Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 5

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

Requests[change source]

Dead Memories[change source]

Dead Memories (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hello. I have been dedicating some time and effort to re-write this article and I think I now appears to meet the majority of GA standards. Right now there appears to be no redlinks (not including the template at the very bottom), and contains more than 10kb of information. It also contains a dozen references. I think that Dead Memories is a freaken awesome that it has been stuck in my head for several days, which somehow motivated me to contribute to the article.

Note: If you're a fan of metal or Slipknot, you should give it a listen. :) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not ready for GA status. It needs a complete copyedit for sentence length and complexity and I could use a bit more sourced information. Razorflame 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, not ready. The section on the video is overly complex especially. FrancesO (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Color of the day (police)[change source]

Color of the day (police) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is an article I wrote from scratch for enWP and imported here (as copyright holder). It has a couple of redlinks (which I will fix) but it is very well sourced and I think that it meets all the PGA criteria now. It could do with at lest one image, but i've been unable to find a relevant one. I can add images of NYPD police, but not of any free images of NYPD undercover cops wearing the color of the day. It has had one DYK nom that got two yes !votes, which is pretty good I guess. fr33kman talk 06:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's not long enough right now, with too many red links. Also it currently only has about 10 links to it and out of them only one or two are from the mainspace. FSM Noodly? 23:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It's longer than the minimum in the criteria. I've noticed people frequently cite "too short" in these discussions; perhaps the criteria need changing? Also, three links are from mainspace; I'll add more fr33kman talk 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It now has six links from mainspace fr33kman talk 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It now has no redlinks fr33kman talk 04:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rickrolling[change source]

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

OK, I've put in a lot of time for this article and it is now ready for GA imo. I'd be greatly honored if it passed. ѕwirlвoy  23:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It´s a little on the short side, but no major trauma there. I think the lead needs a better introduction. Saying "meme that includes..." is a little vague for me. You have "bait and switch" followed by "bait or switch", a little confusing to a simple English reader I think. Also, be consistent with the capitalisation. Is it RickRolling, rickrolling or Rickrolling? Don´t like that bare URL in the Other examples section. You should describe what happens and add the URL in a well-formatted reference. Also, consider an image of Rick himself, File:Rick Astley-cropped.jpg is free to use. Ref 10, why link the author as it´s red linked? You don´t link any of the others... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Orange (fruit)[change source]

Orange (fruit) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article looks good to me, and very nicely illustrated. Just a couple of redlinks I'll make, but apart from that looks like GA standards. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources/refs should be good. Barras (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I'll get some too. =) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Refs? From where? Weareoranges.net???? It looks good, just fix the redlinks. SimonKSK 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I love refs. 2 are not enough for me. Barras (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This article does not have enough sources. Please find some more; if you do, I will support it becoming a GA. Cheers, Razorflame 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Too many unsourced facts, for example there is nothing to reference the Navel orange coming from a monastery in Brazil. More sources needed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Echoing all of the above. It needs heaps of references otherwise the "Traditions" section is just pure original research. Do not take this to voting unless the references are fixed. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, as well. Entire sections are unsourced; this needs quite a bit of work before it can be taken to voting. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Crich Tramway Village[change source]

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

I present to the community Crich Tramway Village for consideration as a Good Article. I believe that it meets most of the criteria, and that it is pretty much as good as it can get. I admit there are still a few things that need doing, including red link creation, further simplification and copy-editing, but this will be completed during this discussion time as will any other issues that are raised. I would like to thank DefenseSupportParty, Yotcmdr, The Rambling Man, Barras and anyone else who has helped me with simplifying the article and doing other jobs. Cheers, Goblin 10:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Still some simplification and perhaps a little more linking to be done before I can support at this time. However it is in really good shape and perhaps a little more creative writing around the complex stuff will convince me that this is a GA. Good work on looking at my comments by the way. A pleasure to work with you. Good luck. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the kind words :) I think it is pretty much there - i've worked on all the comments that your brought up - and I just wondered if there was anything else in particular that you felt needed working on? In my opinion it's just red links, but I welcome and want other people's! Cheers, Goblin 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Göring[change source]

