Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 1

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived requests[change source]

Please put newer requests at the top

Nineteen Eighty-Four[change source]

Nineteen Eighty-Four (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until October 7, 2007

Nominating 1984 for good article (not the doubleplusgood one, should we say :)), because should be in detail more. I just noticed this one, and it looks like an article that tells the basic stuff about the book. Since it isn't in detail too much, I'll not put the featured yet. But, please help me improve anyway! It covers the subject well, and, why not? Stalker1 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have, as you might put it, plusgood articles on this wikipedia. The community is too small to have both Good and Very Good tags on articles. Feel free, though, to clear it up a bit and nominate it for VG status, if you think it would receive it. Gwib-(talk)- 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson[change source]

Homer Simpson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until October 7, 2007

I created another article that could be almost rready for the VGA tag. While most of the article is completed, it still contains a few red links, although some copyediting would also help the article. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Chantal (2007)[change source]

Tropical Storm Chantal (2007) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 27, 2007

Based on my opinion, I think this article could warrant the VGA tag since after a quick scan, most of the article seems ready to qualify. But proofreading from other editors could also help the article. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Missile Crisis[change source]

Cuban Missile Crisis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 26, 2007

I think that this could become a VG article, it's more of a story that an article, but it has sufficient information whilst not going into too much detail (IMO!).
Edit away!
Gwib-(talk)- 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a bit more info. Also I've noticed that some parts of the text are not in "neutrality", such as several sentences hinting that it accuesses Castro and Cuba. The reason is because such topics can be very influential to readers, especially history. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks on the right track at first sight, but still needs a solid copyedit, imho. I'm of the strong opinion that Simple English doesn't equate to using certain infantile expressions like "The United States and Russia were angry at each other", a problem that can be seen at this article. Í'll try and copyedit it myself as soon as I can, I swear. Phaedriel - 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me that put that in, I swear :P Gwib-(talk)- 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody's saying you did, dear Florian :) I'm just pointing a few issues that I feel could be enhanced, that's all ;) Phaedriel - 18:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the redlinks in the "other websites" section are not necessary in most cases, and can be delinked. - Huji reply 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[change source]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 25, 2007

It's a difficult subject to express in simple English, but I think I've managed fairly well.

  • The title of the article is complex, but there's not much you can do about that.
  • I've done everything I could to simply describe it.
  • No redlinks left

Well, see what you think! Adam Cuerden 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can find some other websites, they're always nice incase someone who doesn't understand something needs more information on that particular subject. Just list them at the bottom. Gwib-(talk)- 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Though a lot of them are very difficult. Adam Cuerden 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've added some. They're a bit difficult for the Simple English wiki, though the Kitzmiller ruling is unusually easy to read for a legal opinion. It's been praised for that. I don't think we're likely to get any simpler links, though. It is a difficult subject, after all. Adam Cuerden 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, d'ye think this is ready for voting? Adam Cuerden 09:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm a militant evolutionist, I don't have enough expertise in this particular area (law etc) to know if the information in it is accurate or not. Plus on such a touchy subject, it might be wise to add lots of references to enforce the point that you arn't just using the page to show your own POV and that others actually share it.
Gwib-(talk)- 15:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze[change source]

Kamikaze (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 14, 2007

The latest project I've been working on. After several days of research, writing and copyediting, filling red links, and simplifying the very long and complex topic, I feel it's ready to be reviewed. Comments, thoughts and more are extremely welcome! Phaedriel - 06:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I've read the article, It can become a VG article IMO, you just keep proving Rule 3 wrong again and again! Gwib-(talk)- 06:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I've added a link and ran it through a spell checker. I can't be sure for the Japanese words but all English ones are right (except one which I changed).
  • Support, well written. - Huji reply 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you both for your kind and positive reviews, friends :) I'll leave this proposal for at least 24 hours before moving it to the voting stage, tho, in case someone else feels like commenting. Phaedriel - 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alyson Michalka[change source]

