Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very good articles are the highest status of articles at Simple English Wikipedia. In order to become a very good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles.

This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the VGA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pvgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed very good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{pvgood}} tag replaced with {{vgood}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Very good articles and are placed in Category:Very good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{vgood}} tag removed.

Articles that are below the very good article criteria can be nominated to be a good article at Wikipedia:Proposed good articles.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for very good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comment. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

In order to make sure the article you are proposing meets the required size, use this tool. Please notice that the text size is important, not the wikitext size.

Archives[change source]

Proposals for very good articles[change source]

To propose an article for very good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a VGA. ~~~~

The Godfather[change source]

The Godfather (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article The Godfather completes several requirements for good articles, including 1. Wikipedia Content 2. Comprehensive 3. Appropriate Length 4. Multiple Revisions 7. All Terms Linked 8. Image with label 9. No Templates 10. Thorough References. -Schiller12 July 13, 2022

  • Support @Schiller12: I think it is very good, but would be improved by pictures of actors, or filming locations or sets. I couldn't find any problems with it at all. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I added pictures. So how does it work to get through the voting process? Not many people have gone to this page or have reviewed the recommendation. Schiller12 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Almost Per Lights and freedom. Some pics of the actors/director would be good for the article. Also, maybe replace the word film/films to movie/movies. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Lights and freedom.--DRC (User:TTP1233) (talk . e-mail . contrib) 06:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see the first stages of the film poorly represented in the early paragraphs. It's very difficult to write, but equal weight must be given to the early stages upon which the plot and characterisations are built. Also, I'm thinking about changes in New York and society in general, which the film does show, but rather as backdrop. The implications of this critique (if accepted) are that the account needs to be longer. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I added some text to the development section under the production of the film. I am not quite sure if this addresses your critique about plot and characters. What do you mean by "changes in New York and Society"? Schiller12 (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we dealing with the books or the films? We must be clear about that, because there are differences. Just "The Godfather" as a title is not good. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Really great and simple article about one of the most great movies ever made. Frontfrog (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I found issues in 7 of the 8 sentences in the too short intro. I stopped reading at that point as it is not even GA quality work in its current form. Unlinked terms, over linked terms, ambiguousness, colloquialisms, unsourced statement. All before getting out of the intro. No idea about the rest of the prose but willing to bet there are further issues that would need fixing. I just had no reason to continue looking when the intro had that many issues. Pure Evil (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's time to close the nomination. Frontfrog (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've made criticisms. The first is that it is weak on the first part of the book/first film, and relatively weak on the post-WWII period. It has never been adjusted to take care of these objections. Therefore, I vote against. The author made the decision to overview two films with one article. IMO that was a mistake. We should have an article for each film. I see that English wiki has three films, so obviously I'm out of date there. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neptune[change source]

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

I've always thought this is a brilliant article and supported its promotion to the article's current "good article" status. Going through the criteria from Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles:

  1. The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia. checkY Neptune definitely belongs in Wikipedia.
  2. The article must be comprehensive. checkY
  3. The article should be several kilobytes long, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. checkY 47,582 bytes including all those things, but it is certainly way beyond several kilobytes in prose alone.
  4. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. checkY The article passed this criterion at the PGA discussion.
  5. The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. checkY The article passed this criterion at the PGA discussion too.
  6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). checkY
  7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left. checkY No red links at all, apart from in the collapsed Solar System navbox.
  8. If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. checkY
  9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. checkY
  10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. checkY References across the article and the article passed this criterion at the PGA discussion.

In my view, this is clearly VGA material, but what do others think? --Ferien (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently missing: the effect of Neptune on the Kuiper belt, Neptune trojans, and the gravity on the surface of Neptune. Its formation could be mentioned, but it seems to be disputed, so it might be okay not to include it. Also, there was some disagreement whether Rayleigh scattering should be mentioned (see the article's history). Everything looks simple enough except "Crediting and naming". Lights and freedom (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I'm not sure why Macdonald-ross said it's far too complicated for this wiki. It's simpler than Evolution, which is a VGA. Unless he's talking about the infobox. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evolution could be simpler, but looking at this article itself, I simplified one section (edit history). There is a lot more that can be done to simplify with vocabulary but also keeping to basic SVO sentence structure and eliminating excess words. Gotanda (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Item 7: I see some important terms that are not linked: ammonia is one.
  • Item 9: This item also says "The article also should not need them." I do see some non-simple words (similarities, decomposes, flyby) and phrasing (such as some use of passive voice that would be better as active voice), although I haven't read the whole article.
I'll see if I can do some simplifying, but I don't have time right this minute. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposals closed recently[change source]