Hermann Göring (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi all! I want to propose this article for GA. It has two pictures and some cites. The article has no redlinks. Regards, Barras (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Some dates are linked, some aren't, I would be consistent and unlink them all. Some more references would be useful, e.g. Early life section has only two references with three paragraphs uncited. Finally, the story ends abruptly. The main part of the article doesn't really go into his suicide etc. Perhaps expand this so it's not just mentioned in the lead. Otherwise it's in half decent shape, good work. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done - I unlinked the dates, added some refs and write one or two sentences about his suicide. I hope thats OK now. Regards, Barras (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Better. I still feel his suicide and later years could be expanded a little but this is GA, not VGA and the article is decently referenced and nicely illustrated. Good work Barras. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Hall[change source]

Ben Hall (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This has been a pet project of mine for a long time. Ben is a very famous criminal in Australia. The article meets all the criteria except that not enough other people have worked on it. I would really like some other opinions because I think I get to close to the article and miss obvious flaws and mistakes.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good overall. I do have some minor concerns, though. First, is there a reason for the mix of external link-style sourcing and inline citations in the "Music, Art, Movies and Books" section? Also, citations number #31 and #32 are barelinks. Another thing I notice is that some of the dates (eg. January 1) are linked, while others aren't. Not a big deal, but consistency throughout is preferable. Regards, –Juliancolton (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have used citations when needed to support a fact. I used the external link to take the reader straight to the item written about, so for example the external link for the song Streets of Forbes goes directly to the music and words, and the link to Maroney's paintings goes straight to a copy of the painting. I also linked externally to two pages on the enwiki which I didn't want to use as citations and for which there was no article on the sewp. I have reformatted these links now which I hope makes it clearer. The other issues I'll look at later tonight. Thanks for the comments :) --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Barelink citations fixed. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You were right about the dates. The only dates now linked are the main dates that link to the Date pages where there is an entry from the article --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Much better, thanks! Sorry for the delayed reply. –Juliancolton (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nudity[change source]

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

Failed a VGA (here). My impression is though that there is enough material (and simple enough language) for a GA status. Note that I thought about it for a long time before proposing this article to become a good article. At the moment there is one red-link left in the article. --Eptalon (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is very close. I have concerns that in parts it is not using enough basic English. For example, in the Nudity and children section there are words like: allegations, raided, exhibition, featuring, modesty (sorry, it was already defined in a whole section), participants, concluded, exposure, and negative. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Portman Road[change source]

Portman Road (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Expanded thoroughly today. A few too many redlinks for VGA right now, but firmly believe it's good enough for GA. I will attend to concerns raised here as soon as practicable. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything to improve. It is easy to understand and well referenced. Realy a good work. Barras (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
But it would be nice, if you fill in some of the redlinks. Only for the look. Barras (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For sure. If we get the GFDL issue sorted out then it'll be real easy since for the next few days I'm real stressed at work. But thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've now reduced the number of red links to two, one of which doesn't have a corresponding article yet on en.wiki. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
One left now thanks to Yotcmdr... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I count two. Barras (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, me too. But this is PGA, not PVGA, so I think it's fine right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Two redlinks are ok. I can't find any more concerns. Barras (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

India[change source]

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

Used to be a VGA, but was demoted to regular article; can it be made into a GA with relatively little effort? --Eptalon (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The section on the economy might need updating for changes since late 2008 and early 2009. --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the maintenance tag(s) need fixing. Images are somewhat cluttered up on my browser, and many of them are too big. Per Peterdownunder, the economy section will need to be fully revisited and rechecked. Some style problems also, but nothing too heavy on that front. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Paolo Uccello[change source]

Paolo Uccello (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well-sourced article of a good size (about 10k all inclusive); two red-links. Would probably also make a VGA candidate, but I prefer to go for GA first. Note: I did not contribute to the article. --Eptalon (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea, move it, perhaps? --Eptalon (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved it to Paolo Uccello. So it is like enWP. Barras (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Lead could use expansion beyond two sentences. It's supposed to summarise the whole article after all. I think, if available, the book references should be made more specific, i.e. page numbers, quotes etc. Not a killer for GA I know, but have no way at all to check any of these facts easily. I think we could link more terminology, e.g. breakfast, lunch, dinner (oh and there's a comma missing in the article there!), and as per my normal MOS concerns, avoid contractions, use words for numbers less than ten etc. The See also is redundant as it's linked in the article, and on its own seems a little odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment I haven't been around for a while and didn't notice that this had been proposed. The reason that it was under the name of Uccello is that a great number of Medieval and Renaissance painters are known by a single name. They are usually only given two names if their single name is likely to cause confusion eg Daddo Daddi, Barnardo Daddi, Taddeo Gaddi and Taddeo di Bartolo.
In this case "Uccello" wasn't the man's proper name. It was his nickname.
Other artists who should be listed under just one name are Michelangelo and Raphael. Leonardo should be under the heading of as Leonardo da Vinci, but also accesible as, and listed as Leonardo. He should not be listed under "da" (of).
Verrocchio, Botticelli, Titian, Tintoretto, Giogione, Caravaggio, Giotto, Ghirlandaio, Perugino, Signorelli, Mantegna etc only require one name.
There were actually two Ghirladaios. The other is always known as Davido Ghirlandaio. His output, his works and his fame are all small compared with his brother's. There were three Bellinis so they all require two names.
The article lacks inline reference. The references are all from the two sources given below. I'll slot them in.
Re links- it is generally considered not necessary to link anything as basic as breakfast lunch and dinner. Knowing more about these subjects isn't helpful to the article. And the names of the three daily meals are learnt in English lesson Number Two, right after the days of the week and "My name is Paolo."
Amandajm (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin[change source]

