Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 4

Requests[change source]

September 11 attacks[change source]

September 11 attacks (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Sinbad (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bare minimum on size, needs references (only one throughout the entire text). Relatively good readability scores so should not need more than minor tweaking (if that). -- Creol(talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Creol. Mass nominations are not productive. Synergy 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is mass deletions.--Sinbad (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article has a chance. The readability scores are good. Maybe if you added more content it would make it better! Yotcmdr (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why i nominated this one. So that people will get a bigger chane to help improving it. One man cant do all the job.--217.209.116.113 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion and a lot more diversity in sources is needed. Apart from that it's in pretty good shape. While agree it's not possible for one person to do all the work (most of the time), you only have one edit to the article, so bear in mind you could have put a lot more effort in than you have done before nominating it. But as it's here, think about both British, American sources (newspapers in particular); how the attacks were reported abroad; newspapers, magazines, journals, books will all have lots of information. With the tonnes of diverse material available, I think this can turn into a nice article, so I suggest having a look at some of them. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Too short. Lingamondo (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama[change source]

Barack Obama (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Sinbad (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too short (2.26K of text) and has high readability scores (fl=50) showing a need for simplification throughout. Sentence structure in opening paragraphs need attention. -- Creol(talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Creol. Mass nominations are not productive. Synergy 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is mass deletions.--Sinbad (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should try fixing them a little more before nominating all of them, ok? Synergy 16:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated them so that people would start fixing them up and perhaps spark a interest with somebody. They are not hopeless cases and could become "good" worthy.--217.209.116.113 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats just not something we do here. You haven't even edited one of the articles I checked on. If you are interested in bringing these articles up to PGA, then I'll thank you. But one at a time please, and make sure they are ready to be vetted. We don't bring articles here to fix them, but to discuss the possibility of their promotion. Synergy 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs much more prose and needs to cover more of the topic. There are also a ton of red links that need to be filled out. Malinaccier (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also find some better references. There are tonnes of independent sources relating to Obama, from all kinds of different mediums. Newspapers, journals, books (if you can get hold of them) will bring more diversity. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to expand on that: the first reference is to Obama's homepage; the second is to a blog (which is not a reliable source). The campaign website is fine, but good articles should have more depth and better coverage. Currently the reader does not get very much useful information from this article. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there are WAY too many red links for a PGA. I also think it needs to be expanded, whether this is in the rules or not I don't know, but that's my input.-- ✧ CM 16 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should be about twice this length. Lingamondo (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crich Tramway Village[change source]

Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
B G^7even 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs references, and there are a stack of redlinks (including in categories) that need fixing. Still quite a bit of work needed. Giggy (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, i'm aware of that ;). It currently meets 5 criteria ;). Red links will be created over the next few days (or at least, the ones i know should be here, others please create also!) and I have a bunch of references waiting to go in.
Thanks,
B G^7even 09:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you should have done all this before bringing the article to PGA, but it's up to you. I know nothing about the subject but can pitch in and help out with copyediting and stuff once you've put in all the content and references. Giggy (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I asked on IRC and I was told when it meets 5 criteria it's ok to come here... I doubt anyone else here will know much about the subject, but I certainly would like help with copyediting etc! All the content is now in the article, and I am just working on bringing in simple versions of the red linked articles.

