Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 9

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived requests[change source]

Royal Rumble (2009)[change source]

Royal Rumble (2009) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Previously nominated for VGA, but was not promoted. Most of the comments in the talk page have been addressed to and the article is near VG quality. Of course, there are still some problems with it, so comments are appreciated. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 13:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week: Your wish is my command! Don't let me down, looking forward to promoting this one. :) Goblin 19:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Closed as not promoted: Regretfully, this one has to be closed unsuccessfully, due to the opposes made above and just one edit made to the page since the run was extended, suggesting the fixes have not been completed; if they had, I would have felt more comfortable making a decision other than this one. Suggest you take the time to fix them up then come back in a couple of weeks! :) Goblin 11:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ S3CR3T![reply]

Kansas[change source]

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

Meets all the criteria. Most of the article is based off of Oklahoma, a VGA. Albacore (talk · changes) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: would it not be better to go for GA first? --Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no requirement or even recommendation to go to GA before coming to VGA. Indeed, most of our VGAs have come straight here rather than going via GA. If the article's good enough go for it and avoid extra, unneeded red tape! Goblin 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]
  • Comment Couple of red links floating about. Automatic fail surely as the article should not have any red links according to the rules. But you could submit for GA and that should pass while you sort the red links out. KnowIG (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion will run for 3 weeks. I am quite sure the red links will have been created by then. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I.e. if the red links are not fixed in three weeks it will automatically fail, but at the moment it does not. We state that articles must meet most of the criteria when they are nominated, but all in order for them to pass. Goblin 22:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]
All the red links that are not in infoboxes are fixed, and I gave the "History" section a copy-edit. Can someone give the article a formal review? Albacore (talk · changes) 21:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped in a few minor comments on the Talk page, but I'd say it looks great. Gotanda (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gotanda and Albacore put in some great work on it. I looked at it, made and suggested a few finishing touches, and I don't see any more obstacles to promotion. I endorse this for VGA. Kansan (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This PVGA was supposed to be closed a while ago. Any comments? Albacore (talk · changes) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week: Whilst it has got support, it is only the one support comment and it wouldn't be proper to promote based on that. So let's keep it open another week and see what happens... Goblin 18:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

Oppose. In my view this page would be hard pressed to pass GA requirements. It is not comprehensive. Paragraphs on Early history and statehood are piffling. They have plenty of refs, but huge issues are done in a single sentence. The history of Kansas is really interesting but it gets short shrift. Civil war and Post civil war also far, far too short. Poor buffalo, he might wonder why he's there. Not a word about him. Nothing on the other state symbols either. Native Americans likewise. Dust Bowl (what could be more important?) just four short sentences, and it's wrong to suggest climate was the only or main cause. Whole page is far too short, and full of statistics rather than writing (31 KB is long enough, but much of that is not prose). The infobox is an absurd size, and interferes with the reading of the Introduction. The whole article is guilty of not explaining things properly, and of thinking that statistics make a good article. Statistics are essential, of course, but they are not a substitute for a full, balanced account of the growth of the state. Not a bad article, but not one I would recommend users to read, let alone a VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Comprehensiveness is not a criteria for very good articles, and, therefore, may not be taken into account when the nomination is closed. We've had many a debate about it in the past but, ultimately, nothing ever comes of them. Please also note that due to this comment I will abstain from having anything to do with the closure of this now as I realise it probably makes me appear somewhat "biased" to some. Ta, Goblin 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Clementina![reply]
Eh? The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is one which does not miss any major facts and details. Goodvac (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in expanding the article. Also note that the state symbol concerns and the statistics concerns apply to Oklahoma as well. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Idiot. My mistake. Got muddled up and didn't bother to check the criteria before posting. Brain is all a bit mushy at the moment, need more sleep! Just ignore me. Goblin 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
No worries, Goblin, we all encounter those days. ;) Goodvac (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Basically, per Macdonald-ross' comments, as it appears to have had very few edits since then. It's nearly there, and with a bit more work should make it if it comes back! Goblin 15:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Dan Kelly[change source]

Dan Kelly (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article was promoted as a GA in October 2010. Since then I have been able to fix a few areas that I thought needed extra work. The article is comprehensive, well referenced, and in Simple English (and much, much better than the en version). --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers after the colon are the individual page numbers for a reference that is used multiple times. That is the way that the referencing template displays them.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready yet a quick run through. Please email me when you're done and I'll re-review and consider my position.

  • Three links to disambiguation pages, please fix them (Irish, calf, Victoria).
 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "held up whole towns" mean to a reader of Simple English?
 Done - changed to "took over" --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We use "movie" on this Wikipedia for "film".
 Done - do not know how I missed this one.--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You reference some of the lead but not all of it. Be consistent, either leave the citations to the main body of the article, or cite everything in the lead please.
 Done - removed all citations from lead, now in main body of the article. --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "famous" in the lead but according to whom?
 Done - removed "famous" --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent to [VD] land" and "released from gaol" are directly connected but it's not clear to a Simple English reader that this is the case.
 Done - rewritten to make meaning clear. --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grace (1863).[1]:9[2]:75Dan Kelly" space needed.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "near Greta, Victoria in the north east Victoria" north-east (and all other following examples) and no need for "the". Probably don't need the first Victoria either.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Dan and his brother Jim, aged 12" - replace Dan with He.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were a wild group of young men" is this Simple?
 Done - removed "wild" - --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "damage to property" entirely unlinked, is it Simple?
 Done - reordered sentences to make meaning clearer, and linked "damage" and "property" --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "traveled" in BritEng this is "travelled".
 Done - --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For more details on the Kelly gang's activities see Ned Kelly." you don't need this.
 Done - deleted --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • £2000 -> £2,000.
 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or the large amount of £8000 " larger.
 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the next 18 months there were many policemen in north east Victoria searching for the Kelly gang. " simplify to "Over the next 18 months many policemen in north-east Victoria searched for the Kelly gang".
 Done - --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Kelly Gang or Kelly gang? Be consistent.
 Done - using uppercase per common usage --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John McQuilton said " who is he and why is it important what he said?
 Done - not especially needed and is covered by references --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "organized" BritEng uses an s.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are "broken rails" Simple enough?
 Done - rewritten to keep simple --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "groin" simple?
 Done linked to groin --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It is on show at.." what is, exactly?
 Done - rewritten for clarity --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Dan and Steve Hart may have" replace "Dan and Steve Hart" with "they".
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need (in English) for English language references because this is (simple) English Wikipedia. These should only be used for foreign-language refs.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple page references use pp., single page refs should use p. Please check (e.g. refs 24 and 25).
 Done - --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ensure all refs have publisher information as a minimum, dates, accessdates, etc are also desirable. (e.g. ref 18).
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix date formats in the references (e.g. compare ref 19 ref 20).
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in ref 21.
 Done - well spotted! --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use en-dashes not hyphens in ref titles.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 has pp. pg... odd looking.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes glenrowan1880.com a reliable source?
 Done - replaced source, and added glenrowan1880.com to other web sites as it has some great photos.--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things like "The Independent on Sunday" are works, not publishers, so they should be in italics. Think newspapers and publishers.
 Done - good tip. --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your detailed comments are greatly appreciated - our VGA's need to be the best we can do. --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we shouldn't have five paragraphs in the lead for an article of this length. Four is absolute max, would be better being three. Remember it's just to summarise the article, and shouldn't include anything that isn't mentioned later in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, intro para numbers is not a criterion for us. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well we should be basing most of our MOS on en.wiki. An article with five short paras as a lead is inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Agreed, and rewrote with two paragraphs. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - very much improved but I don't see anything referencing the second paragraph of The Kelly Gang section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - added refs to the paragraph.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - fixed ref 13, found typo and fixed it.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks really good. However, I'm not sure about one thing: "Dan Kelly was born in 1861 in Beveridge" (early life section) - isn't it usually place before time? Overall, the article is very well written. -Barras (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of it in our MOS. I looked through sample of entries in the Australian Dictionary of Biography to see how they did it - both ways! Any other ideas for this? --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with it the way it is, I believe they can be interchangeably placed in the sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was nothing related to MoS but more to general grammar. From what I recall, I learnt "place before time". That's why I asked. If this sentence it grammatically correct, then it is ok. -Barras (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no doubts on this article's quality, or sufficiency, as a VGA: Peterdownunder has nominated a page of great and admirable work. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: There seems little point to drag this nomination out for another two weeks, when it has the support of the community (The most support a [V]GA has had for a long time, but level with the amount of support they were getting during the most active time of the process) and is in great shape. A perfect example of how the process should work, so congratulations to Peter, and everyone else who has helped to get the article up to the grade. Cheers, Goblin 10:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]

