrog (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph of intro, at bottom of paragraph. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Frontfrog (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good. Now the difficult bit! There are sentences 30, 40 or more words long. We know (from readability research) that very long sentences are difficult for readers, actually impossibly difficult for many. I would look at any sentence with more than 20 words in it. Occasionally, if well expressed, they may be allowed. This is not a personal opinion, but is backed up by plenty of research into reading. Anyhow, that's the next obstacle. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will probably not do this until June. But there don't seem to be a lot of long sentences. Frontfrog (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve seen the amount of work you’ve put into it and it is looking good. I’ll have a good thorough reading of it tomorrow and post any thoughts I have for you. I think you are definitely a lot closer now. Make sure there are no citation errors in your reference lists and look at the categories at the bottom to see if it populated into any of the error ones and I can help you fix them. PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Macdonald-ross:, I think the sentences look better now. Frontfrog (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone write some other comments? I'll try to change it. Frontfrog (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I did a lot of work over the past two days. I got all of the citations in order, a lot of format cleanup and layout, did bare link checks and IGA checks. Also, did some CE and removed the issues causing the article to go into maintenance cats. Just needs a good look over for anything odd. I did point out a discrepancy between the satellite number in the infobox (13) and the list of moons (which is 14). I also asked Froggy to double-check for overlinking and under linking. I did a full format of all the dates to DMY and MOS CS1 and CS2 templates. Based on the information I posted below about readability, I feel it still needs to be brought down simpler. In the beginning, it is good for 7th graders, but then at section 1.2 and beyond, it jumps to 9th graders. So those are my thoughts right now. Thanks, PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Scale[change source]

1. Flesch Reading Ease score: 64 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: standard/average.
2. Gunning Fog: 10 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: fairly easy to read.
3. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 8 Grade level: Eighth Grade.
4. The Coleman-Liau Index: 8 Grade level: Eighth grade
5. The SMOG Index: 8 Grade level: Eighth grade
6. Automated Readability Index: 7 Grade level: 11-13 yrs. old (Sixth and Seventh graders)
7. Linsear Write Formula: 8 Grade level: Eighth Grade.

Grade Level: 8
 Reading Level: standard/average.
 Age of Reader: 12-14 yrs. old (Seventh and Eighth graders)

Further down the article starting at 'Crediting and Naming', these are the results:

1. Flesch Reading Ease score: 54 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: fairly difficult to read.
2. Gunning Fog: 11 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.
3. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10 Grade level: Tenth Grade.
4. The Coleman-Liau Index: 10 Grade level: Tenth Grade
5. The SMOG Index: 9 Grade Level: Ninth Grade
6. Automated Readability Index: 9 Grade Level: 13-15 yrs. old (Eighth and Ninth graders)
7. Linsear Write Formula: 9 Grade Level: Ninth Grade.
Grade Level: 9
 Reading Level: fairly difficult to read.
 Age of Reader: 13-15 yrs. old (Eighth and Ninth graders)
Thanks, PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is good nomination and I feel working it up to GA level is very possible. The first thing I noticed is that the article needs some sourcing work as there were some sentences that were unsourced. I added citation tags to give you a visual on the areas of improvement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do it but I think it is not necessary for good articles to arrange the sources for each sentence.Frontfrog (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails at the moment because primary claims are not sourced. Examples: "Neptune was discovered by the astronomers Urbain Le Verrier and John Couch Adams. They were both honored for the discovery". Unsourced. It is not per sentence but per claim that sources are needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did everything I could: set up the sources, simplified the text. Please, see the changes. Let's bring it to a good state before closing the nomination. I think it's simple.Frontfrog (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have any complaints about article? Now it's obviously suitable for GA.Frontfrog (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here are my thoughts.
For readability:
  • The lead section reads very nicely. For readability,  it's perfect in my opinion. Reference 12 is used for the first five sentences though, would it be fine for the first four reference twelves to be removed?
  • The history section is simple enough but I find some of the sentences a little lengthy. Some of them could be split up. For example Soon Neptune was internationally agreed among many people and was then the official name for the new planet. could be split into two sentences to read better.
  • The structure section seems good. All those complicated sciency words are linked, so it's fine.
  • I feel the "Neptune's Rings" section is good and simple.