Thanks,

B G^7even 14:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in Simple English. Multiple words in the opening paragraph need changed/linked/defined and it gets worse as it goes with colloquealisms being used ("Got the sack"?). Categories are another issue as many of its categories should not exist as they are only for a single article. Categories should not be created for a single article as they are meant to group articles together. -- Creol(talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure a lot of it isn't. As i've said several times i tried my best and that's the simplest I could do. I would like other users to help. The colloquealisms may have slipped in there accidentally as I didn't know what else to say... but I think you are now referring to Southampton Corporation Tramways and not Crich Tramway Village where I used "got the sack" instead of a work that I didn't understand until i looked it up at english wikitionary - and I speak with a experienced and complex level of english and know lots of words.
- As for categories, i've been speaking with tholly about this. We agreed that atm the cats are uneeded. However, as I progress in my articles on Derbyshire and Trams, and then eventually the UK and Transport in general, the cats will become fuller - but again they can be simplified.
- Thanks,
- B G^7even 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this brought here with outstanding issues? Juliancolton (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. It met half the criteria and so I was told I could list it. Have you got a problem? B G^7even 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the content complete? There's a lot of unsourced stuff still. Giggy (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the content is complete (or at least for now, i've got more to add!). As for refs, they are on their way, i'm juggling it around RL. Just one question though: What are our policies on refs? A lot of the refs are not accessible by the general public as they are in the archives at the Museum. Would they be accepted? Thanks, B G^7even 10:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Our policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cite the information in a way that someone else could go and check it. Giggy (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        (Sorry for the delay) Thanks. Would getting the references myself, adding the information to a website, without breaking a copyright law and reffing back to the original ref or course, and then reffing that site here be ok? Also, some information, such as liveries etc, come from the actual vehicles themselves - how could these be reffed? (And don't tell me that they are not accurate or reliable, they are actual objects ;) ). Thanks, B G^7even 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no need to post it on a new website. I don't understand why you can't simply source the original information. Information does not need to be online for you to source it. In terms of sourcing the "vehicle itself", chances are you won't need a source for the statement you are making here, as it would be considered common knowledge or something that could easily be deduced from observing the vehicle. Giggy (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt it time to bring this article to the voting?--Sinbad (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Red links are of plenty in the article. Lingamondo (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Central Pacific cyclone and Tropical Storm Laura (2008)[change source]

2006 Central Pacific cyclone (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Tropical Storm Laura (2008) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Two more newly-created articles fit for GA-status. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 12:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TS Laura, I added a {{fact}} tag, so that needs to be addressed.
Re: 2006 cyclone, is there any information about where the storm dissipated? Some expansion is needed, IMO

Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 cyclone was said to have dissipated at or near the coast of northwestern US. Also, I do not feel a {{fact}} tag is needed. Can you explain why you added it?

If you see that there is an error in my editing, feel free to go ahead and fix it yourself if you think it is necessary. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does say that the storm lost its convection off the coast of Oregon, but that's different than entirely dissipating. Also, I feel that bit of info in the Laura article needs a citation because without one, it seems a bit like OR. Juliancolton (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[change source]

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

This article looks like a good one to me. It covers the country's history from Unification to the present day. It is perfectley filled with facts. Tharnton345 08:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the order of the sections...Maybe move "History" up in the article, and place "People and culture" farther down.
Needs a lot more references--at least one per paragraph.
Create articles for red links.
Paragraphs in the article should have at least three sentences each.
Expand "Transportation" and "Politics"
Expand the lead paragraph.

Malinaccier (talk) (Rev) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, however, there is no way that I can support this article to become a GA at this time because this article has quite a few issues:

Not comprehensive enough. Whilst being comprehensive is not in itself a requirement for becoming a Good Article, I usually want articles that I support to become GAs to have as much comprehensiveness as it can so that it is extremely easy to understand by everyone. Since several of the paragraphs are very short currently, I can say with certainty that there just isn't enough to make this article a GA at this time.
Whilst an article is allowed to have a few red links to become a GA, I generally like all of the articles that I support for promotion to GA status have few to no red links as these help to increase the comprehensiveness of the article. I cannot support this for GA because there are several red links in this article that are important to the article.
The biggest issue that I have with this article is the fact that there are relatively no references for this article. No offense, but an article about a country needs at least 3-4 references per section before I will even consider supporting it for becoming a GA.

Sorry if I am too strict about which articles should become GAs, but this one just can't become a GA in its' current state. I will change my mind about this in the future if these issues are resolved, but until then, I do not believe that I can support this at this time. Cheers, Razor flame 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Look at the articles in other languages on it - many of them are better than this, but they have not been promoted. Lingamondo (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of red links, and echo above. Try looking at other good articles to see what we mean. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne[change source]

Avril Lavigne (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this may be just ready for GA. -- Da Punk '95 talk 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs copyediting... give me a while to do so. – RyanCross (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but the references need to be sourced properly with {{cite web}} and similar templates. – RyanCross (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Da Punk '95 talk 02:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough information about her career. Look at some other music (V)GAs for ideas. Giggy (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red links need to be filled out.
All sections need expansion.
Could use some pictures. Are there any at en:Avril Lavigne?