Dreaming of You[change source]

Dreaming of You (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have finished expanding the article from the English wikipedia, however, I did worked on it even more per the "copy-rights" and rules of Wikipedia. I think the article can be a VGA, however, I'm not sure with so many redlinks that the article will pass? Please express any concerns to me and I'll fix them :) Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to be harsh, even though it is long, nearly 75% of the links are red and part of it is sorta messy. You see, you can make the article as long as you want as long as you say something interesting. You wouldn't want to hear a 7-hour speech about Titin, now would you? The Nazi Germany article keeps it sorta short but quite exciting. However, you fix up the article and it'll make a decent article. Reverter (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Proposed very good articles is no longer a vote, and as such comments containing statements such as 'Support' or 'Oppose' may not be counted; please give constructive feedback as to why you believe that the article should or shouldn't be a very good article. Thank you. Goblin 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

Closed as not promoted: Page no longer exists... Goblin 12:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

No Me Queda Mas[change source]

No Me Queda Mas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Similar to my other nomination (below this one) I believe that the article meets the criteria, if not, I'm here to fix the issues. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not ready for nomination - one of the criteria for a VGA is that there are no red links. This has many. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done AJona1992 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment below about redlinks applies to this as well. Red link fixes made are not appropriate. Either way (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Heh, no. Goblin 12:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Why are you closing this debate after one person decline? Also, I am seeing a lot of editors on here who voice their opinions on weather or not, that's their favorite topic. If its not, its not promoted? Saying "Heh, no" is not being professional, rather stating ones' opinion about the subject and not the article, so I can enhanced it to VGA status. AJona1992 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ajona1992. I think the article is half-decent but I would suggest that until you become more familiar with our processes and expectations, you should take a look at WP:GA? and WP:VGA? and then perhaps nominate just one of these articles at WP:PGA when you think you're ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I will read them all. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Prohibido (song)[change source]

Amor Prohibido (song) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is currently a GA on the English Wikipedia and I helped saved this article from a short article to well over 18,000 bytes. I asked an experiences editor on here to review the article and tell me if I am abiding the rules on Simple and if what I am doing is still being considered "vandalism". However, if it is, please note that I am no harm and I'm only learning. I did not copy-and-paste the entire article here, I just simply re-wrote the entire article. I am here for any fixes and/or changes that will be brought up here on this nomination, thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not ready for nomination - one of the criteria for a VGA is that there are no red links. This has many. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There are about three or four redlinks but I left them as-is because I will be creating them tomorrow. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that making many redlinks link to English Wikipedia's article, and many of them redirect to the same location (the Selena) article is helpful at all. For a very good article, links should be within Simple Wikipedia or Simple Wiktionary. They should not direct readers to outside sources. Additionally, having these articles on various people redirect to Selena will help the reader learn nothing at all about those people, especially because those people have no mention in the Selena article. Either way (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the text is either too complex or does not make much sense. ""Amor Prohibido" helped appeal to a younger and wider audience because of Selena's choice of "stepping out" of the Tejano genre and becoming more contemporary Latin music, which gave other non-Mexicans to enjoy Mexican-American music" - how can a singer become a particular musical genre? Also, I agree with Either way, for me, redirects and enwiki links are as good as red links, so that issue hasn't been fixed yet. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Heh, no. Goblin 12:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)[change source]

Tropical Depression Ten (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Recently nominated (and subsequently promoted to) GA (by someone else). It's enwiki counterpart is an FA, and I don't see why this shouldn't be one either seeing it has sufficient content and references, albeit being a bit short. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments before complaints of "too short" roll in, do consider that this article probably already meets the criteria of what makes a VGA. English Wikipedia made a similar comment during its FAC. Nevertheless it was promoted. So, some comments:

Otherwise, it's good to go in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You guys think this pipsqueak of an article should be VGA? Needs Katrina details to footnote (not rel to this page), all dates to be international format, and cut 'impact' in favour of 'hit'. Even then it would be no great advert for us and, personally, I would not promote it. It is too short, perhaps because it is about an event of such little significance. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, I've fixed what I could (impact --> hit and Katrina details in footnote). However, MOS states that dates may be either in US or international format, and seeing that all the dates in the prose are in US format, I don't see any reason to change. About the significance of this storm, I will echo what JC said in the FAC nomination of this articles enwiki counterpart: this storm may not be important in itself , but its remnants formed Tropical Depression 12 and in turn Katrina, so I think it is fairly notable. Personally, I'd say that this meets all VGA criteria and should be promoted, but it is up to the community obviously. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See my opening comment. Plus note English Wikipedia has it as a featured article. Plus, I didn't see a criterion it failed. Which does it fail? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am concerned about the length of the article, we can have short, well written articles, and this is probably one. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Great work! Consensus to promote, well done everyone. Goblin 13:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]

Saturn (planet)[change source]

