Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 10

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

Archived proposals[change source]

Horatio Alger, Jr.[change source]

Horatio Alger, Jr. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been nurtured along for some time. This article is comprehensive and appropriate for this wiki. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you decide to review! Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just on a scroll-down, there are red links. -Barras talk 11:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There's a single redlink: moralism. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done Oregonian2012 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of the text, including part of the "Legacy" section is too complex. "Other writers slightly reworked the Alger moral and ethical outlook to suit more materialistic times", for example. "The quality of his literary allusions however makes his prose distinctive". I don't think this is Simple English. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Has defects which should have been corrected long ago:
    No red links at all are allowed for VGA;  Done {{Related pages must be properly related (this one is not);  Done Dates of birth and death should not be linked, in fact years should not be linked at all unless very significant.
    The general simplicity of the language is borderline.
    The article makes little of his pederasty. There is a tendency for biographies to view the dark side of their subjects with leniency, or to omit it entirely (see our article on Frank Sinatra). We should do what we can to make sure that criminal and quasi-criminal activity by a subject is given due prominence.
    Overall, a fairly reasonable candidate for VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: I'm closing this as it's been ongoing for nearly 6 months now, which is, frankly, a bit ridiculous. If the article was ready it would have support for a promotion, and there are outstanding concerns both listed above and from a quick glance through the article myself. My suggestion would be to address any outstanding concerns, seek some informal reviews and then return. Goblin 23:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

Commodore Nutt[change source]

Commodore Nutt (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article recently passed GA. I think it can go on to pass VGA. It is as comprehensive as possible in my estimation. There are not volumes of information on this man and about everything published on him has been entered here. My "head" is still into this subject at the moment. It will be easier to respond to your concerns. I look forward to your comments, and will respond at once. Oregonian2012 (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I can support this going to VGA. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, StevenJ81! Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed that article not too long ago for GA candidacy. I just had a look at it again and I've found nothing that would need to be fixed. A really good article which promotion to VGA status I happily support. -Barras talk 18:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you, Barras! Oregonian2012 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
We're really too scrupulous with PGAs. It has repeatedly been identified as a problem and is something that we need to correct. There's not much I can really find that needs addressing, and I also don't want to see it get revised so much that it becomes unrecognisable from the version recently promoted. The few things I can say are pretty minor:
  • The hatnote at the top of the article needs to go, since there's WP:NOARTICLE.
  • Only bold the title of the article once. Technically, you're supposed to include it as part of the opening sentence. "aka..." looks wierd, though; it might be better if you wrote "better known as..." and remove the link to stage name since it appears later in the same paragraph.
Osiris (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Osiris. I've made some changes in the first sentences of the lead. Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That looks great. You could bold "George Washington Morrison Nutt" if you want, but I don't think it's a big deal either way. I support promotion now. Osiris (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Osiris! Your help on bringing an article to VGA is always appreciated! Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the article, and at the requirements for VGAs. I think there are still some long sentences that could be shortened, but since the requirements don't say anything about the article being simple, I will support this promotion. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    Surely it goes without saying that articles should be simple...? Goblin 13:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Auntof6!
    Thank you, Auntof6 for your support! I'm going to look at the article again and shorten long sentences. After all, this is part of the process! Thank you again! Oregonian2012 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Closed as promoted: Taking a punt and closing this early per WP:SNOW. All the comments suggest that the article was pretty much ready after the GA nomination, and I found very little that needs changing (all now done) on a pass through. We've passed things with less than 5 supports in the past, and taking this through another week would be pointless, imo. Congratulations. Goblin 15:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!