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

I know that this isn't ready to become a GA yet, but I could use some pointers as to what needs to be fixed (besides the obvious breaches in the GA requirements). Thanks, Razorflame 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Wisconsin fr33kman talk 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, beyond the obvious red link overdose and maintenance tags, you should expand the lead a bit. I would merge Geography with its subsection and have Geography and climate as a single section. Consider finding an image of something significant to Wisconsin to brighten the article up a bit. I would link far fewer websites and instead use some of the content of them in the article, and reference them from there instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would suggest adding a good deal of information. en:Wisconsin is 4,738 words long, and although we don't have to include every last detail, we need a general overview of the subject. Most notably, the article lacks a history section. –Juliancolton (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

SS Andrea Doria[change source]

SS Andrea Doria (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Probably is close to meeting GA requirements. Meets 7-8 of 9 criteria, just need some extra attention from editors.

  • 1:Belongs in Wikipedia? Yes, is a historic passenger vessel that is one of the greatest maritime disasters of all time.
  • 2:Meets minimum length? Yes, page is 10.1 kilobytes long as of 23:33, March 27, 2009. (compare with min. length of 3.5 kb)
  • 3: Revisions by other editors? No. So far not.
  • 4: Categorized? Yes, fits in Category:Ships and Category:Disasters.
  • 5: Last few revisions are minor? Yes, check article history.
  • 6: All important terms linked and few red links left? Unsure. There are several (6) red links, probably due to typos.
  • 7: Illustrations? Yes, this article has two.
  • 8: No improvement templates? Yes. None as of 27 March 2009.
  • 9: Appropriately referenced? Yes, reference tags are used correctly and without errors.

Hmmm...not sure about this one. I'll give you some more information once I look over the article in more detail. Cheers, Razorflame 00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this article is not ready for GA status yet. There are a lot of unsourced claims in this article that I have marked with the {{fact}} template. These will need to be fixed before it can gain GA status. Second, you did not attribute the article properly. Third, please read over our Wikipedia:Manual of Style, as I found some issues with this article in following the MoS. Cheers, Razorflame 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, I am a little confused over what "attribute" means in a Wikipedia article?themaee 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, needs some work. Needs some major items to be linked (e.g. ocean liner - it is, after all, the principal subject). There are a number of maintenance tags which must be fixed. "The sinking of Andrea Doria marked the end of ocean liner travel and the beginning of airplane travel." is perhaps one of the most hyperbolic statements I have ever read. Judging by the rate at which other issues have been addressed, there's no much chance of these being sorted out in the next few days. Shame that we get so many PGAs and so few people prepared to nominate but not act on comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Röhm[change source]