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

This article has had a major rewrite since it was demoted from VGA status. Over the last three months several editors have given detailed reviews of the article, and a number of editors have worked to fix all the identified problems. The article now meets all the criteria for VGA. If you have not checked the article recently, please do so and support its promotion. Please add any concerns to the article talk page. Peterdownunder (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Exceeds the criteria for very good articles. Albacore (talk · changes) 13:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for the moment) see talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, although a reference for the claim made in note "b" would be good as TRM already mentioned in the talk page. Either way, the article meets the criteria thanks to the work by the nominator and other editors. :) Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the missing ref has now been added. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Overwhelming support to promote this article, which sadly only happens very rarely nowadays but is, therefore, a true testimony to the quality of this article, particularly when it was remembered that it was demoted just a few months ago. Excellent work everyone. Goblin 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Selena (movie)[change source]

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

I would like the article to be the first movie/film to reach VGA status. It went though a review. I had also added more WP:RS from Billboard and books I found on google.books. Thank you, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: From a quick overview, I think the article is not up to VGA at this stage. I would like to see more substance to the article - at the moment about half is simply explaining the plot. There are red links which need to be fixed, there are many references from the IMDB which is not regarded as a completely reliable source and should be replaced where possible. There is some examples of strange English expression such as "It debuted at number seven..."; "Abraham had quit his dreams and began rising his family..."; "This made police to get involved."; "After her performance, she and Chris walks on a pier." There are links to Wiktionary which are to the wrong word such as "book" and links to words that are not yet included like "grossed". I would strongly recommend that the article is withdrawn from PGA, mistakes fixed, and then put up as a GA. Our feature articles need to be examples of our best work, and this does not meet that goal. --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix them. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not all were fixed and a quick read brings up more like "The police then drives them away" and "After that night, Selena asks her mother to scratch her scale" ????--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those sentences are very easy to read, how simple can I make them? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're not simple...they're not grammatically correct sentences. What does it mean to "scratch her scale"? There are many other examples of very poor English in the article still like those two sentences. This sentence, for example: "While Selena lays on her mother's lap she ask her... " The tense is wrong. Throughout the entire (very long) plot section, the tense shifts between present and past. It needs to be consistent. Only (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not ready for WP:GA let alone WP:VGA. Some comments from the lead:

  • Is it a "movie" or a "film"? Be consistent.
  • "life who was murdered", no, her "life" wasn't murdered, "she" was murdered, this reads very poorly.
  • "in the U.S.A." -> "in the United States."
  • "The movie tells about how Selena became a singer, her families' struggles, not being accepted by others and her death." grim sentence. "tells about" is awful, shouldn't it be "her family's struggles" or did she have more than one family? And it's too long.
  • "breakthrough role". -> this is in quotes, why? Who said it? Is it referenced? What does it mean to a Simple English reader?
  • "Some scenes were not accepted by" not quite, he would have disagreed with them, he couldn't decide on "acceptance" of them though.
  • "However, they were still played in the movie." Probably a lot better to say that they were not cut from movie.
  • "was on a budget of " -> "had a budget of".
  • "only " -> remove this, your point of view that it's "only" 20 million. That's a lot of money to me and many other film-makers.
  • "tribute songs" is this Simple?
  • "triple–platinum" that looks like an en-dash (same in the number–one that follows) - why is it not just a hyphen in these cases?
  • "3,000,000" ugly, why not "three million"?
  • "In total, it grossed $35,281,794 within 101 days." what's the significance of 101 days? Also, why not just use the final gross figure?
  • Not convinced that "gross pay" is the right link here. It's gross profit we're after.

That's just the lead. Suggest withdraw and ask for comments from other editors before renominating at WP:PGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict Closed as not promoted: Per WP:SNOW - two three editors have jumped on with numerous concerns, all of which suggest that the article does not meet criteria. One of these editors has also suggested a withdrawal. The article particularly fails with regards to criteria 6 which suggests that the article will be having heavy edits now that it is at PVGA as opposed to minor. Regards, Goblin 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda![reply]

(1) it is a film, however, in SimpleEN they moved the article to movie. (4) she only had one family like everyone else lolz (5) most critics believed it was JLO's breakthrough role because it catapulted her status. Even though the article was not promoted, I'll still fix on these issues. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments are just on the lead. I'm not prepared in this forum to do a line-by-line review. Take it away, work on it, copyedit it, make sure someone who speaks English natively has reviewed it per Simple English, then consider returning to PGA (ie not PVGA). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attacks. BTW I am a native speaker :) Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is an attack in his statement. Only (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me a "non-native English speaker" is, since I am a native speaker it is. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He never actually called you a non-native English speaker. He just suggested that it needed to be reviewed by someone who's a native speaker. With the level of writing you're putting into the articles, another native English speaker would help reviewing. Only (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dulce Amor Tour[change source]

Dulce Amor Tour (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

There maybe an issue with the sources, as I could only find claims in two books. Not a "huge tour" and it was not covered in most of her biographical books that were published. There's no coverage that I could find on google, most likely because she was popular in the 90s and not in the 80s. Its a reasonable size and well written, in my POV. Any fixes, I'll be gladly to correct. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready for VGA quality. Specifically the article fails Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles numbers 3 and 5. The article is a sub-stub from a VGA standpoint, and would need considerable expansion to become a VGA, so I don't think this article will ever become very good due to the lack of information. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 3 is not a strict rule. The article is only about 3-4,000 bytes long (not including infoboxes and templates). #5, it has a category, I'll create an equivalent version on enWP or arWP. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Albacore's assessment. Additionally, the grammar/English in this is of poor quality. Also, why is the story of her being banned in Odessa part of the set list section? I don't see why that belongs there. Only (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guys point these out? (That's why I voted to keep WP:PR). Secondly, I'll remove that and put in the background section. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is sort of what happens at this page. This is where these sort of things get pointed out and fixed on this wiki, not at peer review like on en. And why we council people to not vote if they can avoid it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few quick comments / errors that can be fixed - I did a really quick reading, so this isn't a complete list in any way. (Also, when I write P#, I'm referring to the paragraph number.)

  • P2 - "Because, she was a female lead-singer in a male-dominate genre." - Sentence fragment. Also, I think you're using ndashes when they should be hyphens for compound words. Lastly, "male-dominate" should be "male-dominated".
  • P3, P7 - You link to wikt:grossed, but there is actually no such page. You also don't need the "to" after grossed.
  • P3 - I'd like more information on why the tour ended.
  • P4 - Replace ; after Texas with ,.
  • P4 - Replace "bands" with "band's".
  • P7 - "Selena was discriminated" - "discriminated against" might be better.
  • Overall, I feel like you need more information; the article feels a bit scant. I realize there isn't much information to be found, but it does feel short to me.
  • Also, pay attention to your verb tenses. The past perfect feels a bit awkward in some places; I'm not sure if that's okay or not.