Alyson Michalka (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 8, 2007
There are quite a few red links and I'm not sure if you should reference the main article as a section further down the page. The pronouns are quite messed up, you should just go over them and make sure they make sense and don't seem too repetetive. Jordanhatch - talk 19:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay :) My english isn't perfect yet :) --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there, but still needs more work. Stil a little on the short side, and plenty of red links to be filled. Nice going, tho! Keep it up! Phaedriel - 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it change anything about this article, that the person who proposed it has been blocked? If not, I agree with Phaedriel in that there are too many red links.
Gwib-(talk)- 17:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lizix is still a named editor. Perhaps she won't be editing any more, but at the time she proposed the article, she was not blocked. --Eptalon 17:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlisted, and tag removed; 2 week period expired, without it being moved to the voting section. Please re-list, if needed once the redlinks are fixed. --Eptalon 10:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones[change source]

Tropical cyclones (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 8, 2007

This article seems to give a lot of detailed information on tropical cyclones while at the same time it uses simple english. It looks like a great article overall. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 17:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has quite a number of red links. It should be fixed first. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlisted, and tag removed; 2 week period expired, without it being moved to the voting section. Please re-list, if needed once the redlinks are fixed. --Eptalon 10:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World History[change source]

World History (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 8, 2007

I think this article meets more than half the criteria. I do realise that I did most of the work, but while this is pvgood, other people can edit it. --Isis§(talk) 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a (possibly hard to understand) intro; copied over the article on Giza (last redlink I saw), and started to simplify it. When the criteria were worked out, the idea was to not punish pages which have only been edited by one person, but to point out that multiple editors can potentially give a better result. --Eptalon 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the important criteria is that the article shouldn't have a {{unreferenced}} tag, and shouldn't deserve it. World History, at the moment, needs that tag. - Huji reply 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. Referenced it, although I'm afraid I'm not very good at it. :) It also needs to be expanded to cover Asian history. I sort of skipped over that while doing my rewrite. --Isis§(talk) 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not good in history too. Maybe we should wait for others to expand it. - Huji reply 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlisted, as it is actively being expanded --Eptalon 08:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Man[change source]

Fall of Man (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've worked on this for a while, it was a really interesting subject and I think it could become a VG article after being sweeped a couple of times by other users. It covers most of the criteria and there are no red links but only four references. I'll let you guys decide.
Gwib-(talk)- 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking very good, Gwib, very nice work! I've done some copyediting, and I think it's almost ready to go. Two things, from my modest point of view: I feel that the references may be a little on the short side, and tho I encourage you to find a couple more (mostly to corroborate the position of different religions), I feel that can be done fairly easily before moving it to the voting stage. The other thing is, several important topics that are mentioned at the article should be linked. I went ahead and linked what I believed to be important, and some of the are still red, ie. Pelagianism. Hope this helps! :) Love, Phaedriel - 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good after a quick scan. I still see some issues with grammar, though ,and red links to fill. Coming along, although not quite ready for VGA status yet. --Isis§(talk) 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done a major re-write, one red link to fix, 6 references added, grammar fixed and simplificated furthur. IMVHO (ha!) I think it could even move onto the voting stage in a couple of days from now.
Gwib-(talk)- 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geisha[change source]

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

After some days of research and work, here's the tentatively final version of this article. The subject is extremely complex, like so many things in Japanese culture, so keeping it brief has been a daunting task. Fortunately, with 1,900 words, I feel it's pretty complete, yet well within our length standards. I've consulted several sources in different languages to try and write something deeper than its EnWP counterpart, and I'm satisfied with the results. Of course, it still doesn't comply with guideline 3, since so far only I have edited it; so your reviews are most welcome. Thank you all! :) Phaedriel - 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've run it though the spell checker, and it said "tea house" should be "teahouse" but apart from that, it's spick and span. I've no particular knowledge on Japanese culture, I prefere Biology, but I find it easy to read and interesting.
Gwib-(talk)- 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, dear Gwib! :) Regarding the spelling for "tea house", I've found the right spelling to be that; the entries at EnWP and even the way it can be found at our article on Japanese tea ceremony seems to confirm this. As you say, it's not a big deal, but I wanted to settle it and put your mind at rest. Phaedriel - 12:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a brief scan on several parts of the article, I'd say the article qualifies to be a VG article on the first look. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical cyclone[change source]