  • Moons section is good. A little simplification towards the end maybe? The final sentence specifically (examine is not in BE 1500, maybe we could use "look at")
  • Observation and Exploration seem good for readability to me.
The sourcing in the article is good. The example Macdonald-ross gave has now been fixed. Every section in the article has more than 5 citations and having a little look at the References section they all seem reliable. And by the looks of it, most of the important terms have been linked.
If we look at the GA criteria
  1. The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia.  Yes
  2. The article must be fairly complete.  Yes
  3. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors.  Yep. Whilst Frontfrog has done a lot to help this article, TDKR Chicago 101, PotsdamLamb and Eptalon have all contributed too.
  4. The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.  Yes and yes
  5. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). My recent changes are minor changes, that could count?
  6. All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left.  Not very many red links left. Only in the infobox, in the note and references.
  7. If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled.  Yes
  8. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement.  No templates and doesn't need them
  9. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced.  Plenty of referencing
I've never done a GA review before but I'm happy with this and I'm comfortable saying Promote. --Ferien (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been reading big WP's version, which is deservedly an FA. They've done a wonderful job, and in places it reads better and more accurately than ours does. It would not be wrong for us to promote, because we have improved our page. Still, I thought I'd encourage others to have a look at the En version again. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm completely done to edit (add info about Nereid in "Moons" at the request of Eptalon). Frontfrog (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon: What do you think? Frontfrog (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Seems well made by looking at the information and coverage. It has been a good article and very good article in other Wikipedias. Darubrub (Let me know) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see at least a few images in the article. Otherwise it is just a load of text. --Ferien (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one issue (could just be me) is the amount of red links in the article. It could just be me though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like there should be image at the top. A load of text as what Ferien has said. On the other hand I also don't think a large image of Hitler is necessary though. Esperento (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting. The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proved in Nazi Germany? The sources are not well formed, and readers will need to read text for themselves. I'm not at all sure that the claim in our text is correct, and it is a big claim indeed. Sources, sources, my crown for a source (Richard III). Short of lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and emphysema were being connected to smoking in the 1930s, that is certain. Incidentally, no-one doubts the connection now, as En wiki says, 85% of lung cancer cases are due to "long-term tobacco smoking". The sources are not workable in this format: I want to see the actual text on each occasion, because I don't have easy access to the book. If an issue is critical to the text, we should be able to read it on the page, or at least a precis of it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the relevant link here is this one (Prof.Dr. A. H.Roffo, Krebserzeugende Tabakwirkung, Monatsschrift für Krebsbekämpfung, J.F:Lehmann's Verlag, München/Berlin, Heft 5, 1940). This seems to be a summary of several studies done at an institute for cancer research in Buenos Aires.--Eptalon (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a great source. I had no idea. Thank you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC) (ex-smoker)[reply]
See en:Ángel Roffo, for the scientist...--Eptalon (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our standard accreditation to the the En wiki page is missing. I assume some of our text comes from there. After that is solved, the page is promotable IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will begin work on this article tomorrow to fix the errors with the citations and such and search for missing links/invalid links on the Wayback machine and get them up to "snuff". PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to find out what the issue is. I have to decipher all the Harv refs. Basically the error on them is because the citations are not labeled appropriately like one of them has 4 different citations all in the same year so wp doesn’t know which one to pick because they should have been 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, etc. I should be able to fix this the rest of the way tomorrow. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 05:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not the error. The error was there was a duplicate reference in the further reading section. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this state I oppose to this article. Problems with sources, red links in the text. The comments are also not fully corrected. Frontfrog (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised to see that this was up for VGA previously. In any event, I think this article is seriously flawed in several ways. I have listed two of them on the article talk page. I do not believe this should be promoted. It may be misleading to have this up at all. A more general "Anti-tobacco policies in Germany" might be better and not give undue weight to the Nazis. --Gotanda (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my thoughts on the article's talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