Hope that helped. [+piccolo] 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll fix them all by tomorrow. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not say you have fixed things if you have not, for example the non sentence "Because, she was a female lead-singer in a male-dominated genre" is still there. There is also a lot of "tense" problems, jumping from present using "is" to past using "was". Many words and phrases are overlinked - they should only be linked once. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the first para from the lead to "was" as you requested. I couldn't find others. I also fixed that sentence that you asked, however, I am not understanding what you are saying with "overlink", everything in the article is wikilinked once (in the lead and in their sections). The only links that I believe you are talking about are the cities and states. Are there anymore outstanding problems? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - yes, there sure are outstanding problems, so I'll list a few here, but this is by no means ready for WP:VGA at this time.

  • "seventh small concert tour " was the tour small, the concerts themselves small? What does that actually mean? If it was simply her seventh tour, just say that.
  • Is Selena described as American or Mexican-American?
  • "The tour began on November 26, 1988 in Corpus Christi, Texas. The concert ended on July 26, 1989 in Houston, Texas." Long concert then...
  • "Selena had sung a lot of covers during this tour" bad tense grammar here. "Selena sang many covers during the tour".
  • "She also had begun designing her own clothing." -> "She also began to design her own clothes" or do you mean she created her own clothing label for others to buy? It's not clear.
  • Why start a new paragraph about clothing when you finished the last talking about it?
  • Madonna is a disambiguation link. There are two other instances of Madonna in the article.
  • "Selena was inspired by Michael Jackson for dance moves that she could perform." Boring, two consecutive sentences starting with "Selena was inspired by...." and it's not "that she could perform", it's "that she performed".
  • "The concert ended because of angry fans and because Selena was being promoted to EMI Latin." you mean the "tour"? And what does "being promoted to EMI Latin" mean? Why would it stop a tour?

Suggest withdraw, fix issues, ask for comments from other editors, and list at WP:PGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) the statement means that it is of her earlier career, which were based on independent labels not major ones. (5) she had begun to design her own clothing, she wouldn't have taken it seriously until 1993. (9) the tour, and secondly, EMI Latin was offering her a crossover deal that she had wanted since she was a little girl. The record company that she was with couldn't promote her to a wider audience to further her fame. Will fix all the others thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're missing my point, whatever you think these things mean, they're not obvious. And not suitable for Simple English audiences. You need to fix all of these and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Don't forget I've just reviewed a tiny part of the article. It's not ready for nomination for VGA. Remove it and work hard on it and then perhaps go for GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sea of Monsters[change source]

The Sea of Monsters (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Already a GA, with only one redlink (a link to Wiktionary in fact). Could be a bit complex in parts, but I think it has all relevant information, so it is comprehensive and pretty well sourced. A review would be great. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on the talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: No input from nominator on article since nomination made. Goblin 20:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]

Closed as not promoted: By The Rambling Man. Goblin 00:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars[change source]

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have worked on this article for quite some time, and I think that it meats the Very Good Article criteria. The only issue may be the big ammount of red links (because there aren't any of the articles I linked too, on the Simple English Wikipedia), but that can be fixed. All the best --7arazred (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You created this article and your user account only today. I haven't had a good look at it, but there are large sections of text that are taken directly from the English Wikipedia version of the article. As a start, you need to simplify the language. Osiris (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to get very familiar with the process before nominating an article. For starters, all redlinks has to be dealt with before you nominate an article here. Currently there is a {{disambiguation needed}} tag on this article. Why is the App Store, and iTunes Store italicized? It's not a publication, movie, or album. This sentence "has received critical acclaim from critics" is not simple and at first glance it seems as though this article is not simple at all. Why are there redlinks in the references section? Also why aren't there any categories? I suggest you withdraw this article and work on it while also looking at several, if not, all rules on Simple Wikipedia. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed as not promoted: By-and-large AJona, additionally doesn't meet criteria numbers 4, 5 and 6, and possibly 2. 4, 5 and 6 are - in my eyes - some of the most important criteria for promoting an article, as is number two, and we really should see these met. Take a look through the VGA archives, the criteria and ask one of us for help - it can be a VGA, but not yet. Goblin 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

The text that is the same as in the original is: The Story, some (about a third) of the prose, and a very small amount of text in "Development: Director's Cut". Well, if you count the Infobox, that's the same too. But otherwise there is nearly twice as much of content in this version. However, I will try to fix it as much as possible. :) and PS I don't know why, but I was editing this article in my sandbox in my Slovenian Wikipedia page. :) All the Best --7arazred (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Burns[change source]

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

I believe the article meets VGA criteria. The only issue I can see with the article is length, at around 4,600 characters. There is, however, a precedent that was set with the promotion of the sub-stub Tropical Depression Ten (2005) article: if everything is done right, and all criteria are met, then the article should get the gold star, so long as all information available to the reader is presented in the article. So thus, I present you with the eccentric and ill-tempered Oyster Burns. Albacore (talk · changes) 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Process note: There are no longer any minimum length requirements for proposed very good articles. Provided that the article is comprehensive in its coverage, a length of around 4,600 characters is not an issue at all, thus why Tropical Depression Ten (2005) was promoted - no precedent at all, just following the criteria. :-) Best, Goblin 03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]
  • It's not the length that is the problem, it's the incompleteness. A biography which lists every achievement, but which leaves out almost everything about the subject as a person, is not only a bore, but a clear fail for being incomplete. Just think about two famous cricketers: W.G. Grace and Don Bradman. A great deal has been written about them, and they were as different as two men could possibly be. If an article listed just their performances, how disappointing that would be. I feel that biography articles should not be promoted on the almost sole basis of listing the person's results. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I said, articles should be comprehensive in their coverage. I do wish people would actually read what I write. Goblin 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
  • This is an interesting article for me - because it is about baseball much of the content makes no sense to me. Is a batting average of .300 good? When I checked batting averages I got this "In baseball, the batting average (BA) is defined as the quotient of hits divided by at bats." So I have no idea of what is being written about. Then it says in one season he only played 35 games - I think 35, that's a huge number for a cricket season. Without the baseball background I just do not not know what I am reading. The question is, how understandable to the non baseball person does it need to be? Would a non baseball person read it anyway? Final comment is on the stabbing incident - why is a player asleep in the middle of the ground? If I had been a team mate I might have stabbed him too, though even I am sure a knife is not part of the normal baseball equipment.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Albacore (talk · changes) 17:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena (movie)[change source]