Subtropical cyclone (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article seems to be almost ready for the VGA tag since it covers most of the basic requirements of a VG article. But unlike the tropical cyclone article, it contains no dreaded red links with the exception of the {{Cyclones}} template which still has two red links leftover. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 07:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good article, with easy to read information and it's aesthetically pleasing (found that mouthful in a book :D). I only think it should have a couple more external websites, but otherwise, I'll definatly support it.
Gwib-(talk)- 07:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved it to the voting zone. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern United States[change source]

Midwestern United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've done most of the work to this article, but it meets the other criteria. Does it need anything? · Tygartl1·talk· 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see at the moment. Let's give wings to the process, and involve other users, I am not the supreme authority on this; I dont want to be. --Eptalon 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fit in criteria 3 and 5, but it has been a good effort. The article is a little long, and needs some more simplification (like the passive tone in some sentences). As soon is these minor fixes happen, I would be ready to vote in its favor. - Huji reply 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Lee (2005)[change source]

Tropical Storm Lee (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Here's another candidate for a very good article. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 04:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. - Huji reply 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be Tropical storm Lee? --rimshottalk 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so, Rimshot. I'm not sure, but isn't that it's name, and a proper noun, therefore capitalised? --Isis§(talk) 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it, looks like you're right. The Storm is part of the name. --rimshottalk 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix[change source]

Jimi Hendrix (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I worked hard on this article, it is about 2300 words long and I think that it meets most of the criteria. There is still one red link that I am working on to fix, and there may be a few things that I have missed out. But I think that it could get that "Very Good Article" stamp on the top with a few revisions.
Gwib-(talk)- 14:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question please: Are we allowed to upload images here on Simple, I thought it is not allowed? Image:Hendrix.jpg has been uploaded here, I think. RaNdOm26 17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing; deleted image, replaced with another. --Eptalon 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn (planet)[change source]

Saturn (planet) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I worked very hard on this article for a long time, and I think it is coming close to meeting the good article criteria. I had to create something like 20 to 30 new articles to fill in the red links, still have a few more to go. Other than that, I hope people can have a look at the article at its current status and comment. Constructive criticism is welcome. Thank you. RaNdOm26 13:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... shouldn't anyone move this to the voting section. Also this place ain't no right place to vote since it is barely undergoing proposition stage. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can move it to the voting section......I haven't finished because there are still about 8 red links left to deal with, unless anyone can help out creating the articles. :) RaNdOm26 05:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red links now downgraded to 3. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little red riding hood[change source]

Little Red Riding Hood (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
There is still one redlink left --Eptalon 12:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)No redlinks left; it is a valid candidate. What does the community think? --Eptalon 06:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better than when I first critiqued it (oh, wait, that would be due to my re-write of it.. n/m) but still a couple small things. Image size is overpowering the article (minor fix). Removing the link to Plot (redlink) and then explaining it just to get around having a red-link - Either the word plot needs to be reworded in such a way that it is simple without linking, or the article would be needed and the link restored. Defining terms not directly tied into the article just does not seem like something a very good article would do. (and there is that missing space on the definition as well (Minor). Tales and Stories of the Past with Morals. Tales of Mother Goose should probably be linked. The article is relatively short. Shrink the image and its external links start to show on the first screen; much of its 3k total size is in its interwiki links. This could be made up in the section on meaning and adding a bit on symbology in the tale. (red cloak, rebirth, Jonah and the whale, etc.) -- Creol(talk) 07:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made the article a little longer. I have put in adaptations (notably the opera, and the cartoon by Tex Avery). I have also put in some interpretations (suppressed Riding Hood, The Red cape being a symbol for menstruation, the story being a warning against being raped). Adds about half a screen to it. Of course, I stubbed all redlinks. --Eptalon 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to change the sentence structure in the first part. I know we only use simple sentence structure, but unless we use more than one clause in some sentences it just won't sound right, or just sound patronising. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer7 (talk • contribs)
I think that sentences that have two parts should be OK for our readers. The second part is either put in with commas, or pronouns are used to link it. We do not want to end up with Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity - In Words of Four Letters or Less. This is all simple language. But because it is so simple it is very hard to understand. Better use language that is a little more complex, but easier to understand (I am a non-native English speaker, btw.). So yes, I would definitely vote for making the first sections a little more complex than they are now. --Eptalon 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously listed in Very good articles[change source]