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

Hi all. I want to repropose this article for GA. I think, I fixed the concerns of the last voting and hope, I get some input. The last voting was here. Regards, Barras (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably squeezes in but feels a bit short right now. References need to be correctly formatted (I know it's not a GA requirement but I couldn't support with them in this state). Too many " [X]... got... [Y]" - reads very poorly. German is a proper noun so the reference which says (german) should be (German). The Nazi section is virtually a collection of trivia sentences. We should aim for a bit of decent prose, even for a GA. Think about merging the short paragraphs, and trying to get some good, Simple writing in. A few MOS issues, but specifically, avoid the use of hyphens for ranges, use an en dash. Is there an infobox for Herr Rohm, per en wiki? A few thoughts that may help. Please don't hesitate to call on me if you need clarification or further comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I formated the refs, but I don't know if that is right now. I added some more proses. This is what I have done.
And I don't want to integrate an infobox. I don't like infoboxes for people. Thanks for the input and help. Regards, Barras (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to prose-ifiy it a bit. It seems to me that the only thing to stop this being a GA would be requirement 3 (The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors). Any more editors keen to revise?--Leathp (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Point 3 isn't a problem. I asked BG7. And this isn't a big deal. Thanks for your help again. Regards, Barras (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The captions of the images of this article confuse me a bit. "Röhm (second from right) after rendition of judgement on April 1, 1924" What is "rendition of judgement" (note that judgment has no E between the G and M)? It's never mentioned in the article. "Hitler with Röhm wearing the SA uniform in 1933" is confusing too. Who's wearing the SA uniform? Why is Röhm presented after Hitler in this? As he's the subject of the article, he should be first and Hitler should be with him. Either way (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Either way. I have added a sentence to the first picture and I changed the caption of the second picture. Any other concerns? Thanks, Barras (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This, which you just added, needs clean up. What does it mean he "got defendants"? Either way (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
My bad grammar: so? Barras (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Color blindness[change source]

Color blindness (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Following the icon discussion we had on simple talk, I extended the color blindness article. Most of this is translated/simplified from EnWP, some from DEWP. I personally think the article needs some copyediting by people other than myself. Please look for the following:

  • More references
  • More examples. What chemicals can cause temporary/permanent color blindness? ; Give an example (other than migraine) where people suffer from color blindness (despite the fact there is nothing wrong with their retina/eye) - In short, someone knowledgeable should probably extend the article.
  • Are there some trustworthy stats how common the different forms of cb are?
  • Simpler language in parts.

Again I am probably listing this too early, in the hope thatz someone who is interested will help. --Eptalon (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Eptalon. Happy to help with this, despite its American "color" spelling! I am no expert in the subject but I think I can copyedit pretty well. I'll see what I can do with the article right now, but please let's not leave this one to die. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we are almost there. Left a number of issues I see on the talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with the way we spell color? They're both correct. Personally I find use of the letter "U" useless. But I'm not here to fight, I just want to know why the statement says "I'm happy to help despite the American spelling" being used?--   CM16  23:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It was clearly a light-hearted comment... it does sound like you're trying to start a fight to be honest. Majorly talk 23:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, yeah, it wasn't intended to start a fight CM16. I'm all for Americanized spelling, when appropriate. Please, focus on improving the article, don't try to find problems where they don't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Its spelt "Americanised". /runs Kennedy (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've left a couple of copy edit finds on the talk page, please look over them. Thanks.  Mm40(talk | contribs)  21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Some sections seem to be too complex (it is a complex topic). I have left comments on the talk page, as I was not sure on the best way to simplify them. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of conveying information effectively is grouping like information and ordering information so that ideas follow on. The intro was not well enough thought through.
Some parts of the article are much too complex. I have begun simplifying. One way to simplify concepts is to talk in a more finite and personal way eg. "A person with color blindness cannot see color." rather than "Color blindness causes an inability to see color." This type of approach solves a great many simplification problems. It means re-thinking and rephrasing the way that information is expressed, rather than just looking for a substitute word. Most of the article needs this sort of treatment.
Amandajm (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could link to this (which I have just started) early in the article instead of putting the alternative spelling in brackets (parenthesis) more than once? Kennedy (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a respective note, and removed the Commonwealth/British spellings. Note also that I added a section explaining how color vision happens (to group two of the three sections related to color vision), and made the third a top-level heading.--Eptalon (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added some information on the colour of electrical wires in the UK being changed. Kennedy (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Voting[change source]

2 Girls 1 Cup[change source]

2 Girls 1 Cup (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Oppose - The issues with the article have not yet been addressed. Not yet ready as a GA. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Snake311. TheAE talk 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please fix the issues that were brought up above. If you do before this vote ends, I will change my vote to support. Razorflame 21:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many redlinks really fr33kman t - c 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The issues pointed out earlier haven't been addressed. –Juliancolton (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – Far too short to be of good article status. obentomusubi 08:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose redlinks and too short. Barras (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Result:Not promoted with a !vote of 0/7. Razorflame 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

World History[change source]

World History (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Support - I have no major concerns. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 21:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nothing major sticks out at me at the moment. This is one of our finest articles that should definitely be given GA status. Razorflame 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – Zero red links, worked on for a long time. TheAE talk 21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support no concerns, good article! fr33kman t - c 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – Good work! obentomusubi 08:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support no concerns. Barras (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Result:Promoted to GA status by a !vote of 6/0 with 100% support and the required number of votes. Razorflame 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