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

The article has been copy-edited by User:Goodvac. I have tried to trim the plot section as much as I can. If there's more I need to trim please let me know by indicating which sentence(s) should be removed. I have just did a few c/e myself and it was given a review several months ago. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From an initial review, I see too much detail in the Plot section. What you need to do is to paraphrase the entire content, rather than remove sentences. Also, the Reception section is biased and does not mention the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic scores, which were quite average or the negative comments about the films. (Yes, there are negative comments.) I'll do a full review later. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, IMdB is an unreliable reference, being quite similar to a wiki. Please use reliable references for the awards section (maybe from the archives of the websites of the awards themselves?) Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reading level is solid, but there are extensive issues with unlinked terms, poorly worded sentences (they mean one thing but are saying something else), unexplained ideas and tense shifting (plot section). Examples are included on the talk page. --Creol(talk) 07:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it goes on a bit myself, also looks like many articles combined. Excessive cleanup needed? --~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed as not promoted: While the article is certainly quite good, there are problems with it which need to be fixed before this can be promoted. As such, the nominator has not made edits to the article for weeks and I think it is better that this is closed rather than extended, so that AJona1992 can fix the problems mentioned in the talk page before nominating this again. Therefore, since there is no consensus to promote, I'm closing this as not promoted. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble (2009)[change source]

Royal Rumble (2009) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Quite close to VGA in my opinion. Last time it was nominated, it was closed due to lack of input. The only issue which I'm yet to fix (from those listed by TRM in his review last year) can easily be sorted using AWB or something. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nevermind, I found a ton of dead links used as references. Unless I find alternate sources, I'll have to withdraw the nomination. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What progress have you made with the deadlinks? Albacore (talk · changes) 21:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some update on this would be useful. Can we close this as not promoted or would it be worth to review the article? -Barras talk 21:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as for all nominated articles. This article has potential to be a "VGA". Just need some input from editors (like me lolz) so we can determine if it is up to standards. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This sentence "The event had 450,000 households pay to see the event," - the word "households" makes it sounds like if the house was paying to see the event. Maybe saying "The event had 450,000 people, who paid to see the event at their homes." And then start a new sentence with "This was down from the 2008 number of 533,000 the year before".
  • What does "in a singles match" mean? I do not know that much of wrestling.
  • Be consistent of whether or not you italicized the words SmackDown and ECW.
  • Wikilink referee.
  • "A ways into the match," - huh?
  • Wikilink Spanish
  • What does "commentary" mean?
  • C. Richard Semple II is a redlink

Hope this helps. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time; I'll withdraw this as I'm no expert about wrestling, so it'll be hard for me to replace the references. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted - as per withdrawal. -Barras talk 16:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le Spectre de la Rose[change source]

Le Spectre de la Rose (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article should be a VGA because it meets the VGA criteria. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good article, but one which does not meet the criteria for VGA. It depends largely on long quotations from good and referenced sources. That makes it interesting, and much more useful than the enWP stub. However, there are two issues which concern me. The first is that the extent and length of the quotations raises the question of CV (copyright violation: most of the authors died less than 70 years ago). The second is that the quotations themselves are linguistically quite sophisticated (although well written). That is quite usual for quotations, but here the percentage of the text which consists of quotations is exceptionally high. Therefore, overall, the text is not simple. Lastly, the page is not stable, and the content is entirely the work of one editor. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. The quotes can be paraphrased. Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've paraphrased or completely eliminated the quotes except for two small ones. I hope this will pass to VGA because it would make a lovely main page article for the month of June when roses bloom. Oregonian2012 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Others need to look at this. I still have concerns about the good but sophisticated English. Otherwise, I have no objections. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check using www.read-able.com gives the following scores: Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease 68.8, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level 6.1, and a Gunning Fog Score of 6.8. All these are good scores for simple English text. I 'll have a detailed human check in the next 24 hours.--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what Macdonald-ross is concerned about. I think that there are too many links - many words that are linked do not need to be as they are included on the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. For example in the introduction these include: minute, story, based, and concept. Other choices could also remove the need for links, from the intro "to witness" would be simpler as "to see". I will put further suggestions on the talk page.--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm going thru the article to link and delink as necessary and checking against the word list. This is a laborious, tiring process. Oregonian2012 (talk)

  • I just read the article and it is really well written. Well done! However, there is one thing, the template at the bottom has a fair amount of redlinks. At least most of them should be removed. Otherwise it is a really good article. -Barras talk 21:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look great, Oregonian. Another way to reduce the linking would be to use different words-- for example, "aid" isn't on the basic wordlist, but "help" is. In many cases there are simpler alternatives available, as an example "the years that followed" to "the years that came after". I also think the gallery at the bottom could be removed in keeping with WP:IG-- there are already many visual aids on the page. I would recommend creating a category for this topic on Commons and using the {{commons}} box to link to it. Osiris (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things I saw on a drive-by:
  1. poem by Théophile Gautier should probably be cut. It's in a foreign language; the critical two lines could better be handled as a central strap-line for the section. Also, as is, it interferes with the flow of text.
    •  Done
  1. the illustration of Gautier could be cut with benefit. Too peripheral, and poor quality.
    •  Done
  1. links to wikt should be used only where we have no article on Simple. In some cases, we do have an article (eg choreography), and that is where the link should go.
    •  Done
  1. as Osiris says, you have linked words which are simple, and not linked some which are not simple.
    •  Done
  1. "Spectre was a great success". I'm sure you know that most of the Diagilev ballets were not commercially successful, and that the company depended absolutely on generous patrons. So I guess you mean artistically successful. With our readership, be careful of figurative expressions.
    •  Done
  1. the section "Queer theory" is very queer (peculiar). The man Nijinsky was not an unconventional heterosexual, he was bisexual. If you are talking about his portrayal in the role, then you should make it clear.
    •  Done del section.
  1. You are not clear on one thing which all readers will want to know: what place does the ballet have in modern repertoires? You mention a revival in Paris of 1985. Is the ballet in the current repertoires of any leading companies? Short section on this would be useful, and needed (VGAs are supposed to be complete in their coverage of their chosen topic).

Comments

  • What does Le Spectre de la rose mean in English? (lead)
    •  Done
  • What does Aufforderung zum Tanz mean in English? (lead)
    •  Done
  • Production and Personality are disambig words
    •  Done gone.
  • "reconstructions" is not a simple word
    •  Done gone.
  • "scenery" is not a simple word
    •  Done gone. used "set" from basic list.
  • Wikitory suggestion
    •  Done gone.
  • "In a letter to Ballets Russes scenery and costume designer Léon Bakst, Vaudoyer made the suggestion that a ballet be based on Gautier's poem and Hector Berlioz's 11-minute orchestration of Carl Maria von Weber's rondo for piano Aufforderung zum Tanz." - needs to be broken into two or more sentences.
    •  Done gone.
  • Wikitory replacement
    •  Done gone.
  • "ball, dance, and part." - part? I know what it means but not for people who have a basic knowledge of the English language
    •  Done part is on the basic list
  • What does "four-movement" mean?
    •  Done gone.
  • Not even sure what "Spectre relies — not on technical virtuosity — but on unbroken, fluid movement." this is supposed to be saying to readers.
    •  Done gone.
  • "Diaghilev pressed him to hurry:" - this reads as if he really pressed him to hurry.
    •  Done gone.
  • "Romola Nijinsky writes that her husband was sewn into a fine silk elastic jersey for every performance." - not simplified
    •  Done
  • Silk rose petals - what does silk and petals mean?
    •  Done rose is linked, silk and petal are on the basic list.
  • various shades - not simplified
    •  Done gone.
  • "were sewn to the jersey and touched up with colour by Bakst as needed." - what does swen to the jersey mean? touched up with colour?
    •  Done reworded using basisc list.
  • The whole "Nijinsky's costume" section needs to be simplified.
    •  Done