Thanks to everyone for your generous support and comments! Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jumbo[change source]

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

Jumbo's story will be enjoyed by our young and old readers alike. I wrote this article from scratch. Please don't compare it to enwiki. We don't agree. Enwiki has Jumbo born in western Africa while my sources have him born in eastern Africa. Thanks. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I put some notes on the talk page a while ago and Oregonian was in the process of addressing them. Unless anyone else wants to step in and take over, I think this is going to be heading for an unsuccessful close. Osiris (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Closed as not promoted. Since Oregonian was blocked indefinitely. Osiris (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Selena[change source]

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

The article failed its last nomination, it has since then gone through several copy-edits. If there are any more issues please let me know. Thanks, .jonatalk 02:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I do not think we should consider it. A huge amount of time was spent on it last time, and it is essentially the same article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be considered, but not at this time. If I remember correctly the closing suggestion was to go through the article informally to get it up to scratch before bringing it here, possibly going via GA first. Enough of the drive-by noms. Goblin 09:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Macdonald-ross!
If you guys believe its not VGA-ready, I don't mind moving it to PGA. Best, .jonatalk 00:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
It's up to you whether you put it up for VGA or GA, but my comments stand either way: get an informal review before nominating, and ensure that the article already meets all the criteria. Note any article that is not up to scratch technically automatically fails as we have a requirement that articles are stable and not about to undergo multiple changes, although we're being a bit slack on that at the moment. Either way, my point about drive-by nominations stands. Goblin 21:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
I think the article is great for a VGA status and perfect for a GA status. It's greatly references, has supported information, a descent amount of images, and it's simple. I enjoyed reading the article :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bluegoblin7: Yes, I want to go through the PVGA process. The article has gone through several revisions and copy-edits by other editors during its run at PVGA last year, so I don't see how the article needs to be heavily edited this time around. @TDKR Chicago 101: Thanks for your support and glad you enjoyed it. Best, .jonatalk 01:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Just on a quick glance I noticed Selena#CITEREFL1995 which is terribly formatted. That is an article. Not a book. Yet it is listed like it's a book. Additionally, what is this author's first and last name? Only (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done are there any more issues? Best, .jonatalk 00:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Early Success is a level 1 heading and Later success is a subheading under Early success? Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted: No edits to article in three weeks, and no comments here in over a month. Stale nomination. Goblin 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

The Lightning Thief[change source]

The Lightning Thief (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This was promoted to GA couple of years back and almost no work has been done on it since then, so it's probably not close to VGA standard yet. However, I'd like to work on this article, so I'm submitting this for VGA review. Thanks for the comments / reviews. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Further comment: Note that half the references on the page are to pages that are currently offline. I'll try to replace them asap. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I will put some thoughts on the talkpage.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I have no doubts that any comments made on this VGA will be enacted swiftly and thoroughly - unlike other recent noms - I do have to comment that we've recently closed other noms based on them clearly not being ready and still to undergo major edits. This particularly articles strikes me as one of those cases, and I think it might be more appropriate to get the changes and comments made not as part of PVGA, but informally, and then bring the article back when it is at - or nearly at - promotion stage. That said, I'll try and give the article a look over in the next couple of days, and this is purely my personal opinion rather than any "decision" either way. Goblin 09:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
  • I've looked at the comments so far and have addressed most of them. I'll finish making the changes in a couple of days. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added a number of comments on the article's talk page regarding the language and style side of things. Yottie =talk= 17:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for putting up comments! I'm working on them, and I'll try to fix the problems shortly. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've handled almost everything, except the overlinking issue I guess. Any more comments? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Extend for two weeks: Progress is being made here, which is excellent. As the wiki seems particularly quiet at the moment, let's let this run for another couple of weeks in the hope that activity picks up a little! Goblin 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!
Anything else I need to fix? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is looking very good.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm taking a look, and doing some simplifying. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have promoted the article; please adapt the pages I possibly forgot... --Eptalon (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the promotion, but the presence of maintenance categories (dated October 2014) precludes this article from promotion according to the criteria. It's certainly in good shape but I also don't think we have a consensus for promotion here, especially as the last comment was w/r/t "taking a look" rather than supporting promotion. Goblin 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!
Thanks for mentioning the maintenance category; it was from a dead link I'd forgotten to replace, but I've fixed that now. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Fabulous, I had little doubt that it would be promptly attended to. ;-) Goblin 14:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

Hurricane Grace (1991)[change source]