Malinaccier (talk) (Rev) 23:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've done some cleanup with redlinks and whatnot. How does it look? Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAID[change source]

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

Article already failed VGA once; currently at 41k all inclusive, after all deductions, about 35k are left; Article has no red-links. It is about a technical subject; readability shows it may be difficult to understand. Failed VGA once (here). Article pretty stable, since I stopped meddling about 2 months ago. --Eptalon (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several sections consist of only one or two sentences each. Perhaps you could fill these out a bit more? Otherwise, the article looks good. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Pacific hurricane season[change source]

Evan (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single source in this article. Additionally, all the hurricanes, except for Ioke, have no more than two sentences about them. These sections need to be expanded or grouped into combined sections. Either way (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest withdrawing this. The article is in no way "good". Each section should be expanded with at least a paragraph of information, and the entire article lacks references. Juliancolton (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lacks too much info. This is far from being GA-quality. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 09:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Pacific hurricane season[change source]

1997 Pacific hurricane season (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Evan (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out all redlinks.
There are some errors in the citations.
"Image:Hurricane Pauline off the Mexican coast.gif" is not showing up.
Your sections may not be correct. Look at the Table of Contents.
The article could use some simplifying.

Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) (review) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Evan (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Hurricane Nora so large? Each section should be two paragraphs at most. Also, all of the sections need {{Infobox Hurricane Small}}. One more thing; you haven't completed any of Malinaccier's suggestions as far as I can tell. Juliancolton (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It seems of good length, with no chunks of red links, and with images. Lingamondo (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suggest withdrawing this nomination; the article is missing several storms, and is thus nowhere near comprehensive. Juliancolton (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania[change source]

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

After a lot of work and much expansion, I believe that this is ready for GA status. While I know that there are still a lot of red links, I (and hopefully other editors) will be working on filling in those red links. If you could just ignore that fact, I know that this could easily make it to GA status. Because it is an article about a country, there is a lot of pertinant information on the subject, which is why the article is 50kb long. Could anyone please go through this article and tell me two things: 1. Is it ready for GA status and 2. If not, what needs work to make it GA status. Thanks, Razor flame 06:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make this short, so you can get editing it quickly. There are way too many red links! Also, I think it needs to be illustrated better (more picture). I'd also like to point out, that the history section is much longer than the other section and to make averything more even, an expansion of geography culture etc... wouldn't harm anyone. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 10:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I realize that there are still quite a few red links for this article. While I do believe that removing some of the red links might be a good idea now, in the future, when I will work on getting this article to VGA status, those red links that were removed will have to be re-added back onto the article, so instead of just deleting them, I think that they should stay and get filled in. As for the note about expanding each of the other sections, here is why it wouldn't work: There just isn't enough information to make the other sections much longer than they already are (this is true for the Geography and Climate sections). I have already added in as much information as I can to those two sections. As for the Culture section, that isn't one of my strong points, so if anyone would like to expand that section, that would be greatly appreciated. As for the History section, the reason why I made it so long was because I wanted to include as much information as possible in that section so that it could become a VGA sometime in the near future. While I do realize that it still needs quite a bit of work, I still think that the amount of work already put in has been enormous. Thanks for the help :). Razor flame 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the above. It may be simply easier to just remove some of the hyperlinks rather than create articles for all of them. Lingamondo (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be a good idea because those articles would need to remain linked because they are important terms that will need the pages created in order for that article to become a VGA. Razor flame 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the redlinks for this article. Synergy 15:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright :). I added in the Economy section to Romania last night. Cheers, Razor flame 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress on Romania[change source]

Alright guys! Here is what has been accomplished for Romania:

The number of red links is now down to only 5 on the text of the page (not including the ones in pictures or references). Thanks go out to Synergy for this :).
The complexity of the article has been reduced down by a lot.
Images have been added to the more dry sections of the article.