SpaceX Starship[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SpaceX Starship (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been improved by a lot, because I have a lot of free time :) There is a lot of red links, mainly because spaceflight stuff is poorly covered here. Also, I'm the GA nominator of the article's version in enwiki, so probably that helps me a bit when simplifying it. Anyways, please give very harsh comments. The harsher the comments is, the better the article will be. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't tempt us! We can find plenty to say as it is. The sentence length has been shortened, but the attempt at simplification of the prose is weak to non-existent. Sentences like "SpaceX has not say the spacecraft's mass to the public" is not even in English. Or "Space debris are useless object in space". It's just not good enough. Is the editor actually fluent in English? The text reads as if his native language is not English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm being a bit too hasty here :( CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, I have just spotted a ton. Unfortunately, I couldn't fix it all right now, because I'm on mobile, so probably I would fix it all up in this week. I think that the main reason for a ton of errors is that I'm translating too fast from enwiki and did not have enough time to think about the sentences carefully. Lesson learnt I guess CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just fixed a lot of errors in the article. Hopefully the text is much more fluent now :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using copy and paste, I ran it through a readability test [1]
  • Gunning Fog index:7.91
  • Coleman Liau index:7.95 eighth grade
  • Flesch Kincaid Grade level:6.54 sixth-seventh grade
  • ARI (Automated Readability Index):5.72 sixth grade
  • SMOG:8.91 ninth grade
  • Flesch Reading Ease: 70.39
I think these scores may need to be a little lower in my opinion. AnApple47 💬 04:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the version I do the test. Not sure what to do to make it even lower though. Special:PermanentLink/7842050
  • Gunning Fog index: 7.64
  • Coleman Liau index: 8.39, grade 8
  • Flesch Kincaid Grade level: 6.48, grade 6 or 7
  • ARI (Automated Readability Index): 5.90, grade 6
  • SMOG: 8.77, grade 9
  • Flesch Reading Ease: 69.94
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, spaceflight stuff tends to be more technical than most CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AnApple47 I think we usually say to aim for an 8th-grade reading level, so it seems to qualify there. I usually try to make things even simpler if I can, though, and the readability tests aren't foolproof. There could also be other issues. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fair enough. Especially with all the technical terms in this article. I'll try to remember the note about eighth grade in the future. AnApple47 💬 06:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross I have address all of the issues that you have raised. What do you think about the article now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys think that the prose is a bit too long? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I would promote the article to VGA instead, since it has met criterion 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10, more than 6. It would be a waste of time waiting for months, when you can improve it straight to VGA. I gonna link the VGA proposal here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AnApple47: @Macdonald-ross: @Auntof6: Here's the very good article proposal: Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles#SpaceX_Starship CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Jacinda Ardern[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jacinda Ardern (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article has been expanded with more information, proper citations and in a simple language (though some more simpler versions maybe found). Not many women-related articles have been promoted to VGA let alone GA and with the ongoing demotion of articles, it would be nice to have more women articles added to the list. I know that Ardern is an incumbent politician but if you look at my other GA articles that are incumbent politicians (Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) I have always updated the articles to make sure they meet GA standards. Please let me know of any feedback so I can fix the article to shape it up to GA standard. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest explaining what a by-election is, because I have never heard this term before. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not address the underlying issue. Creating articles with so many quotations in them is not simple. And, in the process of trying to simplify them after the fact there have been multiple problems. See AOC nom where sometimes your simplification brought in significant errors or completely changed the meaning. Each time I point these out for simplification there are multiple errors. These are not the kind of problems that one can check for oneself. Promotion at this point would be a mistake I think. Someone not you has to check every claim. --Gotanda (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I should add, this one reason why criteria 5 is there. "The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing)." The last few edits on this article are correcting errors of fact or unintentional plagiarism. And, this is why one of the criteria encourages writing by multiple editors. That's hard on this wiki, but it is necessary. --Gotanda (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's no rush. First of all, I thought this was a better page than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, although some thought that was OK too. I don't like the over-flattering tone just short of sycophancy. Even if the slant parallels En wiki, a slant does look bad. What do her opponents say about her? Nothing appears on the En wiki page. I'm tempted to say that if you're a "torch carrier for progressive politics" and a woman, nothing bad can be said about you...
I'm surprised to see our version is the work of one person, where our guidelines clearly point to a more collaborative effort. So that's a second thing it's missing. I notice the WP version says she's a foil to the likes of Trump and Putin. I don't suppose either thinks anything about her, but there we go, the silly ideas are copied along with the good things. It's a hagiography, but it does reflect En wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Macdonald-ross: From what I'm understanding from this (correct me if I'm wrong), you want me to remove certain information from the article that isn't necessary? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so I went through the article this afternoon. I didn't check the facts in the article, seeing that it was already referenced properly. The writing is simple enough except in a few parts where it can be improved. Also, please take these suggestions with a grain of salt, as I am not very familiar with how politics works outside the country I live in.