Alanis Morissette (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Chocolate (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Ernest Hemingway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Malaria (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have made Caffeine and Japanese tea ceremony into the first two very good articles, and removed the tag from the others, that is Alanis Morissette, Chocolate, Malaria, Atlana, Georgia, Bob Dylan, Devon, Equinox, Ernest Hemingway and Fencing. They can be re-listed (and voted on) here once they meet the criteria. This means I officially started the process. Yay. :) --Eptalon 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the others articles previously listed, I have marked those as proposed very good articles I feel stand a chance of becoming very good, with relatively little work. These are Alanis Morissette, Chocolate, Ernest Hemingway, and Malaria. I have removed the tag from the others, see the archive for more. --Eptalon 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all of the the pvgoods; they can be re-listed when there is interest again --Eptalon 12:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chopstick[change source]

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

The article on chopsticks are almost good enough to be on the "good articles" list. It still needs some information on history. Coffsneeze 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is almost there. We should remove a few hiccups in language. Then we can change its status. --Eptalon 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II[change source]

Pope John Paul II (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Just stumbled upon the article about Pope John Paul II. It looks quite simple, has had a number of revisions, but still about 3 redlinks left (to other Popes, and one person I do not know). IMO is a candidate that can be made very good with little work. --Eptalon 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some redlinks which need to be worked out. - Huji reply 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Timberlake[change source]

Justin Timberlake (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've just expanded on this article and added some references. Looked at the requirements and I think it meets at least five of them. I don't know what more I could do, but I don't think there is a lot more left to do. What else can I add to become a VG article? RaNdOm26 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert, but I would think the only thing lacking is item 6 (no redlinks). I have stuck in the pvgood tag. Once redlinks are done with, we basically could vote on this one. --Eptalon 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I have completed all the red link articles. Also removed links for the less notable musicians. Hopefully there will be more interested people who can participate in here. RaNdOm26 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you think it is ready create an entry in the voting section below; good luck. :) --Eptalon 19:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! :) RaNdOm26 09:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is coming along quite nicely. However, the article has no mention of the Mickey Mouse Club, an important launch pad for his career. I think the "Early life" section needs to be expanded and include this info. Also, perhaps a section should be added called "Personal life" to discuss his relationships, etc. His relationships with Britney Spears and Cameron Diaz have been a big part of keeping him in the news. · Tygartl1·talk· 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded on those topics, I knew that the article needed a bit more. Thank you for the suggestions. RaNdOm26 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all redlinks. The big question now is do we get three people supporting the article? --Eptalon 14:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles currently in Category:Very good articles[change source]

The 11 articles that are currently in the category seem to have been added without community discussion. I think they should have to follow the rules we now have in place for very good articles. Please make comments on whether you think they should be kept as very good articles. The 11 articles are:

· Tygartl1·talk· 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to keep Bob Dylan and Equinox and remove the rest. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are almost there (they have a few red links). As to the length I had in mind, Chocolate is almost there. It is a bit more than a page, on my screen. The language is simple, the image is good. I also removed the last remaining red link (by doing a stub on 'hot chocolate'). So of these articles, Chocolate is probably closest to what I had in mind when I came up with the very good article idea. Devon is perhaps the other end of the spectrum of these articles. There are many red links; I personally do not think SimpleWP should focus on creating all those links in the Devon article at the moment. Also, perhaps this is just me, but I think sectioning elements like titles should not contain links. Equinox is a little short, so is Bob Dylan. If he became a Christian, what was he before (unspecified)? - The other articles are certainly a good point to start, but they still have red links to fix. In my opinion, the current selection is also a good mix across different fields of study. --Eptalon 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just sprang to my mind. The length is of course an item up for discussion; and it is of course a minimal length. There is no use in cutting away valid, perhaps even interesting info (after the copyedit-simplify process has been done). If you disagree, please say so openly. My role as an admin is limited to being able to delete articles and block users. Sometimes I need to make a judgement on what to delete, and who to block. It does not mean, that I my opinion has more weight that any of your opinions. Those rules I put up should not be cast in stone, they should adapt as a result of what the community wants. --Eptalon 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to hog the discussion, but I would chime in that I personally like the criteria. That's not to say other criteria may not be viable as well. Upon further review, I agree with your assessment on Chocolate, and would probably say that I think are Equinox and Bob Dylan are good short articles but maybe not very good articles (Both could use a little work). Of course, some topics may only need one or two paragraphs to explain them satisfactorily; so, maybe we should call them guidelines instead of rules to give us all some flexibility. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caffeine,Ernest Hemingway, Japanese Tea Ceremony and Malaria can develop into very good longer articles, provided the red links disappear. I have a very mixed feeling about Fencing. I think even if the article is about a page long, there is too little there to make this a very good article, without major rewriting. So to sum up the current status --Eptalon 09:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alanis Morissette: One redlink remains, otherwise might be seen as a valid candidate.
  • Atlanta, Georgia: Three redlinks. Otherwise valid candidate.
  • Bob Dylan: Too short
  • Caffeine: Four redlinks; most of them medical terms, or words from pharmacology/chemistry. Otherwise valid candidate.
  • Chocolate: Valid candidate.
  • Devon: Over 20 redlnks in the first four sections (up to, and including Economy). This article needs a lot of work till it can even be considered a candidate. As written above, we should, in my opinion not spend our precious time on it, right now. Unless there is someone here from Devon, who takes pelasure in tyding up this article, I think we should drop it from the list.
  • Equinox: Good article, but a little short to be a very good one (should be about twice as long; perhaps add something more about cultural significance, or history of it). The bonfires lit in may and october in some parts of the world are a pagan relic to the celtic/pagan feasts of Beltane and Samhain, I think.
  • Ernest Hemingway: 24 redlinks, some of which can be redirected to wiktionary.
  • Fencing: Too little content, I would opt for dropping the article now, and re-listing, once it has been reworked.
  • Japanese Tea Ceremony: 5 redlinks, otherwise valid candidate.
  • Malaria: 6 redlinks, most are medical terms. Otherwise valid candidate.

To sum up the current status, the probably first few true very good articles could be Alanis Morisette, Atlanta, Caffeine, Chocolate,Japanese Tea Ceremony, and Malaria. This can be done with a relatively small effort. --Eptalon 09:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Japanese Tea Ceremony has only one redlink left (to Ikebana). --Eptalon 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of a very good article would be an article that is essentially complete, an article that doesn't have much room for improvement at all. It think that when considering the length of an article that we should keep in mind the length that it could be. I feel like there is a lot more information that can be added to all of the articles. The exception to that is Malaria, which I think might need to be gone over to make sure that all the information is encyclopedic and remove/reword parts that are not (for example, the wording in the "How to prevent malaria" section could be improved.) That being said, I would say that the best articles on the list are Alanis Morisette, Caffeine, Japanese Tea Ceremony, and Malaria. Do I think that any of them are yet worthy of being marked as very good articles? I still have not decided. I really want to feel confident that we are putting our best articles on display. I will do some more thinking before giving my decision. · Tygartl1·talk· 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with essentially complete to make an article very good is that knowledge about the subject the article describes is needed; I would prefer to have criteria for very good article that can be easily automated; that way, a bot could (in theory) go through all articles, and propose candidates for very good articles.--Eptalon 08:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Removed all redlinks in Malaria, which makes it a valid candidate; however, the stubs created to do this may be hard to understand for some people (esp. the G6PD deficiency; which is a hereditary disease leading to anaemia because a certain enzyme cannot be made). --Eptalon 08:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[change source]