After reading most of the article, it seems that it is not well simplified. Complex words are linked to wikitory but should instead be simplified so there won't be an overlinking problem with the article. An example of this "He brought all of ballet's resources to Spectre, but avoided displays of virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity. He chose instead to emphasize expressiveness." Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The progress of this article has shown how difficult it is to simplify the language when the text consists largely of quotations. The reason for this is that direct quotations must be given in the original words (though passages may be shortened as long as this is made clear). The alternative is to reword the ideas, and give credit to the original author by means of references. Evidently, he decided not to do that. I don't agree with all the comments above, but maybe the article will not get promotion. It's a good article in a general sense, interesting and with a wide range of sources, but maybe not good in our particular sense. If you compare it with the enWP version, which is a nasty little stub, you can see how much work Oregonian has put in. He might consider transferring a version to the English page, which needs it badly! I think any of us who have tried to write about topics in culture or science will sympathise with him. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I've gotten the hang of it! If you'll look at the article I'm in the process of simplifying and converting everything to the Wordlist. The section called "Story of the ballet" is now written almost entirely from the wordlist! Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments
  • refs 4, 6, 16 do not go to where they are supposed to. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. THEY WORK UP & DOWN FOR ME.
  • To my knowledge Greskovic, Robert (1998), Woodstra, Chris (ed.); Brennan, Gerald (ed.); Schrott, Allen (ed.) are not used and should be moved to a "Further reading" section since they are not used as references. DEL TWO NOT USED. OTHERS ARE USED & NEAR TOP OF NOTES SECTION.
  • Ndashes are needed in the references for page ranges. DONE
  • Pages in refs 2, 15, 11, 20 should go to two digits. DONE
  • Make the accessdates consistent (ref 5). DONE

Albacore (talk · changes) 21:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the yelling? I've fixed that first point, should be working now. Osiris (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I made the type bold so I could see it! I didn't know it meant I was yelling. Oregonian2012 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review:
  1. Intro. In the case of this ballet, the dance is primary, and the music is secondary. This is because the music was already long ago composed, whereas the ballet was new. Therefore, I would reorder the content of the intro to place the dance info above the music info. I would split the intro into three short paras, rather than run together different types of information. That is not mandatory, of course. But I want to bring alive the idea of clarity as to the type of information being communicated.
  1. Origin (and throughout). Do we want to see translations into English to be italicised? (not an essential point) Here and later: what is the relevance of the musical structure being a rondo? Or are we using the word to mean simply 'the music'?
  • I don't like the italices but, as Osiris explains, the italics are part of the template. It's not likely the reader will care one way or another about the term 'rondo'. It's specialized. 'The music' or 'the piano music' will do. Oregonian2012 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nijinsky's costume. Describes Romula as 'his wife', which she was not at the time the ballet was created. She was Romula de Pulszky until 1913. Perhaps "Romula de Pulszky, later to be his wife" is the better formula. Not too sure about this; it seemed odd when I read the text.
  1. Nijinsky's leap. I find it odd to see a well-known term like 'skirting-board' explained by two terms I've never heard of (base board, mop board).
  1. First night. I find the Garafola quote pretentious in the extreme: just the kind of inflated writing which puts ordinary people off the arts. Personally, I would cut it out. It makes our article less reader-friendly. There are times when explaining rare words like 'Uranaian' is not enough to counter the bad effect of a passage. But, if it stays in, then I might find out that the wikt link to 'reveling' leads nowhere...
  1. After Nijinsky. Prose: Isn't it better flow to say "That was in June 1979, when the ballerina was 60"? And "In 2012 this production was in stores" is horrible prose, and incorrect grammar. It is out of keeping with the article. Let's have "A record of the production is available on...", and put it in a footnote. This last sentence is not worthy of a generally well-written article.

Barring these comments, I think this article deserves to get promoted. Congratulations to its hard-working lead editor.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can answer some of the technical points made: the italics are generated by the template and I'm pretty sure it's a manual of style thing. Skirting board is the common name for it in Commonwealth countries, but I think in North America it's baseboard and they likely won't know the term "skirting board". An article on it would solve that issue. Osiris (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted, per consensus. Albacore (talk · changes) 03:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm thrilled with the promotion. And great thanks to all who took the time to review the article and make suggestions for improvement. I've learned a lot in the process. Thank you again! Oregonian2012 (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning Dove[change source]

Mourning Dove (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've worked this up to Good Article. I've never proposed for VGAs before, so I'm not entirely sure if it meets the criteria, but comments would be appreciated and I hope to improve it more. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 08:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two deadlinks in the references. Please fix them. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed them! :) I actually found three *blushes*, but I replaced them. Thanks! ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not there at present. I see language as a main problem.
  1. Weak English. "The number of individual Mourning Doves is estimated to be approximately 475 million." So clunky; why not "The number of Mourning Doves is about 475 million"? Of course the birds are individuals, and by definition an inexact number must be an estimate: that's understood. Do say things simply.

Fixed

  1. Intro 3rd para: pronoun "It" floats in mid-air. Say "The dove" or "The bird".

Fixed

  1. Intro: speed of bird MUST be referenced.

Fixed added reference from en.

  1. Taxonomy: "They are sometimes described as forming a "superspecies", and these three birds are sometimes put in the separate genus Zenaidura". As a sentence in English, this is a horror. I think all you need to say is "Sometimes these three birds are put together in the genus Zenaidura.