Hurricane Grace (1991) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is currently a good article here and a featured article on enwiki. I'd appreciate it if you would leave your feedback below. Eurodyne (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It needs simplifying. Not only wording, but a lot of the sentences are compound and there are complex words. It would also be nice if the links to Wiktionary were replaced with either article links, simpler words, or explanations -- it's nicer for the readers if they don't have to go elsewhere to understand something. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done Simplified most of it. May need some help of other editors. Auntof6, I left a message on your talk page. Eurodyne (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks good. I'll be checking the article another time right now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I did some more simplifying. My only comment now is that I think there's too much detail about the "perfect storm" that Grace formed part of. This article should focus more on Grace. We have an article for the other storm; let's put that detail there if it's not there already. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Auntof6, I see that it only talks about the 'perfect storm' in the introduction of the article. Which section are you referring to? Eurodyne (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It talks about it in the next-to-last paragraph under "Preparations and impact". Everything except the first sentence there is about the other storm. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed that part. Anything else I can do? Eurodyne (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks good. There might be some more terms that could be linked. I'll check for that when I get a chance. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I've linked a few more terms. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference 12 is telling me that the archive has apparently moved. This needs to be fixed. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to say this is not really a good article to my eyes, so it follows that it is not a very good article. The language is too clumsy. Sentences end abruply, and their connection with the next sentence is often unclear. Even inside sentences the wording is not good. "The storm had a small effect on the island of Bermuda when it passed to the south" is written instead of "The storm had little effect on Bermuda as it passed to the south" is both more direct and uses prepositions and other prose elements more correctly. Again, later "The beginning of Grace was" intead of "Grace began as"... Again, later, what on earth is that sentence doing in brackets (first para "Metereological history"). What that tells me is that the writer knew the paragraph had something wrong with it, but could not bear to re-write it.
    Often, too often, the wrong words are chosen. "larger" instead of "more" is exactly the kind of thing which should not happen in a good article. "A yacht, a type of boat" - what?? We may not have a page "yacht", but wikt does, and it's the job of a writer to find this out.
    Finally, we're not told the full story about the name 'Grace' not being retired. What should we make of it? Is it not the writer's job to anticipate and answer questions which might arise in the reader's mind? What occurs to me is that Grace was not a real hurricane after all. I could be wrong, but the article leaves me guessing. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    • You have some good points, but I'd like to see us not be too quick to include links to Wiktionary, especially for things that could have an article some day. I think we have too many such links. Once we link to Wiktionary, we almost never replace those links when an article does get created. It's also not the best thing to make people go to a different project to find something out. It's much better to explain a word/phrase, or simplify it where possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed all of the wikt links and have added them with simpler words. I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. Eurodyne (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's now been three weeks. Is there a consensus to promote? Eurodyne (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • After more than a month of this request, is there any more feedback I could get?
  • Just to repeat myself: it is not suitable for promotion, and is only just about a good article. It does use simple words and short sentences, but does not read well, and lacks flow (see comments above). Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not promoted: Not much work done in more than a month and no consensus to promote. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Airbourne[change source]

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

Have a lot of information. --Cristianho19 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oyster Burns[change source]