I propose that the following articles should keep the very good articles tag, and that it should be removed from all others:

The following articles would therefore no longer be classified as very good:

They can be re-listed once they meet the criteria. What does the community think? --Eptalon 09:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content-wise, Alanis Morisette, Caffeine, Japanese tea ceremony are the only ones I think are ready. (IMO, Chocolate and Malaria need very thorough copyedits before being ready.) However, Japanese tea ceremony is the only one of them that has any references, and it only has one. References are an important part of making an article "very good". There is a discussion on Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles about what exactly the criteria for references should be. If we can agree on criteria for references, and if Alanis and Caffeine and Japanese tea ceremony meet those requirements, I vote for those three to remain very good articles. · Tygartl1·talk· 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived votings[change source]

Newer requests at the top, please

Evolution[change source]

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

Voting has started, so I finished referencing it and moved this here. Adam Cuerden 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote possible until September 30, 2007
What do you mean by the sentence "all of biology uses evolution, and there are no alternatives that explain the facts better", this (IMHO) is POV. I've taken the liberty of changing it, but feel free to revert my edits if you think that you can find a better wording. Gwib-(talk)- 19:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution is used in every field of biology, and the alternatives (creationism, Intelligent design) don't provide a theoretical framework for all the fields evolution is used in.
For example, population genetics, based on natural selection and genetic drift, is used to manage the captive breeding programs in zoos. It shows why small populations get ill, and how to fix it using gene flow. There is no non-evolutionary theory that can explain the observed facts. Adam Cuerden 09:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful there, people say that God wishes the animals to be sick for his own reasons, since God works in mysterious ways. This is counted at a perfectly acceptable explanation for the sick animals. -- Gwib-(talk)- 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75% support. Passes. --§ Snake311 (T + C) RFA 19:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lysergic Acid Dietylamide (LSD)[change source]

Vote possible until September 29,2007
Lysergic acid diethylamide (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

There has been some controversy regarding this, namely whether using LSD once increases the risk of getting cancer or mutations of genetic material. See the article's talk page for more on the controversy. Nevertheless, I fixed the few redlinks that remained, and I am now proposing the article for a vote. Please do not be afraid to oppose it. "Very good article" should be a tag attached to articles that are worth the tag. It might well be that this one is not. --Eptalon 12:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It could really stand to explain some things more. This paragraph in particular:
LSD first became popular in the 1960s, when Harvard psychology professor called Dr. Timothy Leary began encouraging people to try the drug. College students participated in voluntary LSD experiments, which were conducted by psychologists and other professionals. Leary and his colleagues Richard Alpert and Ralph Metzner thought the transforming effects of the drug could be a kind of rebirth of users, such as many religions offered. They authored a book, The Psychedelic Experience, which was based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Leary eventually became well known in the 1960s countercultural hippie movement for his slogan about LSD: "Turn on, tune in, drop out". A number of famous rock bands, including the Beatles and the Grateful Dead, became known for their use of LSD, and even a new type of rock music, called "acid rock", was born from the fad.
...has a lot of references that the schoolchildren and people with very little English that we're writing for aren't going to get. Just to start: "Tibetan Book of the Dead", "Countercultural hippie movement", "transforming effects of the drug could be a kind of rebirth of users, such as many religions offered", perhaps even the list of rock bands, though that last isn't as bad as the others.
This is a good start, but it needs a bit more work at really simplifying the English and explaining the references. For that matter, it also could use more notes as to sources. Adam Cuerden 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75% support. Passes. --§ Snake311 (T + C) RFA 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Missile Crisis[change source]

Cuban Missile Crisis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 25, 2007

I think this article is ready to move into the voting phase. The article seems to be ready for the VGA tag. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% support. Passes. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 01:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[change source]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 25, 2007