In short, I believe that after those last few red links are created, this is a viable option for moving this to the voting section. What say you guys? Cheers, Razor flame 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there is work to be done to make it easier to read. Reading figures need improvement to get the article up to GA. I have made a suggestion on the talk page re. opening paragraph. Thoughts?--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will make a note on the talk page. Cheers, Razor flame 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Goya[change source]

Francisco de Goya (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I know this article is rather short, around 7k, after deductions, but it looks well-written to me, and it has very good readability] scores. On the downside, there are a few red-links left (some of which refer to other painters, like Manet, Degas or Renoir). Nevertheless I think this article has the potential to become a Good Article. --Eptalon (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, well written and easy to understand. I have added a few more links and fixed some typos. Once the red-links are fixed it should be promoted. --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crich Tramway Village[change source]

Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Bringing this back because a) we will run out of noms soon and b) I feel it's now ready (except the redlinks which will be done tomorrow). I have two weeks-ish to make it perfect and it will be ;). Whilst I am still adding little bits of content, it is more updating and reference finding ;). Please, give me all the comments you have! Thanks, B G^7even 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "History of the museum" section needs sourcing. Additionally, the footnotes should be formatted. Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, will add some sources and format the footnotes now.

Comment. I don't know how appropriate the list of trams or the list of "milestones" are. All I know is, it wouldn't fly at all on the regular English Wikipedia. ^Tezkag₇₂ 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the sections are/were in the en article (though smaller) and no-one has complained. However, I can fit the milestones into the prose if needed, and the tramcars could always go to another article... B G^7even 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Sixteen (2008)[change source]

Tropical Depression Sixteen (2008) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I tried most of the simplifying I could do for the article. Anyone is welcome to furthur help simplify the context if needed. However, I believe after massive editing on this article, it might be ready as a certified GA-article. Things to take note of: No redlinks, plenty of references, fits standard article length for GAs, contains informative images, and looks awesome on IE 7. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 09:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Could you please format the last three references properly?~~

Done, --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The impact section should be expanded a bit.
Also, the fatality and damage totals need to be updated with more current information.

Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassowary[change source]

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

I think this article meets most of the criteria, all red links have been fixed. It probably needs some copy editing by someone else. I thinks its readability is good. The article has been used as a DYK. I would love to get some thought about it. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I saw it I thought isn't this a Good article?, I think it's a great article and potential VGA. It scores very well on the readabilty (here). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 12:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above. I've made a few tweaks, mostly for style, and the article is quite good. Let alone GA, it seems well on its way to becoming a VGA. Juliancolton (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My only wonder is whether the bullet-pointed list should be turned into prose. It doesn't affect my support of this article's promotion, but it might read better. Just me though. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a teacher working with students with learning disabilities and literacy issues, I have found a bullet list is usually much easier to read - although it can be overdone. Here I think it clearly shows the different views held by scientists which would get lost in prose.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Girls 1 Cup[change source]

2 Girls 1 Cup (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I would like to propose this as a good article. Kind regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many redlinks for a GA.
Might need to simply several words (i.e. probation, forfeiture, appease, surrender, etc.)
Needs a (minor?) clean-up. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 07:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be just a small bit too short; write like a paragraph more, and it probably fits length requirements.--Eptalon (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort out the redlinks and make it a bit longer. Usually I reckon GAs should have at least one image but in this case maybe not xD FSM ^Noodly? 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of the director or another relevant person would be nice to have, if possible. –Juliancolton (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World History[change source]

World History (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi all. This article is currently 80k and has 93 references, all without a single redlink. I would therefore like to propose that this article become a Good Article while waiting for it to get up to code with the VGA standards. I think that this article meets the GA requirements and would be a great addition to our Good Articles. Cheers, Razor flame 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's a tad too lengthy. Might want to split it up into sub-articles. Otherwise, it is a good (V)GA candidate. Nice work:) --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to me (I have been one of three authors who wrote this), but I think it might need more references; it might be good as it is, for a GA, but definitely needs more references for a VGA. As to length: It is thought as an overview article that links to the different articles, which explain the subjects in more detail. --Eptalon (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some overview ;). Razor flame 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Basilica[change source]

St. Peter's Basilica (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi all. I would like to propose this article for GA status. It recently failed a VGA vote for problems with red links amongst other errors, but I believe that those red links could be filled in and that this article would be a great Good Article. What do you guys think of this proposal? Cheers, Razor flame 17:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you fill in those redlinks, then it for be bumped up to a good article. Nice work:) --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 07:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article that I was working on. Ask one of the editors who has been working on it to fill in the redlinks, because this is one area of interest that I have no interest in. I just proposed it here because it failed the VGA promotion and because it definitely meets at least half of the GA requirements. Cheers, Razor flame 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAID[change source]