Oyster Burns (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Currently a GA both here and on enwiki. Pretty decent article, meets criteria. I'm willing to make changes, just let me know. eurodyne (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me on initial inspection. My only question, mainly for @Auntof6, who's pretty good at this, is whether sentence structure is occasionally too complex. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say there room for simplifying the sentence structure. I'll take a crack at it right now. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Auntof6: updates? eurodyne (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I did the simplifying I said I'd do. What other updates are you looking for from me? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fine, except for the word "demote". But I can't really think of a good, simple synonym that captures the essence of the word. So sometime today (US EDT) I'll create a definition for "demote" in wikt. In the meanwhile, I support promotion. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Not yet. Much of the article is boring statistics, yet when something real happens there is just no discussion. A colleague stabs him!?! And there is no discussion or explanation?? He severs a tendon, but plays only two weeks later? How does he do that? You have to run between bases, you know! The references are not much help here, as you can see. Biographies are about people, and readers rightly expect the human peculiarities to be given full weight. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: As you have mentioned, the references don't really do a good job of explaining that. Do you think this article could still pass as a VGA if I took certain part(s) out? eurodyne (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're referring to the stabbing &c., then I think this: it obviously was an extraordinary incident, and because it was by colleague it has to be explained and discussed (it was not a random street event). Without it, the biog lacks an important element. Biographies are about people, not just sports statistics. The obvious way to go is to the published biographies of him. The way to get those is through the public library system. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Burns was the person who did the stabbing, not the person who was stabbed (and severed his tendon). I think there was some mix-up in the comments above. Of course, I agree that there should have been a bit more discussion of that particular incident. You don't exactly stab someone who is sleeping and get away with it. Chenzw  Talk  14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Just glancing at it (literally) the imbalance of sections is glaring. We shouldn't have sections that are two lines at most. Balance it better. And agree with others...needs to be a more comprehensive biography. Only (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey, just came by. As the original author, I have no problem with this nomination. I will say, however, that, on a cursory search of a service to which I subscribed on enWP, I found several articles of interest that aren't included in the current article; to name two, Tom Burns, Noted Player of the '90s, Dies at Age of 64: Was Member of Brooklyn Pennant Winners of 1890. Read his own Obituary. and An Idyl of a Diamond Hero: True Story of how a Hotel Fire Cemented a Friendship that Continued Thirty Years Although One Handed the Other his Obituary to Read. There's definitely more out there. Seattle (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I am going to close this now. It's been over a month since the last edit to the article, and the two article I mentioned a week ago haven't been examined to find incorporative material. Renominate after you've incorporated all material you could find. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan[change source]

Ronald Reagan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is my first GA nominee to become a GA and frankly seeing at the current VGA I feel this article is at a very high and well structured article for VGA. I've worked hard on it and the article is in tip top shape. Of course I believe there is adjustments to be done be make this a VGA, but seeing I have more time on my hands, I'm more than happy to tackle those suggestions to make this article a VGA. The article has been simplified during GA review, is well sourced, well formatted, has many sources and content and is a GA. I do believe this article has potential to be a VGA which is why I am nominating it for VGA status. Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article is generally a good candidate; I have only had a quick glance. What bothers me a little is that there are many rather short sections, especially in the presidency part. We might consider regrouping these, for example add a section health, where we mention the different health issues: the hearing aid, the differnt forms of cancer, and perhaps Alzheimer's (not sure). I don't know, but I think to a certain extent it is normal that hearing gets worse with age. Most US presidents assumed their office at age 50+, or even 60+ (with the exception of Obama, and JFK, don't know of any others). Somewhat reminds me of glasses: Almost all people with a higher education wear glasses. In that context is it worth mentioning that XY wears glasses? - I leave it up to others to discuss. But as I said, I only had a quick glance, and did no in-deph analysis. --Eptalon (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, the section on marriages shouldn't go under his acting career. Maybe a separate personal life section? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eptalon: & @Auntof6:: So either expand (add notability) to the health section, got it! Marriage part had been added towards it's own section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. The section on marriages should be moved down after the main details of his life. Some comments about the honors section:
  • The first item, about getting a Marine recruitment letter, doesn't seem like an honor, so I removed it.
  • I did some simplifying.
  • The term "unveil" isn't simple, but I'm not sure what to replace it with.
--Auntof6 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Auntof6:: I simplified the honors section although I do not know where to place the marriage section. I thought before his political sections began because it would be in chronological order. Where would you exactly recommend putting it? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably after the death and funeral section. I noticed something else: there's a section called "Secret FBI agent". It seems like Reagan was an informant, not an agent, so that section should be renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Auntof6:: Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I created a health section down where his Alzheimer diagnosis is described. Section as is is still a little short (doesn't really solve the issue raised, but improves on the previous state). I moved the old health section there. Is there anything else that can be said about his health? --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I've expanded the health section. Is it good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the section looks better now. --Eptalon (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I often find that I am repeating myself. At GA level I commented:
"I think all the ways of representing pronunciation (such as IPA) are useless, and get in the way of the intro sentence, which affects readability. Do you see them in newspaper of magazine articles? You do not, and with good reason. If pronunciation of a name is really a problem, it could be addressed in the text. In Reagan's case there is no problem. What I mean is, a name like 'Featherstonehaugh', which is pronounced "Fanshaw", needs explaining. Reagan's does not. Intro sentences and paras are absolutely critical".
I still think so. Now something more general. I was living in Palo Alto for a period period when he was Governor of California. He was vigorously opposed by the lefties (nothing new there!), but amazed everyone at how well he did the job. Something rather similar happened with his presidency. It was strongly opposed by the liberal elite, but he ended up, as you say, a most popular president. One of the explanations was that he had picked very good people in his governments, and let them get on with it. This dynamic of moving from being perceived as someone without the background of political experience to a widespread acknowledgement that he had something special is perhaps something which deserves more prominence in the article. I see one or two books in the En page "Bibliography of Ronald Reagan" which look promising as possible sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper or magazine article, IPA is very important for us. Especially for us at simple where the readers might be ESL readers. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Macdonald-ross:: So add content in regards to his bipartisanship during his presidency despite Reagan not being liked by Liberals? I'm on it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Problem with the "short sections": We still have the issue that some sections are rather short. Is it reasonable to expect that no matter what, we do not have any sections/subsections shorter than, say 5-6 lines of text? - The ones I see as problematic are (amongst others) "President of the Screen Actors Guild","Secret FBI Agent", "Failed Presidential Campaigns", "First term, 1981-85".What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eptalon: I've expanded the SAG section, FBI section and added more info about his 1976 and 1980 campaigns. In regards to the first terms and all the sub section, basically everything after First term, 1981-85 until Second term, 1985-89 are in regards to his first term and the events are sorted out. Of course some sections are going to be smaller because that's how it is, but they still belong within that first term. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence, Kansas[change source]