I also throughly read this article and found it also ready to begin voting phase. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the judge was, if anything, much stronger than the article in his condemnation of intelligent design, it's probably about as NPOV as reality gets. Adam Cuerden 10:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80% support. Passes. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 01:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy server[change source]

Proxy server (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 15, 2007

I'd like to stay bold and nominate this article as a candidate for a VGA strap. It meets most of the required criteria. I hope it is supported. - Huji reply 12:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dear Huji - but not just yet. While the style and references are pretty good, this is basically a long stub, and there's a lot of sensitive information on the subject that is still missing. I suggest expanding it, at least double its size before considering it a potential candidate. Phaedriel - 10:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phaedrial, I expanded the article yesterday a bit. It is not doubled in size, but it covers some items in more details. Please let me know if there are speicifc issues which are not mentioned in the article. - Huji reply 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, dear Huji - the article looks much more comprehensive and better referenced imho, and I'd support moving it to the voting stage now. Way to go! :) Phaedriel - 13:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltmeter[change source]

Voltmeter (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 13, 2007

I faced it while I was working on uncategorized pages. I added cat and interwiki, and now it is almost there, I think. - Huji reply 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to insist that it is almost there. It needs a little work yet. - Huji reply 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you said, almost there. Some references are definitely in order, and a few red links need to be filled - but certainly a good candidate if these issues are solved. Phaedriel - 10:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The article meets the very basic criteria of a VG article, but still is missing a few things. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I ahve done a bit of copyediting of the article, but I think the language is still too complex in parts. Also, I felt that it jumps around a bit and repeats too often that one needs to be careful about not destroying the voltmeter. This may be very important but that does not mean it needs to be mentioned in every paragraph. This is a fine article but not yet ready to be shown off as "one of our best". · Tygrrr·talk· 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Vince (2005)[change source]

Hurricane Vince (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 13, 2007

I've done nearly all the work here on this article which seems to meet at least half of the criteria, although my guess was 7 out of the 10 criteria. I've revised most of the article. The only thing it possibly needs is some reviewing from other editors. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some small changes to the language, polishing it a bit. At first sight, I would say the article qualifies...--Eptalon 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze[change source]

Kamikaze (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vote possible until September 8, 2007

The latest projecty I've been working on. After getting valuable input from Huji and Gwib, and polishing the last minor details, I feel (hope) it's worthy of the VG tag. I hereby submit it for your consideration. Phaedriel - 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Man[change source]

Fall of Man (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends: August 31, 2007

Done a major re-write, one red link to fix, 6 references added, grammar fixed and simplified furthur. Waddaya think? Gwib-(talk)- 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are called Very good articles here, featured is not a simple word. --Eptalon 09:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: article promoted to Very Good. Phaedriel - 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geisha[change source]

Geisha (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends: August 29, 2007

After some days of research and work, here's the tentatively final version of this article. The subject is extremely complex, like so many things in Japanese culture, so keeping it brief has been a daunting task. Fortunately, with 1,900 words, I feel it's pretty complete, yet well within our length standards. I've consulted several sources in different languages to try and write something deeper than its EnWP counterpart, and I'm satisfied with the results. After being reviewed by other users for the last couple of days, I feel (hope) it's ready to be considered for the VG tag. Thank you all for your time! :) Phaedriel - 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical cyclone[change source]

Subtropical cyclone (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends: August 27, 2007

I've finished doing several reviews of the article and made some final touchings on it, so I decided that it should now be moved to the voting section. Seems to be very close to the VGA tag. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern United States[change source]

Midwestern United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends: August 25, 2007

I've recently read the article and I found the work to be wuite outstanding. So I decided to move this over here since the article gives clear basic information, has references, and no red links. Good work User:Tygartl1! Cheers, --§ Snake311 (T + C) 23:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As nominator for the article. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 23:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Just given the article a few tweeks here and there, IMO it can become a VG article (but more external websites would be nice).
Gwib-(talk)- 23:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanami[change source]

Hanami (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends: August 25, 2007