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

I am re-proposing this article with the same reasoning as Eptalon brought up in the previous proposal. I believe that this article meets the GA standards and should be promoted to GA status Thanks, Razor flame 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above; nice work. But please keep in mind of the article lengths. :P --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 07:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an awful lot of unsourced information here. Also, most of the references are not formatted correctly. –Juliancolton (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wristband[change source]

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

Hi. I'd like to propose Wristband to be a good article. There are no redlinks but there are some wikt: links that don't lead to definitions (so I guess they are redlinks of a sort). I wrote the article from scratch to get rid of a redlink in Color of the day (police) which is another article I wrote and want to put forth for GA (soon). Wristband is 3.5kB (just text) so it meets the minimum size. fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I don't understand is; what's with the overly abundant interwiki links to wikitionary? Could you re-link them to here, and write them out if necessary? Seems like an excuse to cover up/hide redlinks from an article. :P --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done My usual thought in using wikt: links is that if my use of a term needs to be defined then I put in the link. I have now noticed that some of the links I put in are valid links here. There were not used as an excuse to cover up redlinks; there still aren't any redlinks even now I've pointed them here. There, are a couple of wikt: links that don't exist (yet) but I'll sort them out also. Cheers :) fr33kman ^{t - c} 21:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Per concerns raised in voting below fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Röhm[change source]

Ernst Röhm (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi all! I want to propose Ernst Röhm for a good article. The article has only one redlink in the template at the bottom, 6.6k and 9 references. I think it should be a good article. Regards, Barras (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last redlink is blue now. Regards, Barras (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article still needs a lot of work - there is some very strange English in places. For example: "After the murder of Röhm the pursuit of homosexuals rose up." I have corrected a lot spelling mistakes. Some bits confuse me: he was the third son, but only an elder brother and sister are mentioned - do you mean third child? His father was a train director - is this a conductor (takes tickets) or a company director (runs a train company)?--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"he was the third son, but only an elder brother and sister are mentioned": I mean chlid and corrected it. A train director is a person like a businessman. I changed it to "train chief inspector". That should be better. Barras (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chenged "After the murder of Röhm the pursuit of homosexuals rose up." into "After the death of Röhm, more and more homosexuals got imprisoned". I hope that is easier to understand. Barras (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting better:) I'll do some more editing --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put in more information about his time with the Bolivian military? Did he go to South America? This sounds interesting.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no information to this time. No documents. Nothing. Barras (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this article moved to Talk:Ernst Röhm Please continue talk there --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leathermouth[change source]

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

Hi everybody. I want to propose a new article up for GA nomination. No redlinks, 5.1k, and 9 references. There's nothing surprising about this, except that this is NOT a tropical cyclone-related article. Cheers:) --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a bit short, per script output. Out of experience, the minimal GA candidate is about 10-12k long. The script output linked should give more than 3.5k (3500 bytes) for both text and prose.--Eptalon (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too short - doesn't have the depth a good article should have, perhaps some photos too. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's largely a copy of the en version. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what was I supposed to do with it? Write a dictionary entry for Leathermouth? --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? –Juliancolton (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the en version:
- En: "Leathermouth formed in 2007 by some friends of My Chemical Romance's rhythm guitarist Frank Iero.[1] Iero heard a few demo tracks from the band, and wanted to sign the band to his own independent label."
- Simple: "Leathermouth started in 2007 by some friends of My Chemical Romance's rhythm guitarist Frank Iero.[1] Iero heard a few demo songs from the band, and wanted to sign the band to his own independent label."