  • "Ardern was first elected as an MP in the 2008 general election, when Labour lost control after nine years. She was later elected to represent the Mount Albert electorate in a by-election in February 2017." --> the first sentence here was a bit confusing to me. This is from the second paragraph in the lead section. I think something simple and straightforward would be better than "lost control".
  • "She led her party to win 14 seats at the 2017 general election on 23 September, winning 46 seats to the National Party's 56. After working with New Zealand First, a minority coalition government with Labour and New Zealand First was formed, supported by the Green Party." --> I think this lengthy description of the election is unnecessary in the lead, as the lower part of the article describes the election properly. Maybe just mentioning her party making minority government is enough. Maybe something like --'After the 2017 general election, her party created a minority government with New Zealand First.'?
  • "Ardern joined the Labour Party at the age of 17 and became a senior figure in the Young Labour party of the party." and "Opposition Leader Phil Goff promoted Ardern to the front bench, naming her Labour's spokesperson for Youth Affairs and for Justice (Youth Affairs)." --> Sounds a bit confusing.
  • "In response to the housing affordability issues, Ardern proposed the removal of the interest rate tax-deduction, lifting Housing Aid for first home buyers, giving away infrastructure funds and expand the Bright Line Test from five to ten years." --> a bit long and complex.
Oppose, since the nominator have multiple proposals. Not only this is breaking the guidelines, it also stresses the system. We also cannot let him get away with this since it would be unfair for other nominators. Feel free to contact me once all but one proposal is removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Archived, per [2]. He want to withdraw the nomination. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Kabuki[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kabuki (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I’ve looked at this article and found it interesting. I meets all of the requirements for a GA, however, at the bottom was a dance navigation box that could be eliminated since it is almost red. It started as a school project in 2009 and has developed since then. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 08:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's a very interesting topic, but I'm not sure why it is being proposed. It is virtually unchanged for the last six months. Is the proposer saying it has been of the standard all along? The whole point of the discussion is to improve the articles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at it today. There's a lot of work needed of the copy-editor type. One example: "Shōwa period" was present without the nihongo flat thing on top. And when the thingy is in, it links OK. Without, it doesn't link. Obviously we can look at it from the point of view of non-Japanese speakers. It uses American English spellings for what is an international topic. Anyway, there's going to be lots of detailed copy-editing needed here, so it awaits someone prepared to do it. It cannot be promoted without that work. Macdonald-ross (talk)
One change needed is to delete the dance box for a theatre box. It should be obvious that kabuki is primarily a form of theatre. In any event, large boxes should be set closed rather than open as they tend to distract the reader. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving the copyediting a go, but the section on commonly used kabuki words has no sources and I can't tell what's going on with it. To be clearer: The information does not make sense, and without a source to click on, I can't fix it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found many problems with the references:
  • Kabuki. Independent administrative agency Japan Art Council. Retrieved on 7 July 2009. too vague, where is it? Is it a website, or a place you can visit? What exactly is Kabuki? Is it the name of the place, or the agency's building?
  • Fukube, Satio, Hirosue, Mamoru and Tomita, Tetsunosuke. (2000). Kyougenziten. Heibonsya, Japan. too vague.
  • BIGLOBE encyclopedia. NEC BIGLOBE. Retrieved on 26 June 2009. citing another encyclopedia is strictly not allowed here.
  • SmaSTATION-5. TV-Asahi. Retrieved on 4th June 2009. I cannot verify this, but I assume that the author don't try to be deceiving.