St. Peter's Basilica[change source]

St. Peter's Basilica (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Weak oppose - Redlinks... --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 21:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Fill in the red links, and I will change my vote to support. Razorflame 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Red links have been filled in. Razorflame 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
*Weak Oppose – Sorry, too many red links right now. TheAE talk 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support as per the others above, redlinks. If they were fixed this could be sent to PVGA instead. It's a really good article otherwise! :) fr33kman t - c 23:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Too many redlinks, and the prose could use a bit of work. –Juliancolton (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - Great work, Yotcmdr! –Juliancolton (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: Promoted to GA status by a vote of 6/0. 05:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RAID[change source]

RAID (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Yes, very much! I quote, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The main rule of Wikipedia, verifiable sources. Very important. TheAE talk 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fix the references and other concerns that Juliancolton brought up, and I will change my vote to support. Razorflame 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose – Not a bad article, but 9/10 sections have no sources and current sources needs fixing. Not yet. TheAE talk 21:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not very well sourced for my liking fr33kman t - c 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my previous comments. Needs sourcing and cleanup. –Juliancolton (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not enough sources. Barras (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. 1/4 with only 20% support is not enough to promote. Razorflame 05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Röhm[change source]

(February 24, 2009 - March 3, 2009)

Ernst Röhm (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Oppose - The length seems to be only about 1.5 pages long, which I can accept as the minimum length for a GA article. However, I think you could fix a few of the references that can be properly formatted (like the 1st, 5th, and 6th ones) and add a bit more on what he did as carrier as a Nazi. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I see no reason to oppose this to be a GA. Good work! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too many complex words not linked or explained (e.g. in the lead, Sturmabteilung, Reichsminister, e.g. later on, "The murders of the Night of the Long Knives got legalised one day later by an one-paragraph law."), some odd formatting (e.g. why are the parents' names in italics?), inconsistent terminology (e.g. First World War vs World War I), complex and badly formatted caption ("...after rendition of judgement on April1, 1924..."), too many short paragraphs (in particular in the Nazi section), MOS issues (e.g. numbers below ten to be written out, 4->four), odd language (e.g. "The SA was about 20 times more powerful..." using what criteria? Just membership? If so then be more precise about what you mean...), bad English (e.g. "Röhm was shoot down by..."), and poorly formatted citations. We can do better than this, much better. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. 1 support and 2 opposes. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Leathermouth[change source]

12:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Leathermouth (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Oppose too short for GA. Barras (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose At just over 400 words It is a little off the "3.5k text" needed for GA. Very roughly speaking it is at about a third half that mark. --Eptalon (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's pretty clear given the comments above that this should not have been listed for voting. It is not ready for GA by any means. Please use some common sense before listing articles for voting. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not ready for GA yet. Cheers, Razorflame 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. Closed per SNOW. 4 opposes and no attempt to fix any issues raised for two weeks. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rickrolling[change source]

Voting ends 12:48, 21 March 2009
Rickrolling (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Oppose no attempt to fix any issues I raised. The article hasn't been editted since 27 February - I don't think it should even have been moved to voting. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Closed early - Moved in error ;) Goblin 16:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros.[change source]

Voting ends 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Super Smash Bros. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Oppose I would like to see some more references in this article, and maybe get it a little bit longer. Also, a copyedit of the article wouldn't hurt. Cheers, Razorflame 20:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Abstaining vote. Razorflame 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I´ll add some comments to the talk page which ought to be resolved before I can support this. Not too fussed about the length but some vital red links which ought to be blue, and, as RF said, in need of a copyedit. Hopefully my comments will be of use. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - e.g. "In Japan, 1.97 million Super Smash Bros. CDs were sold, and 2.93 million Super Smash Bros. CDs have been sold in the United States." or "It's very hard to get all 10 of the targets." needs a reference. In my opinion, the second example is POV without a reference. Some redlinks should become blue. Barras (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Barras. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per the issues listed on the talk page. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Closed as not promoted: 100% Oppose Goblin 12:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bastide[change source]