Another example:
- En: "Leathermouth played their first shows in the summer of 2008 alongside Warship for the Fall 2008 Reggie and the Full Effect "Farewell Tour".[5] Iero hopes to tour with Leathermouth when he is not working with My Chemical Romance.[6]"
- Simple: "Leathermouth played their first shows in the summer of 2008 alongside Warship for the Fall 2008 Reggie and the Full Effect "Farewell Tour".[5] Iero hopes to tour with Leathermouth when he is not working with My Chemical Romance.[6]"

I'm rather disappointed at what little attempt there was to simplify the article. –Juliancolton (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastide[change source]

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

Hi. Eptalon and I have been working on this article for a while (especially eptalon ;) ) and I think it meets GA standards. There are still some red links but they are french communes, so I can make them pretty quickly! The biggest issue is simplifying the Charta. Other minor issues can be found on Bastide's talk page. Ultimately, eptalon and I would like it to be a VGA. Thanks, and feel free to comment! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the redlinks, the article looks like a clean candidate for GA. If you can fill in the missing links before voting time, I would {{support}} it. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fill in the red links, and this would be a great candidate for GA status. Razor flame 21:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the (non-exhaustive) list of Basides into its own article; this should have taken care of most red links--Eptalon (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They will still need to be completed before this article will be able to become a VGA :). Cheers, Razor flame 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check if the section headings are appropriate? A number of section headings are worded into a question. Chenzw Talk 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros.[change source]

Super Smash Bros. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Greetings, to whoever is reading this. I'd like Super Smash Bros. to become a good article since it meets the requirements and it provides a lot of information. I would really appreaciate it if this was promoted to a GA. Claim goal 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few redlinks, problems with ref tags not formatted correctly, cats that don't exist, years shouldn't be linked. fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as fr33k, and some grammar errors too. Simon^KSK_{Contradict me...} 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[change source]

Crich Tramway Village[change source]

Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Oppose - Red links. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 00:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - good article, but can be further simplified. Some sections also need breaking down into smaller sections. --Gwib^-(talk)- 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Failed to get 5 votes, not promoted --Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama[change source]

Barack Obama (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Oppose - Red links. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 00:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - It's fine, but there is so much potential for more information. Technically, it fits borderline GA criteria, however, it can be expanded tenfold. More should be added. --Gwib^-(talk)- 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Faield to get 5 votes, not promoted --Eptalon (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 attacks[change source]

September 11 attacks (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Oppose - Red links. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 00:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - It's fine, but there is so much potential for more information. Technically, it fits borderline GA criteria, however, it can be expanded tenfold. More should be added. --Gwib^-(talk)- 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Gwib.--Chenzw Talk 09:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - Normally, this article should be rated as a start-class. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Failed to get 5 votes, not promoted --Eptalon (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crich Tramway Village[change source]

Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

B G^7even 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for now as spelling error in first sentence and the lack of flow in the introduction gives me concern about the rest of the article Soup Dish (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Remove oppose assuming rewording of intro Soup Dish (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SoupDish could you possibly give me some examples of where it flows badly, and also point out the spelling error? Thanks, B G^7even 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Crich Tramway Village, home of the National Tramway Museum, is a museum that is completly outside about trams and tramways." Surely the key piece of information is that it is about trams and tramways, not that it is outside? Seems like "Gordon Brown is a man with a glass eye who is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"! Soup Dish (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe very good point ;) I will re-word the paragraph. Thanks! B G^7even 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per sourcing issues. The entire History of the museum section needs references, and as I said above, the references that do exist need to be formatted properly. Verifiability is an important part of an encyclopedia, and I'm afraid that if an article is not verifiable, we can't be calling it "good". Juliancolton (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Central Pacific cyclone[change source]

2006 Central Pacific cyclone (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

B G^7even 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I didn't get past the first paragraph, but "strange weather event"? Strange is too much of a weasel word Soup Dish (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean a peacock word? Juliancolton (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly both. It's the wrong choice of word, though (strange, that is, and possibly weasel!) Soup Dish (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Needs quite a bit of simplification. –Juliancolton (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be simplified before I can vote in support of this article. Razor flame 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Laura (2008)[change source]

Tropical Storm Laura (2008) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

B G^7even 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to Oppose. The meteorological history section is pretty complex, and the impact section needs to be expanded. Also, there's a {{fact}} tag. Juliancolton (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton. Some parts of this article are very complex and would need a complete copyedit and simplification before this article can become a GA. If you fix this before this vote closes and prove that you did, I will change my vote to support. Razor flame 18:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Goya[change source]

