Wikipedia talk:Very good articles

Just a thought: What will this page look like with 25 VGAs, with 50, with 250? --Eptalon 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When that glorious day comes (and let's hope it does real soon! ;) it may be time to break the page into subsections by area, ie. History, Culture, Biographies, Weather, etc. However, I'm reluctant to even think about it until we have a significantly larger number of VG articles, no less than 30, I'd dare to day. Phaedriel - 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My latest changes

I updated the page, changing its layout, and letting it show only a few of the VGAs (the most recently selected ones). I also sorted the VGAs here by date of promotion to VGA status. - Huji ^reply 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the formatting of the table is good, I do not support displaying only the most recent promoted very good articles. It may mean we are just throwing away all the links of other very good articles, which are all just as good as the newest ones. I believe each article should receive equal recognition in this page. I do like to suggest adding the newest few articles in a small table somewhere (perhaps at the top) to keep a close track of the new articles. I roughly based this idea from English wiki's good articles. RaNdOm26 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was planned to add a full list down there again, as soon as we have a couple more VGAs. The box below would show them categorized by subject. On the other hand, maintaining the "by date" list is a little hard. May be we should wait and see what others think. - Huji ^reply 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list of these articles by addition date is quite useless. What I could imagine now is an alphabetical index; once we grow beyond about 20-25 VGAs, we could classify them by "Knowledge groups" (before the alphabetical index). Like with classification by category, this only makes sense, if we can come up with 3-5 articles for a certain knowledge group (as stated before 3-5 knowledge groups, 3-5 articles = 25 VGAs). Unfortunately, our VGAs are not evenly distributed over all knowledge groups. At the moment, they reflect the fields of interest of the (most active) editors. This means we only create the knowledge group section once we have 3 articles for it. --Eptalon 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think recording the VGA additions by date is not totally useless, because it gives us a measure of how we improve (or vice versa) in finding and/or making VGAs. However, it doesn't necessarily need to be the way I created there (with all those details, and DIFF links). About the knowledge groups, I'm in total agreement with you that (1) each should be created when we have at least three articles in it, and (2) our VGAs are not very well distributed according to the area of knowledge they belong to. Indeed, one of the reasons for me to focus on Voltmeter was to let us have a different type of VGA, if accepted. - Huji ^reply 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing which ones were added when would actually be very handy when it comes to coding up the pages and replacing older entries in the rotation to prevent duplication when displayed on the main page. Currently Articles 5 through 7 can be replaced in the rotation with the next three VGA's to keep us at a 70 day full rotation (as opposed to increasing the number of articles which could eventually get out of hand but is a functional option). Either way, knowing which articles are the newest additions to the list would eliminate having to search the category regularly to add in new articles. It would only be required to check for new entries on the list and start from the last article added.-- Creol(talk) 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to note somewhere, which version (revision) of the VG article was added? --Eptalon 12:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understood you well, but I think the DIFF links we have on the /by date page do that for us. - Huji ^reply 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly certain I understood the question either, but here is an overkill thought on the matter:

To be able to refer directly to the precise version which was selected as VGA we could do something along the lines of this (it uses a variation of the {{Click}} template modified to use external addresses but shows as plain links - A template could easily be created to simplify the process to require just the article name and revision number with a work-around for the problem of needing underscores ( _ ) for spaces in the link - template has been created for use in this example.):

	Fall of Man
	Japanese tea ceremony
	India

The article links to the current version and the star links to the version which was first tagged with the {{vgood}} template. The copy used for the Article of the week text probably should be taken directly from the originally tagged revision although major revisions may need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. If it has changed so much that it does not resemble the voted-on revision, it may be needed to reassess it's status. -- Creol(talk) 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no complaints (or comments) I moved the template from my userspace to {{VGA link}} and relinked it here. -- Creol(talk) 07:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it at the moment. May be we should start using the template, and expect comments to be made at the point. - Huji ^reply 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

I think this article can be a very good articles. Last! 12:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the vocabulary in this page is too difficult. The words I think can be easily made easier in bold:

Very good articles are the best articles in the Simple English Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our very good article criteria.