  • Theater Guide Online. Theater Guide. Retrieved on 9th July 2009. super vague, per above
  • Encyclopedia. Heibonsya, Japan. (1996) above
  • Inside Japan. Kabuki no Ohanashi (Hibino, Saito). Retrieved on 20 May 2009. Probably ok, but I don't know what fact is it trying to support CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the reference section need extensive editing to be able to pass GA. Other than that, great job on your text and grammar! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, check [3].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Coldplay[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Coldplay (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It's good written but has a lot of red links. Maybe it will not so big problem for future. Frontfrog (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of content is missing actually. we need to start by updating the article first. The recent albums and events need to be added, so I would suggest withdrawing this nomination and working on the article a bit more before bringing it here again.-BRP ever 14:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frontfrog I think you aren't intentional about this, but nominating many articles to PGA and PVGA are not a good thing to do. You should only have one nomination open at the time. I suggest you close this nomination since it would takes a ton of time to make it good. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactStaccingCrane I think Coldplay may be not promoted. But Sento and Neptune need to save. Especially Sento. :Frontfrog (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should propose only 1 article at the time. After a proposal is finished, you can move to another one. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only 1, then sento. Frontfrog (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, archiving the rest now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, check [4].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Sentō[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sentō (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is about the most popular bath in Japan. I created the article and Darkfrog24 did the main work. Add authoritative sources, many illustrations, no red-links, a pretty simple language. Frontfrog (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets our criteria. It's about a culturally important thing. It's got a balance of sources, good images, good text, gets to the point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the text through a reading ease gizmo [5]
  • Flesch Reading Ease score: 75.4 (text scale): fairly easy to read.
  • Gunning Fog: 7.5 (text scale): fairly easy to read.
  • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 6.2: Sixth Grade.
  • The Coleman-Liau Index: 6: Sixth Grade
  • The SMOG Index: 5.9: Sixth Grade
  • Automated Readability Index: 4.8: Grade level: 8-9 yrs. old (Fourth and Fifth graders)
  • Linsear Write Formula : 6.8
Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have either removed or found different sourcing for all the facts attributed to Cool JP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment at Coldplay nomination: I think you aren't intentional about this, but nominating many articles to PGA and PVGA are not a good thing to do. You should only have one nomination open at the time. I suggest you close this nomination since it would takes a ton of time to make it good. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there are only 1 proposal, I honestly think the article is pretty good for GA. Lots of information has been extracted, and show an almost complete picture of sentō. Overall, I would support this proposal for GA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really good start. However, I think with an article around that size, that there would be a few more references, so in short I don't think the article is ready yet, but keep up the good work! --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@つがる The article looks properly sourced

. In topics like this, which is generally just facts, lengthy reference lists is usually just plus. Are they any statements that you would like to see more appropriately sourced?-- BRP ever 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps I am being too picky here, I don't object then. I just thought it would be better to have a few more references. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Concensus to Promote. After the discussion that lasted for more than 3 months, there doesn't seem to be any remaining concern against promoting the article. On the contrary, there are several comments in favor of promoting the article.-BRP ever 00:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Willis Tower[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Willis Tower (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The architectural gem in Chicago, the Willis Tower's article has been properly expanded with simplification work (with the average readability consensus of 7-8th grade), properly sourced and has well fleshed out information of the structure throughout the tower. No red links and every source has been thoroughly vetted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very good start, I think you are almost there. I made two or three minor changes. The only thing that I can say is that reading fluency in the second half of the article seems to be a little worse than in the first part (Please re-check with a native speaker?)--Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say starting at the section 'After opening'. But again: The only thing I can say is that fluencey seems to be less. I can't pinpoint you to things to actually change. Also keep in mind, I am not a native speaker, so my view may be flawed. --Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon: Gotcha. I've already reworked some sentences since your first comment was made. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since the nominator have multiple proposals. Not only this is breaking the guidelines, it also stresses the system. We also cannot let him get away with this since it would be unfair for other nominators. Feel free to contact me once all but one proposal is removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I feel that this article might be less complicated than Ardern's for GA, so I think I'll withdraw Ardern's GA nom and focus on Willis Tower being promoted to GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, I would archive the section for you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: Unless you think otherwise? Which one do you think has the best shot? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should choose it for yourselves. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon @CactiStaccingCrane, I went through the article and came across no major flaws. It seems to meet all the GA criteria. Do you guys still have any concerns? If not, I will go ahead and promote this one. If there are any concerns, we can discuss them here. Thanks-BRP ever 03:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever: Thank you for your feedback and edits. I'm open to fix on any issues and get this article promoted soon! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No major concerns, although I gonna do some minor touchups. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: & @BRPever: Thank you very much for this feedback, I cannot express my gratitude for you both! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Consensus to Promote. The discussion has been open for over three months now and it looks like all the concerns have been already been resolved, so I am promoting this one. Minor changes if/where necessary can be made to the page at any time, and major changes can be discussed on the talk page before adding it to the article. Thanks -BRP ever 00:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles/Archive_20&oldid=7867622"