Francisco de Goya (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

B G^7even 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now The painter's full name isn't used in the intro, so I can't trust the rest of the article Soup Dish (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Actually, that is a daft oppose Soup Dish (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As with below, this article doesn't have enough references. The entire Life section needs to be sourced. Juliancolton (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be sourced appropriately before I can support this article for GA status. Cheers, Razor flame 16:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[change source]

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

Oppose Not ready for GA status. It doesn't have enough references and the sentence structure, fluidity, and simplicity needs a good bit of work before I will be able to support this article becoming a GA. Razor flame 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Needs at least a major re-write. Other things should also be fixed as what Razorflame has mentioned. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Failed to get 5 votes, not promoted --B G^7even 10:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne[change source]

Avril Lavigne (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Oppose - Red links. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 00:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Support Changed from oppose, most of red links removed (please try and create them anyway, :D!!) Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - but it also only borderline fits size. --Gwib^-(talk)- 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've removed most of the red links, and I think it looks good. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Barely fits criteria for GA quality. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 22:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - On the second thought, I must oppose the article with the notes RyanCross has brought up. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of what RyanCross said. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A few red links but otherwise a good article. --Terryblack (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Now that Belleville, Ontario is created (which is important, because Avril Lange was born there), I can safely support this candidate in becoming a GA because it fits the criteria and is simple enough. Cheers, Razor flame 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The lead section should really contain some information about all her albums, not just Let Go. Look at for an example. Chart performance would be good to add also.
In total, she has sold over 21 million albums to this date. – needs reference(s) Done
discovered – Change to "found" Done
Link "street" Done
"Single" can mean different things. In this case, it is single (song). Please link that. Done
Her most famous single currently is Girlfriend. – Put quotes around "Girlfriend". It's a song name. Done
witnesses &ndash: Seems like a complex word to me Done
The sections on albums need to be italicized.
Most of the "Music" sections are too short (two sentences? come on) Kind of done
and number two in the United States.Two months later – Space needed if you can see. Done
he won an award for the music video "Complicated", the first single off Let Go.. – Two periods? Remove one of them. Done
She made her breakthrough with "Complicated", "Sk8er Boi" then "Don't Tell Me" – Delink "Complicated". Already linked in previous sentence. Done
and the first two singles off Let Go both entered the top 10 in the music charts. "Let go" should be italicized, not bolded. Also, link needed for "music charts". There are many different music charts. Done
"Total Request Live", a current red link, is a television show, so needs to be italicized. Done
incidences – complex Done
later followed by other incidences of rudeness and violence.[9]. – remove the period after ref [9] Done
all the good stuff."[11]. – same as above Done
Girlfriend, the first single from the album, got to number one in seven countries [12]. 1) Girlfriend needs quotes around it, and 2) the red should be formatted after the period. Kind of done
sued – needs linking
The Best Damn Tour – en.wikipedia has it linked to the The Best Damn Thing... so link to The_Best_Damn_Tour#The_Best_Damn_Tour
spotted – Again, could mean different things. Either link, or reword to "saw"
In Avril_Lavigne#Filmography, two refs are italicized. Doesn't need to be.
Some references are either missing publishers, accessdates, both, or they aren't even referenced properly at all ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc.).

There are just too many basic issues that need to be addressed for me to support at the moment. — RyanCross (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner. I only recently thought about commenting here. — RyanCross (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of them. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A smart thing to do would be to mark which ones you fixed so we all know what you did. ;) — RyanCross (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Promoted; 71% support--B G^7even

RAID[change source]

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

Weak oppose While I do believe that this article is on the right track, there are a few things that are bugging me: First, there are still some complex words (logical, research, and technology). Second, there are some sentences throughout the article that just don't flow very well and would also be hard for someone who didn't know English to read. The third thing that I am concerned abuot is the ratio of references over length of article. This article is on the fairly lengthy side, so I don't think that 14 references will cut it. The whole first part of the article has very few references, and there are other sections throughout that also don't have any references. Fix all of these things and I will change my vote to support. Razor flame 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and wrote Logical disk (or rather, copied some from EnWP. Would you mind putting links to the terms you feel are hard-to-understand? - As to fluidity, please note, I am not a native speaker, so help would definitely be appreciated; Will be looking for more refs though. --Eptalon (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technology and research were a few words that I felt would be hard for a non-native English speaker to know what they mean. As to the sentence fluidity, it was borderline of being fine, so you needn't worry about it :). Cheers, Razor flame 14:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Simply link those complex words and the article will do fine. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 11:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Failed to get 5 votes, not promoted --B G^7even 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Pacific hurricane season[change source]