Lawrence, Kansas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article for Lawrence certainly fulfilled the GA criteria, and I think it goes well beyond that. The article is very well sourced, formatted, has loads of content, (many of the pages it links to also aren't stubs). I think that it has potential to become a VGA. I think this should become the goal for any big city that would have a lot of content, instead of the usual articles we see that are barely a few paragraphs. I think some people may just need a bit of a guide on what a VGA for a city would look like on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I think this will help. ~Junedude433talk 22:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks very good! You did a lot of good work to get it to this state. I can see a couple of things I would improve. One is that I see at least one word, sector, that could be simplified (preferably not linked to Wiktionary). Another thing is that there are some more terms that could be linked, including temperance, the architectural styles that aren't already linked, urban development, household, the names of people and businesses in the 20th century section... There could be more, I can check better when I get my laptop back from the shop.
By the way, good and very good articles can be flagged in Wikidata so that they're highlighted in the languages list on other Wikipedias. I just took care of that for this page's good article status. We should be sure to update that if/when the article is promoted. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and linked to some of the pages you mentioned. However, I couldn't find the word "sector" used anywhere in the article. Could you please specify where you found this?
I also want to push back a bit on the 20th century section about the people and businesses. Many of those people and businesses are not relevant or important enough for their own articles. They were all local companies that never really expanded and didn't last very long. The people that did something more than just open a business or something are already linked. I put in as much information about them in the Lawrence article because I didn't have enough info (and didn't feel they were relevant enough) to justify making their own articles. The standard English Wikipedia also doesn't have articles on them presumably for the same reason. I may go back and create articles for some of the people mentioned during the 19th century though, but the 20th century didn't have many long-lasting, major events - just small snippets. ~Junedude433talk 20:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, if you think they aren't important enough to link, just leave them. I do wonder, if they aren't important enough to link, are they important enough to mention? But I'll leave that to you.
I don't see "sector" now, either. I don't know where I got that. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I think they are important enough to mention as a brief paragraph in a general article, but I don't think they are important enough on their own to justify an entire article about them. They made enough of an impact on a specific city that it's worth mentioning about in that city's article, just not enough on their own. This is especially true if they aren't even around any more.
On a somewhat related note, I am having a non-native English speaker friend of mine look through the article for anything that they didn't easily understand, so expect a few more simplification edits. ~Junedude433talk 22:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL comments[change source]