Currently, there are 19 very good articles, from of a total of 25,966 articles on Simple English Wikipedia. Thus, about one in 1,360 articles is listed here. Articles that no longer meet the criteria can be proposed for improvement or removal at Wikipedia:Peer review.

All very good articles come with a template {{vgood}} which is located on the center front of that article. It also shows that the article is a very good article in the Simple English Wikipedia.

Very Good Lists

Hello everyone!

What are our thoughts on having Very Good Lists? I'm working on List of London Underground stations which is a FL at the English 'Pedia, and I was going to try to get it to the same here. VGLs don't necessarily have to come under the VGA criteria etc, and if/when there's general consensus that it may be a good idea I will look into some criteria that people could then have a looksy at and comment on. They could be featured on the main page like VGAs or not - that's probably another thing to discuss. Anyway, just an idea!

Regards,

Gob lin 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. I know it from de.wp. ~~I think you should post it on WP:ST, because more users watch ST then this page.~~ Barras (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe ;). I'm avoiding ST for things that are better placed on specific talk pages. But thanks for the thoughts :). Gob lin 20:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea has merit, however, I think it's best kept within the VGA project for simplicity and nominations should be listed on the same page as VGA nominations. That would make it a one-stop-shop for all things "very good". fr33kman ^talk 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps rename it to "Very good content" and "Good content"? Or is content perhaps not simple enough... hmmm... Either way, i'm making slow progress with mine and I will be nominating when it's done ;). Gob lin 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are still technically article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, my bad ;). Do I take it that there is at least weak consensus for perhaps guidelines to be drawn up? Regards, Gob lin 22:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea, actually. иιƒкч ? 09:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why not :D Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they have it there, then they should have it here. T3h 1337 [[Special:Contributions/b0y]] 03:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (Check out my sig!)[reply]

How would one tell if a list is very good? Would User:PiRSquared17/Sandbox qualify as a VGL? πr² (talk • changes) 19:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no easy-to-read explanation of the list. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

"Before being put here, articles are looked at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles to make sure they are right, complete, show all sides of the story and have the correct style, according to our requirements for very good articles.

Currently, there are &&&&&&&&&&&&&&35.&&&&&035 very good articles, from of a total of 113,439 articles on Simple English Wikipedia. This is about one in &&&&&&&&&&&&3241.&&&&&03,241 articles listed here. If they do not seem to be very good anymore, you can suggest that they should be improved or removed, at Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion."

Preferably: «Before being put here, articles are looked over at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles to make sure they are right, complete, show all sides of the story and have the correct style, according to our requirements for very good articles.

Currently, there are &&&&&&&&&&&&&&35.&&&&&035 very good articles, out of a total of 113,439 articles on Simple English Wikipedia. This is about one in &&&&&&&&&&&&3241.&&&&&03,241 articles listed here. If they do not seem to be very good any more, you can suggest that they should be improved or removed, at Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion.»--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical depression 10

If Tropical Depression Ten (2005) is a good article, then I think it's very marginal. But if it's a very good article, we're all in trouble, since it looks like we can't tell the difference. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross I agree that this should not be a very good article. It's far too short and barely even notable; on enwiki they redirected it. But I don't think we should demote any more until we can get some new ones, otherwise it makes the main page look worse. Maybe some GAs can be promoted to VGA? Lights and freedom (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The more we are rational, the better will be our decisions. We don't (or should not) call articles "Good" or "Very Good" unless they genuinely deserve it. Otherwise it looks as though we don't know what we are doing. The articles we have as GA or VGA are often there because an editor pushed them there, and the rest of us did not have the guts to say "I think that's just average" (or some such). Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be demoted to GA. Should be brought to a regular discussion (WP:ST/WP:PAD) where others can weigh in. The problem is the process is extremely slow. Simplewiki has 5(!!!) VGAs promoted in the last decade. And it seems people are holding GA and VGA to the same standards when GA should be easier. Which GA do you think has the best chances for promotion to VGA? Lights and freedom (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]