Voting ends 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Bastide (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Support Please fix the problems with the references. Otherwise, this is a good article. I will change my vote to support if you fix the problems with the references. References fixed now. Cheers, Razorflame 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Abstaining support vote. Razorflame 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done - Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
They are not entirely fixed yet. The bottom section is an eyesore. I will get to work fixing them. Chenzw  Talk  13:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the time being. It´s a decent article, but I think it´s a little over complex in places... I´ll leave a few comments which I feel should be resolved on the talk page. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support fr33kman talk 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose Sorry, but on review, TRM is right; it's too complex at the moment. I think it's a hell of a good job at translation, but it needs to be fixed before GA. fr33kman talk 06:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I think the article pass the criterias. Barras (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I read now the TRMOTs comment on the talk page. I have to agree with him. now Oppose - Barras (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I think that this article is deserving of this. Corruptcopper (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Please check if section headings can be worded into a question. Chenzw  Talk  13:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Is this a requirement of GA? Where did we start heading sections with questions? I'm not that bothered but I don't own any encyclopedia´s, simple or not, whose headings are always questions... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
      • So should we leave them as they are or change them? Chenzw  Talk  12:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can everyone above who support this article read the talk page where I have identified a number of issues with the article. For example, does everyone who supports the promotion think that "honorifics", "confiscated", "emphasises", "enterprise", "connotations", "strategic location", "contractual promises", is Simple English enough to not be linked or explained? And presumably the supporters are happy with the MOS breaches that still exist in the article and the poorly formatted references? I´m staggered. This is still not GA quality but given our current system, my comments are meaningless because the vote currently promotes it... What a shame. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    It's that kind of attitude that doesn't bode well here. If you think it shouldn't be promoted, then oppose it, don't just leave a comment here that makes other editors here looks foolish. Cheers, Razorflame 17:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    It´s that kind of attitude which continually promotes rubbish here. Look above RF, I´ve opposed (three days ago). I´ve also taken a huge amount of my time to state why it shouldn´t be promoted. No one else appears to have checked my comments at all. Work is being carried out but it´s not close to being completed yet. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and the issues he listed at the talk page. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Hardly a good article. Too complex. SteveTalk 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Closed as not promoted: 3 supports and 5 opposes. --Barras (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Color of the day (police)[change source]

Voting ends 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Color of the day (police) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Weak oppose right now. A few more complex terms need to be linked, and I´d really appreciate an image on the page, perhaps look for something on en.wiki? The terms I´m worried about will be on the talk page in about five minutes. Otherwise, good work on attending to my initial concerns. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support and glad to see an editor working hard to fix problems so quickly. The image can be taken or left, it isn´t part of the GA criteria so an oppose based on the lack of an image is unfair and should be overlooked (but can´t be due to the current GA process) should you feel the image is inappropriate. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose - I think all GAs should have an image so oppose for now. But if a suitable one can be found, I will support! FSM Noodly? 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - And my oppose was not unfair, whether it's one of the criteria or not that was my reason for opposing, and I'm sure there are some public domain images of police badges or something similar. FSM Noodly? 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Not a criticism at all, but surely if your only concern is not part of the current criteria, it seems a little unfair to oppose solely based upon it? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • And for your interest, I have added an NYPD image. Please note that most generic images such as badges are Fair Use and therefore cannot currently be used on this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well I couldn't find any free use images that were more suitable than the image I added. And yes, voting in opposition when the article does not fail to meet the criteria is not fair. If you think a GA needs an image, please discuss it so we can seek to modify the criteria. Please note that even en.wiki does not require its GAs to have images. Thanks. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I feel this has become the best article that it can be at the moment. I've fixed the issues raised and it now has an image, thanks to TRM. I've considered how to lengthen it but can't find anything more to say and am not one to just add fluff. It does exceed the minimum length requirement of the criteria. I truly believe that the article now meets all of the criteria for promotion. fr33kman talk 01:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - all problems which are mentioned on the talk page are solved. I think it is a good article. Barras (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It is a little short, but I can't think of anything to add. So I will say that it is a well written short article, worthy of a GA tag. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – looks alright for GA. TheAE talk 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Yeah, this article looks good for GA. Meets all the criteria and all problems on the talk page have been solved. Razorflame 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support +1. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 10:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Its very short. Can you find any info on the history of its use? Perhaps a notable incident where it did, or didn't work? A few big words, although they are linked. I need to say, its an interesting article though. Kennedy (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Closed as promoted: 9 supports = 100% --Barras (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nudity[change source]