Fixed

  1. Also, I am thinking about the level of detail, which is rather high.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Macdonald! Your review was very helpful. I'm going to work on the detail level, but I think I've fixed most of the other concerns. The language does seem quite horrible, but as I'm not a completely native speaker :P, please let me know what else I can fix. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
  • "It is hunted both for sport and meat" - who is, the Dove or the chick?
Fixed
  • Delink Greater Antilles and Mexico in the "Distribution" section as it is already linked in the previous section
Fixed
  • Delink Hawaii in the "Distribution" section as it is already linked in the previous sentence.
Fixed
Fixed
  • "The species have also gotten used to living in places where humans are, such as in cities or near farmsteads." - source?
Fixed
  • "Pairs may sometimes remain together throughout the winter. However, lone doves will find new partners if necessary." - source?
Fixed

Overall the article is well written. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jonayo! :) Tell me if there's more to fix. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now believe the article is at VGA status. Good work on the article :) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine candidate. However, I've flagged the claim "cannot hatch by themselves" 1. because it is not clear what this means, and 2. it has no reference. We have been over this ground in DYK. You see, if it just means the parents need to keep the egg warm, that's not worth saying (applies to almost all birds), whereas (for example) if the parents need to peck it out of the egg, that would be very unusual indeed. What does it mean? Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. I tried searching up out of curiosity on google, but in no site is that fact mentioned! I just removed it, because I'm not sure it's true anyway. :P Thanks for pointing it out to me again! ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 10:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing the article's promotion for now; I've left comments on the talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 23:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Osiris fixed most of your concerns (thank you, Osiris!), and I tried to replace the unreliable references. Please tell me if I've missed anything! Bella tête-à-tête 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments left on the talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Albacore! I've fixed most of them. Please explain to me if I've done anything wrong in the process! :) I'm going to look for more. Bella tête-à-tête 01:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral until a prose review is done by another editor. Albacore (talk · changes) 19:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few small comments on the talk page. Osiris (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! :)) I've just attended to your comments. Bella tête-à-tête 02:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Simple, clear and concise. Can't think of anything else to say, so Support. Osiris (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link "parent" first time in the lead, not second.
Fixed
  • "Up to 70 million birds are shot in the United States" ever? every year? every hunting season?
Fixed - every year, as in the Conservation section.
  • "up to the speed of" don't need "the speed of" here, instead just "can fly at up to ..."
Fixed
  • "Least Concern (IUCN) [1]" remove the space before the ref.
I don't think there is a space, since I can't find it in the edit page. :S
I tinkered with the template and fixed it. Hurrah! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Greater Antilles, most of Mexico" both places need links.
Fixed
  • So does Central America.
Fixed
  • " (5), the Azores (1) and Iceland (1)." write the numbers as words when they're ten or less.
Fixed
  • "have also gotten used to living in " wouldn't it be more precise to say that they just do live in human-occupied environments rather than that they've gotten used to the idea?
Fixed
  • 4 to 6 ounces -> previous units have been metric first, then Imperial, this is the other way round... be consistent.
Oh dear, I am terribly stupid with units... What unit should I use?
  • " of brown-and-black" doesn't need hyphenation.
Fixed
  • Consider linking "mate" because it doesn't just mean buddy in this sense.
Fixed
  • "In California, USA" isn't a very interesting caption, I'd say something more captivating!
Fixed (but I'm not really sure how to make this more interesting. :P)
  • Reproduction section is a little choppy because of the large number of short paras. Consider merging paras which discuss similar things. (e.g. nest).
Fixed
  • "are shot as game every year. [18]" remove space before ref.
Fixed
  • Same comment about the "speed of" applies here too.
Fixed
  • Ref 9 needs an en-dash not a hyphen for the range.
Fixed
  • Be consistent with author names, First Last or Last, First.
Fixed all the one-persons to Last, First. Tell me if I should do the same with co-authors...
  • Ensure all books with isbn numbers have them recorded here.
Fixed (all of the ones that I could find :P)
  • A few too many external links for me, but not a major issue I guess.

Ping me when you're done! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure about the unit thing (forgive my stupidity), but I think I've fixed most of your other concerns! Cheers, Bella tête-à-tête 01:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of it. Osiris (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Osiris! :D You're really so helpful. Bella tête-à-tête 10:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted, per consensus. I see no objections for the article's promotion. Best, Jonatalk to me 23:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One "support" and one "neutral" counts as consensus? Albacore (talk · changes) 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two users supported the article's promotion. Best, Jonatalk to me 18:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well no-one pinged me but I'd support it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Le Dieu bleu[change source]

Le Dieu bleu (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

In 1911, ballet producer Sergei Diaghilev intended Le Dieu bleu to be a showcase for Vaslav Nijinsky, the brilliant Russian dancer of Polish descent who had yet to perform a major role with the Ballets Russes. Sadly, the ballet was a flop. Critics thought Nijinsky's talent had been wasted. Because the ballet was a flop, there is not an enormous volume of information on it, as there is for Diaghilev's successes such as Le Spectre de la Rose and Petrushka I believe this article is about as complete as such an article can be about Dieu while remaining encyclopedic. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and feedback on it. Oregonian2012 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Wikitory the words performed, betrayed, mediocre, insipid
    •  Done
  • "talent was wasted" - what does this mean?
    •  Done talent is linked and wasted is on the basic list.
  • Delink Paris and St. Petersburg, you only need to link it them one time not two times
    •  Done
  • mediocre ---> mediocre ("ok")
    •  Done used 'dull' instead, it's on the basic list
  • "He hoped to duplicate the triumphs of these ballets" - not simplified
    •  Done gone.
  • Ida Rubinstein is a redlink
    •  Done gone.
  • "He conducted museum research and studied the arts of India, but his choreography was uninspired." - not simplified
    •  Done
  • "Both ballets received cool receptions." - not very good English, you mean positive receptions? Wikitory receptions
    •  Done changed.
  • "He privately blamed Hahn's music." - not simplified
    •  Done
  • "In the beginning, he felt compelled to accept Hahn's mediocre score because the composer had wealthy connections in Paris." - not simplified
    •  Done used basic list
  • "Decling the score may have alienated potential backers" - not simplified, wikitory declining
    •  Done

Try getting someone to simplify and copy-edit the article. It seems as though you were the only contributor. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek wrestling[change source]

Greek wrestling (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Oregonian2012 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a first scroll-down, please fix the redlinks. -Barras talk 20:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena (movie)[change source]