Before I start, I should just admit upfront to being a radical purist. I'd literally never include the word "scientist" in an article because it doesn't meet BE 850. Obviously I am not going to hold this article to such strict standards, but I am mentioning this because I will looking for high standards in meeting WP:COMPLEX. Also, since I have never participated in this process on enwiki, this is technically the first FA I've ever reviewed (well it's called VGA here, but you feel me). For future reference, these comments are direct at this version of the article.
  • While contractions are informal, they are not necessarily simpler. Please change these.
    • The word didn't appears 4 times.
    • couldn't and wasn't are both used twice.
  • Sometimes you use a big word when a shorter one could easily do:
  • On September 20, they made a constitution for Lawrence. You can say wrote.
  • Words you are free to delink (though you don't have to): women, children, law, disgusted, swimming
  • You should possibly consider linking: gazebo and charter.
  • Finally, the external link to The Replay Lounge's website needs to be removed.
Other concerns:
  • The lead is fine, but it wouldn't hurt to be expanded. Just skip this though if it seems like I've thrown too much at you. Like I said, it's fine at the moment. :)
  • The "Notable people" section is completely empty. However, you have to two options when dealing with this:
    • Summarize the main list article with people that generally always get mentioned from the town.
    • Delete the section header and move the links to the "See also" section (this is just what I would do).
    • Either way, the hatnote for List of University of Kansas people should be a {{Further}} rather than {{Main}} since you can't have two main articles like (I think).
That was obvious all pretty much the negative stuff. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the stuff you did right here. This is probably one of the best articles on simplewiki I have ever read here. You could not have found a better candidate for reviving this process with! It's prose is incredibly well-formatted and structured in the true simple-wiki style while not sacrificing anything in terms of quality.
Further, and this is important, it is comprehensive in its information. I seriously learned a lot about Lawrence, Kansas by reading this. I'm not left wanting (and even if I was, I'm giving the immediate location of further resources). This was a great effort so far, and the passion and dedication certainly shows throughout the article! Please keep making more like this (I'll collaborate on doing Hartford, Connecticut with you!!!!)
@Junedude433: Please address any of the above points at your pleasure! :D –MJLTalk 08:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: First of all, a very big thank you for leaving such detailed feedback! I had always hoped I could get a second pair of eyes on the article for simplification. This was basically the first real attempt of mine to do simple English, so I was just guessing for some of this.
I followed some of your advice for changes. I simplified boulder, cancelled, and changed "made" to "wrote" (don't know how that one never came to mind). I also delinked The Replay Lounge, and got rid of the contractions. The only thing I may push back on would be "discrimination." This type of discrimination isn't necessarily just simple "hatred against" but instead discrimination as used in a legal sense, that is denying someone a job, housing, etc. The law said nothing about making simple hatred (or hurtful comments or anything) illegal, just involving things like employment. I feel like "hatred against" isn't quite the right way to describe it. Considering this, what do you think?
I can't guarantee I can put as much passion into Hartford's article as I can with Lawrence's, I can make some improvements. My goal with this is to make a standard what a good city article should look like. This is so that if anyone else wants to make a city's article really good, they have a template to follow. I would be more interested in doing the same for a state. The two articles I have set my sights on are Kansas and History of Kansas. ~Junedude433talk 20:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Junedude433: I would say that I was in the wrong on the discrimination word replacement count. That's a well articulated reason!!
It is more than fair for you to move on to other Kansas topics. Connecticut is all me then lol –MJLTalk 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Very good article indeed. I made some minor copyedit, but there is one awkward sentence (double the) I'll leave to you:

In 2005 the The New York Times said Lawrence had one of the best music cultures in any city between Chicago and Denver. ...Aurora... (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. ~Junedude433talk 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)