Nudity (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - article is very poorly sourced in certain sections (Public nudity, Nudity in different times, Nudity in photography, Nudity in art, Africa, Muslim culture, and What societies think about nudity) all need citations or everything in them is conjecture at best. I've also got issues with the sentance "Most people feel uneasy or ashamed when they are nude (outside a social context where this is acceptable)." in the section Nudity as punishment. Most people? Where? Africa, Sweden, the Amazon? It also needs a citation. Sorry to be so hard :) fr33kman talk 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment - I'll try and get some citations into it. I think if it were properly cited it should be run through PVGA because it's an excellent article! fr33kman talk 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I have to agree with fr33kman. The first part "What societies think about nudity" is without any cite. Barras (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I was looking for cites now. I looked at the de and en article and can't find cites. There aren't good cites which we can use. It's realy a good article. I think it is ok so. Barras (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I know I have written most of this article; as to sourcing: It is probably very difficult to source this article. Note, I am not into Ethnography. An Ethnographer would likely know some standards works they could cite, but (to my knowledge) none is contributing to simple; please also look at other language versions of this article, their sourcing is similar. --Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Meets the standard for a good article - if we can fix some of the problems talked about in the above discussion I think we would have a VGA. --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weakly support - Lack of references for some sections, but overall, a good article. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs more references. Even if it is hard to find the references, just keep on looking. You'll find the references if you keep on trying :P. Cheers, Razorflame 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but to me this feels and reads like a lot of original research. It certainly is a challenging topic to reference, but, for instance, the What societies think section is referenceless which, in my opinion, is not acceptable, and may set an unhealthy precedent in our VGAs. Also I noted a considerable amount of complexity in some phrases (e.g. social context, segregation, "... a reduced expectation of personal privacy in regards to "communal undress" while showering after physical education classes..." ), MOS issues (I know, I know, but we should at least aim to have articles looking good, so remove spaces between references for instance, don't use abbreviations unless they're explained, e.g. TV...) and really untidy image layout (on my Safari browser). Not good enough I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Result:Not promoted. 4 supports, 3 oppose, but the opposers reasons are too important to allow this to become a GA at this time. Razorflame 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Göring[change source]

Hermann Göring (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I still don't think the word "aggressive" needs to be used at all in the First World War section because a bomber is by its very nature aggressive; but it's a really minor thing and the rest of the article now looks up to scratch. I'd also like to add the picture of Lt Göring in his bi-plane, but's it's currently up for deletion on Commons so it'll have to wait. fr33kman talk 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    I removed "agressive". Regards, Barras (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Barras (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weakly support – It's alright. Not adamantly set on it being a good article because it's still short and it has only thirteen references (which is okay, nevertheless). If this were nominated for VGA, then I would oppose, but, in my opinion, it qualifies for good. Cheers, –obentomusubi 19:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It definitely meets GA criteria. DefenseSupportParty 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Whilst correcting all the grammar, I got a good chance to read it carefully, and it sure qualifies for GA in my opinion! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Still might need a copyedit or two for grammar issues, but nothing wrong with it as far as the criteria go. -Eptalon (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support There has been a lot of changes and the article is much better now. I think there needs to more written about the period from 1941 to 1945 which isn't mentioned at all. Peterdownunder (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose there are some issues still to be addressed in my opinion. I have left these needs on the talk page. Either way (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still needs work as listed on talk page by Either way. --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Please address remaining concerns on talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose per TRM. Still needs work on fixing the problems on its' talk page. Cheers, Razorflame 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) All problems on talk page addressed and the article is now much improved. Support now. Cheers, Razorflame 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Result:Promoted; 8 supports, 1 oppose. I feel that the one oppose has not been re-looked at since it was made, and thus see no issue why this article cannot have "Good Article" status. Thanks, Goblin 10:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Hall[change source]