Christopher Plummer[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christopher Plummer (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Plummer's article has been a VGA target, especially since his passing in 2021. The article meets all VGA requirements: 1 (obviously), 2 (the article is very comprehensive and covers Mr. Plummer's career in good detail and with citations), 3 (the article is several kilobytes long), 4 (the article has gone through revisions [minor recently] and from some other users other than myself), 5 (check), 6 (recent edits have been minor), 7 (no red links, important terms linked), 8 (images used are relating to Mr. Plummer or his career and have been appropriately labelled), 9 (no tags) and 10 (check, article has a variety of sources/citations). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak Support Everything is just fine. But the citation, some links I saw were red, like reference no. 20. from national post I guess. --DRC (User:TTP1233) (talk . e-mail . contrib) 07:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Changed my mind to Support--DRC (User:TTP1233) (talk . e-mail . contrib) 09:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TTP1233: Fixed the minor red links in the citations. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I still find the page a little complex. There are several complex words in the intro paragraphs, so I think there is still some work to be done in this one.--BRP ever 01:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are also complex and compound sentences, -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Auntof6: & @BRPever: How about now? Any specific examples that I could work on? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did you address any complex or compound sentences? I still see the ones I saw before (although I was only looking at the lead). I noticed at least one grammar issue as well, but I don't have time to fix any of this right now. Maybe tomorrow. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Auntof6: Ah, I was focused on fixing the ones from the main body not the lead. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have Bob Dole nominated at the same time. Pick one please. Jimmy Carter and Jacinda Ardern were started and then dropped. It would be great to go back and finish those based on the input and time given to those two nominations. Finally, I recently went through the Jackie O article and fixed up numerous errors. Editors cannot give full attention to multiple noms, and our work on the previous noms seems to be abandoned. --Gotanda (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not working on Carter or Ardern because of the very feedbacks, seeing how it appears to be an uphill nomination. I cannot find the requirement where it says I can nominate a VGA or GA at the same time, so I always assumed the one nomination rule was only for one nom for VGA and one nom for GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are all uphill nominations. Neither Carter nor Ardern is any more or less difficult than any other bio, I think. The issue continues to be simplifying without changing meaning and quotes. Quotes must be exact. Some can be eliminated, and some can be paraphrased. But, they must be paraphrased accurately. This applies to all nominations. Opening them and then closing them because you do not wish to do the necessary work but just going ahead to open more is not helpful. It takes time and careful attention to review nominations. Or, to review articles after promotion. See my recent changes on Jackie O, please. --Gotanda (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done my best. Please see the article talk page. I gave about half of it a close read. This takes time. I suspect the source of the choppiness, disconnections, or squishing together of unconnected events comes from cutting down or simplifying the original from EnWP. Cut, simplify, cut complexity: soon it can be Swiss cheese. Reorganizing into a list in places may make sense. These are the same kinds of issues in Carter and Ardern. Please do return to Jackie O. I left notes for you there in the edit summaries. Several simplified quotes and references were incorrect. --Gotanda (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear, the writing on this needs a lot of work. Sentence and paragraph structure is often not very good, probably because of deletions in attempting to simplify the EnWP text. There are contradictions and unclear statements. The nominator has not resolved comments and has seemingly abaandoned the nomination. I do not think there is any consensus to promote. Perhaps this can be removed from the queue until someone wants to work on it and renominate when it is ready.--Gotanda (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been another month. Can an admin close this, please? --Gotanda (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: Not promoted --Ferien (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Bradley Winslow[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bradley Winslow (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Meets criteria 1 (obviously), 2 (Covers all major and minor details known about him, usually with more than 1 reference per claim), 3 (This is a bit tricky, however Hermann Göring has 6565 Bytes of prose size, with most of its size coming from its very long infobox, and Bradley Winslow has 7241 Bytes of proze size, so I'd say it's fine), 4 (Many revisions), 5 (Yep), 6 (check), 7 (no red links, all non-simple terms wiktionary linked), 8 (4 images, all of which are directly related to the subject, showing all life stages other than his youth), 9 (unless I am blind), and 10 (has it's own section for sources). Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 20:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Related pages[change source]