1997 Pacific hurricane season (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Oppose No, this isn't ready for GA status. First, the sentences are long and the sentence structure and fluidity need simplification and work. Second, there are some unsourced statements that need sources because they are either statistics or statements that require references. Fix both of these things and I will change my vote to support. Razor flame 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If I was writing this, I would barely consider this halfway done before even nominating it for GA-status. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 11:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are several storms missing. Juliancolton (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Failed to get 5 votes, not promoted --B G^7even 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania[change source]

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

Support After several grueling months and several hundred revisions made by both me and Synergy, this article finally meets GA standards. While it may still need a little general copyediting, problems such as these are easily fixed and by the time this vote is over, the copyediting on this article will be complete. Cheers, Razor flame 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 12:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to strongly support? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Sure. The article

well exceeds the minimum length for GAs,
has zero redlinks (although I might have skipped some),
provides a chock-full stack of references and notes to back up the article,
uses real simple english (which I'm really impressed on),
contains images, and
already satisfies some of the VGA criteria as well.

I was impressed (and envious) about Razorflame and Synergy writing awesome article(s). --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 11:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support It still needs work, but I do believe we will be fixing the rest before we take it to VGA. Synergy 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have gone over it in detail today. I think we have a good article.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't see any issues with it. B G^7even 15:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted; 100% support--B G^7even 15:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Sixteen (2008)[change source]

Tropical Depression Sixteen (2008) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

B G^7even 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Duh. :P --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The current article says there were 16 deaths, yet current estimates place the total at more than 90. This leads me to question the entire article's accuracy, as it appears to be based off an early revision of the en.wp article. Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Juliancolton for the same reasons as he stated. Nothing more that I can add to it. Cheers, Razor flame 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated. ...Aurora... (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only the infobox was updated. As far as I can tell, most of the impact section is out of date. Juliancolton (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above concerns and nonsensical early wording of "Because of its close distance towards land" Soup Dish (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Failed to get 5 votes, not promoted --Gob lin 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Barry (2007)[change source]

Tropical Storm Barry (2007) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

–Juliancolton (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please find references for the two fact templates I added into the introduction of the article. Once you have done that, I will change this oppose into a support. Cheers, Razor flame 16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Changing my vote to a Support now that the user has fixed the problem. Cheers, Razor flame 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, –Juliancolton (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry to have left it late but I´ve made a few comments on the talkpage which I think need to be addressed before I can support. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the issues you left on the talk page. Cheers, –Juliancolton (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. This is a good article. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) –Juliancolton (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support a good article, makes me glad I live in Australia! --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No problems over here, good job! Chenzw Talk 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Well done! obento musubi 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Promoted. obento musubi 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassowary[change source]

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

Razor flame 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ sorry to be late but I've left a few comments on the talkpage which I think should be addressed before it can be a good article. Good luck, let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still concerned over Latin names and the layout in Firefox, but not enough to oppose. Perhaps the Latin names can be addressed by footnotes or something? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all comments addressed, see talkpage.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article now meets all of the GA standards now that all of the concerns left by TRMOT have been taken care of. I now support this article becoming a GA. Cheers, Razor flame 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article meets the requirements --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – many sources, cleaned up, no red links, reads simply. Seems fine with me. TheAE talk 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have made some edits to the prose of the article, and I feel now that it is GA worthy. obento musubi 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great article. –Juliancolton (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — RyanCross (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Promoted. obento musubi 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wristband[change source]

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

Oppose - All of the sections (except for "awareness wristbands") are stubs, and most contain one-sentence subsections. I would like to see more info being added to it. Additionally, most of the article focuses on one topic about what type of wristbands there are. I think there can be room for improvement. Also there are too many interlinks to wikitionary, something that I am not so sure about. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 09:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with Snake311 here. The sections are too short and this article needs more sources. It needs to be more comprehensive. Currently, it is not. Cheers, Razor flame 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Okay guys, let me work on it and I'll re-sub it later on. It technically does fit the current criteria but I can understand the concerns :) fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]