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

The article has been copy-edited and simplified by two editors. I just overlooked the entire article and did some more c/e. If there any other issues I'll fix them right away :D Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Reception section, is the term "fairy tail" what you want or should it be "fairy tale"? Oregonian2012 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some words in the lead should be linked or explained: released, starred, produced, certified, etc. Some readers may be children, young teens, or ESL adults. These words might be unfamiliar to them.
  • Problems in the plot section: "They are ask to see a promoter"; "Los Dinos are then discriminated for being Americans"; "She then notices her father and was curious to know what he was doing"; "Abraham is amazed and starts a family band, and names it Selena y Los Dinos". The article needs a copyedit to pick up on these sorts of bloops.
  • The plot is too long. It's not necessary to include every detail. A good summary for this movie should be no longer than the first paragraph of this section.
  • The pic of Lopez can be cut. We can't see her face so the pic is of little value here.
  • Hope this helps! Oregonian2012 (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot veers between present and past tenses: "Selena and Chris begin to meet secretly and they eloped." Choose one or the other but remain consistent. I remember reading somewhere that plots are to be written in the present tense. There are many words in the text not on the Basic Wordlist that should be explained or linked or Wikitorified like "booed". Oregonian2012 (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the plot section could be reworked and needs to be trimmed. I don't think this article is the "stuff" of VGA because it has not attracted scholarly notice. It is basically a plot and some quotes from reviews. With the controversy over the volume of VGA nominations, I'm wondering if our editors should spend their time reviewing articles that have so little importance to the scholarly community. This is a good article and deserves space here but I wonder whether we should be spending hours and hours pushing it through VGA. Oregonian2012 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just look at it quickly, and I'm going to make a rather bold move here now. I close it as not promoted right away. As a first argument, people here don't seem interested in the topic to give it a review, the only reviewer here apparently doesn't want it promoted either. The article has several issues, to just mention one or two here: The movie opened in 1,850 theaters worldwide. Here the question rises since when cinema movies are played in theaters. The following sentences are totally confusing and set together don't make much sense. ...making it the second-highest debut for that week. followed by It grossed $15,599,598 during its first week and became the number-one movie for that week. - Completely contradictory statements. I'm very sure that the article has more, much more issues. I think that articles proposed here should be in a better condition. Furthermore, it is listed here for more than two months, at some point we need to end the drama. Sorry about that. -Barras talk 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giselle[change source]

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

One of the greatest ballets in the repertory. Written with an eye on the Basic Word List. Oregonian2012 (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a review for this asap. -Barras talk 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I left first comments. -Barras talk 19:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Process note: Due to the delay between the article's nomination and the first feedback left at this page, the nomination should be considered to close on 6 September 2012. Thanks, Goblin 00:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]

Oyster Burns[change source]

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

Albacore (talk · changes) 19:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a most basic scroll-down, there is one redlink and what is mentioned as "general reference" would better fit as either further readings section or a weblink section. Dividing the Reference section this way seems a bit out of the "normal". -Barras talk 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of wikt links that lead to nowhere. I've tagged them so they're easy to find. Would you say that this article is comprehensive? It's quite short, so I'm wondering whether it covers all the relevant facts about him (there might just not be much to say). Osiris (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as stale. Chenzw  Talk  08:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Hugo[change source]

Victor Hugo (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Victor Hugo's article is one of the best written articles and a lot of simple information for Victor Hugo. TDKR Chicago (talk) 6:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Large sections copied from enwp, far too many red links, poor referencing. This is nowhere near VGA status. Speedy close in my opinion. Yottie =talk= 00:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The large number of redlinks is a valid enough reason on its own to push against this. Add to that the {{fact}} tag, a missing template and the fact there are only 10 references for an article of this size (possible, but not likely a good thing) and it fails even before starting to read it. --Creol(talk) 00:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not even in the ballpark. This is just a waste of other people's time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as unsuccessful. Chenzw  Talk  16:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Left a review on the talk page; still looks like a lot of work. Try with GA, after fixing most of the red-links and providing sorces...? --Eptalon (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India[change source]

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

The article does look well-written IMO. I doubt there are any major reasons why the article is not VGA already Inamos (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is likely to fail a VGA on the following grounds.
2.The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is one which does not miss any major facts and details.
For a country with some 3000 years of history, 4 paragraphs does not seem able to comprehensively cover it.
7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left.
20+ redlinks (not counting those in the refs)
9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. ... The article also should not need them.</nowiki>
While it is not tagged, and following with #7, the complexity of the article is high. It easily fails most standard reading tests (54 on Flesch, 9-11th grade levels on other tests) so the complex tag could (and probably should) be applied here. It isn't in Simple English. Word choice and sentence size and structure all need work throughout the article.

:The article was previously put up for GA status back in 2009 and failed to get past the nomination. Much of the work on it over the last 2 years has been small changes which do not address many of the GA issues completely, let alone elevate it to VGA status. --Creol(talk) 09:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fails on many important grounds, especially its history, culture, art, natural history, geology, geography, languages, religions... it utterly fails to be comprehensive. Also I think it is through and through POV, discussing all issues from the perspective of a present-day educated person living in India. It is no worse than many of our 'country' articles, but boy is it not a VGA! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will try to work on those issues. If you can give a proper peer review of sorts, it shall also be helpful. Cheers! Inamos (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 going for Good article first would probably be helpful....--Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not promoted. Way too far from being ready, so I don't think there's much point in keeping this running. If you need more detailed advice for improvement, please approach an editor on their talk page or ask at simple talk. Osiris (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like this already is a good article, promoted in August 2009 according to the /by date list. Has it been demoted? The version when it was promoted is here, for reference. Osiris (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't been demoted. It is still a Good Article. It's just not a Very Good Article. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany[change source]

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I didn't edit this article but I took a quick read through and it looks pretty good to me. It is featured on en and was written by the same editor who wrote the featured one on en. Figured it probably was good enough for VGA here as well. At the worst it probably only needs some minor touch ups and creation of some red links which I will get to in the next little bit. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support: My only concern is the readability. Some of the sentences are a little too complex (i.e. "Adolf Hitler was a heavy smoker in his early life—he used to smoke 25 to 40 cigarettes daily—but gave up after concluding it was a waste of money."). There are also some needlessly complex words (i.e. advocated when supported could have been used, principal when main could have been used, heavily when that word isn't needed). Aside from that, and the red links you mentioned, I would support it.Maniesansdelire (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually something has come up at work for me so I won't be able to get to those red links any time soon. So I will just withdraw it for now unless someone else wants to take up the cause. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is very interesting, and good to have on the wiki. It's stuffed with really interesting facts: I think we could get a bunch of DYKs out of it! However, it is only somewhat simplified, and is not near the standard for VGA. I think the level of detail is too high (a very common problem as WP articles tend to grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger...). The red links would certainly be much easier to handle if the content was cut down. I see dozens of borderline words and phrases, like "exempt of contradictions", "consumption", "stigmatized", "implemented", "controlled epidemiological study of the relationships". "Reproductive policies" is a blue link to Nazi Germany, a page which does not discuss the issue at all! "Passive smoking", an absolutely basic term, is a red-link. Sentences are often long and clunky. Even as a proposed GA it would need extensive simplification. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was effectively withdrawn. Closing as not promoted. Osiris (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Lake[change source]

Swan Lake (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article focuses on the basics, and is suitable for the Simple English. Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. My comments will be on the talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 19:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half of this article has been reviewed. I hope someone will pick it up and finish the review. Thanks! Oregonian2012 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selena[change source]

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

Thanks to the help of several Simple Users who copy-edited the article over the past few months, I believe the article is ready to receive its star. For those who are not familiar with this topic, I introduced you to one of America's brightest stars who faded too soon. Best, jonatalk to me 23:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as not promoted: Article hasn't been edited in over a month, user hasn't edited in nearly a month, and stale. Goblin 02:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I ♥ TDKR Chicago 101![reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles/Archive_9&oldid=8895442"