In the last few days, I've worked hard on this article, researching, doublechecking with Japanese sources, writing and copyediting, and filling more than 30 red links. While the basic structure is similar to its JaWP counterpart (upon which all other Wikipedias' entries are built), I've added a great number of relevant facts, historical and cultural, and rewritten the article completely. As it happens in these cases, I feel that the only guideline it doesn't comply is, not having been edited by others (yet). However, I'd like to submit it as a candidate, because I think that, with your constructive criticism, it may be worthy of the precious VG tag. In fact, I'm very happy to say, we have now an article on the subject that is longer, more informative and comprehensive, and better referenced and illustrated than any other Wikipedia. Please, feel free to review/comment/improve, my friends. Phaedriel - 00:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some minor copyediting. Great job you did there. Why do you always have to be so perfect? (just kidding!) --Isis§(talk) 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix[change source]

Jimi Hendrix (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends: August 23, 2007

Some people have already voiced their opinions on this before it had even come to the voting stage! Please voice them again (if you wouldn't mind) so that we can be clear if you were Supporting or Opposing. Thanks all of you who did those little edits that I'd missed! Gwib-(talk)- 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ready to go through the voting stage. --Isis§(talk) 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn (planet)[change source]

Saturn (planet) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends: August 18, 2007

I've noticed several users were already voting for the article before it even got here, so I just decided to move it since any established editor/user can. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 22:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Lee (2005)[change source]

Tropical Storm Lee (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Voting ends: August 18, 2007

Well I've got several positive reviews from other editors as well as having the article undergo a few peer reviewing(s) so I was wondering if we could vote now on the article since nothing else seems to be needed. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 04:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Little red riding hood[change source]

Little Red Riding Hood (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting ends: August 12, 2007. I am trying to clean out the above. I do not know what to think about this one. If we cannot get the required approval, we can unceremoniously remove it from above. For the rest, see above. --Eptalon 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (was Weak oppose) - I think it's a great article, but I'm wary of that first paragraph being too complicated, but more importantly, we only have ONE VERSION of the story!
    A heading in the article says "Versions of the story", but then it only has one. We should probably write more versions until it can become a very good article. Changes have been made, it can now (IMO) become a very good article.
    Gwib-(talk)- 13:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article definitely meets the criteria. --Isis§(talk) 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - There is no negative point about the article. However, comparing it with en:Little Red Riding Hood, and regarding the number of references there, I think it'd be better for our version to have some referenes too :) - Huji reply 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have extended the article. I have added some references, I have also extended the Meanings section.--Eptalon 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --§ Snake311 (T + C) 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like it. --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think it's ready yet. It still needs a thorough copyedit imho. I don't know, maybe my standards are too high, but I just don't think it's good enough yet. I'm as anxious as anyone else to get the vgood tag on as many articles as possible (perhaps more anxious than many), I just want to make sure we are confident of the quality of the articles we are placing the tag on. And I just don't feel that way about this article. · Tygartl1·talk· 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chopstick[change source]

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

(Vote Ends: July 30, 2007)

I have removed all redlinks, Imo, the article is ready for a vote... --Eptalon 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:One more very good article --Eptalon 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II[change source]

Pope John Paul II (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

(Vote Ends: July 30, 2007)

I have removed all redlinks, Imo, the article is ready for a vote... --Eptalon 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Made very good --Eptalon 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India[change source]

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

Voting ends: 15 July 2007

In my point of view, India deserves to be nominated for Very Good Article status. Although the article is rather young, and has mostly been completed by one user (User:Universe=atom to be accurate), it is very well written, and meets all the WP:VGOOD criteria except number 5. So all in all, I hope it is accepted as a Very Good Article by the community. - Huji reply 15:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made a very good article; grats --Eptalon 09:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Timberlake[change source]

Justin Timberlake (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Nominated on June 30. Hope it goes well. RaNdOm26 09:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article is now very good, in my opinion. · Tygartl1·talk· 14:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: made into very good article --Eptalon 14:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles/Archive_1&oldid=8893443"