Ben Hall (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends 09:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good, and unless someone can give me a reason not to support, I'll leave it at that. Razorflame 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It looks like a very good article. I don't see any reason not to give it support. It has plenty of references, and it's overall appearance looks nice. Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 12:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment good, yeah, couple of things I don't like. The use of "held up" is not simple in this case, it doesn't mean it in the literal sense and could be confusing. Suggest a reword. And I don't like the inline links in the (newly renamed) Popular culture section. These should really be references like the others. I've made a few little tweaks here and there, which I believe have improved the article a little bit. Fix the two issues I've raised and I'll be happy to support its promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Re inline links - I have talked about these above. They have been used when talking about some famous oil paintings. These paintings can not be added to the page because of copyright laws. The use of the inline link allows a reader to click on the name of the painting and go straight to a copy of the painting on the National Gallery of Australia website. This is what the power of the internet is all about. Changing it to a citation buries the link to the painting into the references at the end of the article. You will also note that the pictures are referenced with a citation - this link in the references takes you to a page about the paintings, not the actual paintings themselves. I have also used the same idea when linking to some song lyrics - there are proper citations which support and confirm the article, and there are inline links which take you directly to a copy of the song itself. There is nothing in our MOS about the use of citations versus inline linking. I have spoken to several reference librarians and they agree with the way I have done it. The use of inline linking in these cases is not instead of a citation, but aboit using the power of the web. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Understood Peter, the links are okay I suppose, just not particularly good style. But I can't and won't oppose on that because, as you say, our "MOS" is inadequate in that area. I'll take another look soon and see if I can support. Best. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Would the word "delayed" be a proper replacement for "held up"? Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think that's what it's being used for here. Hence the confusion. It means that people were being robbed at gunpoint usually... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment Oh! I see, sorry...excuse me. Well then, how about "assaulted"? Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 15:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment not to worry.. Assualted, I'm not sure. Perhaps just calling a spade a spade and saying "held up and robbed at gunpoint" (although gunpoint isn't that simple...) would do it.. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Comment So, just change it to "held up and robbed at gun point"? I just want to make sure before I make any edits. :] Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Haha, okay. :) Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Good work and good references. I have no concerns. Barras (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - meets all criteria and is better than it was when I nominated it thanks to other editors contributions.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - too good to be overlooked just because a "minimum" number of votes. Good work Peter. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. TheAE talk 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Closed as promoted: 7 supports (100%). Barras (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Portman Road[change source]

Portman Road (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends 19:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - all my concerns are fixed. Good work. Barras (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good, I also made a couple of links. (however En.wiki doesn't have a Mission England article, and I've looked it up on google, but not found much, and was wondering if anybody had a book about it, thanks) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent work. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - but needs two words to be defined or simplified: bleacher and pitch. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, bleacher is already linked in the article so that should be okay. Pitch on the other hand does need some help, so I'll get onto it, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed it :)--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes that covers it :) --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – It seems there are enough resources and the article is neither to short nor too long. Congrats. obentomusubi 04:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks okay, reads reasonably well. Kennedy (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: why is "Sir Bobby Robson Suite, Legends Bar" italicized in the article? Names of places shouldn't be italicized. Either way (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed as promoted 7 supports (100%). Barras (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Röhm[change source]

Ernst Röhm (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
End date: Monday, 20 April 11:00
  • Support - as my own nomination. Barras (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Pas Mal du tout! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think there are still a lot of issues here. There are too many one-sentence paragraphs, some terms that are unexplained (like Reichmaster), and some writing that needs to be cleaned up. Either way (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Either way, is it possible for you add a list of things which concern you about this article onto the talkpage so we can address them? I'm sure your concerns can be addressed, particularly if we know specifically what the issues are. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think all concerns of Either way are fixed now. Regards, Barras (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I am not too familiar with the subject, but as I understood there is generally a problem with getting sources, let alone reliable ones. Röhm was executed, after his execution, quite a bit of material was either intentionally destroyed, or it fell prey (like so much else) to the problem the war that followed brought with it, namely that numerous records burned or were lost when one of those bombs hit the respective archive. I think that this article is of a Good article quality.--Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support After a (somewhat thorough) copy-edit and discussing a few issues on IRC with Barras, I think this article clearly meets the criteria.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Mm40. иιƒкч? 12:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support With two suggestions. 1. The sentences in the section about Communism need reconciling. 2. There is a statement about Hitler not knowing of Röhm's homosexuality. One might say "Who cares whether he knew or not?" The Nazi attitude towards homosexuality needs to be made clear. Amandajm (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions! 1. This sentence: He wanted to fight against the Communists in Munich.? It belongs to the second cite. It is the reference after the next sentence. 2. done. I added a sentence with ref. Regards, Barras (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The article looks good. EhJJTALK 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - SimonKSK 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I've updated a bit, and it looks good. Kennedy (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: Promoted. Chenzw  Talk  13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Color blindness[change source]

Color blindness (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Ends: 10:01, 29 April 2009
  • Support Kennedy (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do think it meets the criteria; it does still need (a lot of) work for VGA though. --Eptalon (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - still too many complex words in the text. See talk page for examples. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    Please look at the talk page, I think I addressed some of these issues. --Eptalon (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - complex words fixed. Good article --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - the rest of the words aren't complex (for me). I think it is a good article. Barras (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - some parts could still use work, but meet requirements on GA. EhJJTALK 03:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support meets requirements for GA.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  22:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Closed as Promoted: 100% Support, 5:0. Goblin 09:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)