Talk:Carom billiards

This article is a good article. This means the community feels it is written well.

Record of a conversation:

Carom billiards Hey there! About 6 months ago, you nominated Carom billiards for article status demotion but the discussion never went anywhere. I'm just hoping to get more of your thoughts on why it should be demoted so that maybe we can get a new discussion going and get some quality standards in place for our GAs/VGAs. Best, Griff (talk) 1:39 am, 19 February 2022, Saturday (5 months, 2 days ago) (UTC+0)

Well, my main complaint was the language, which I thought was not simple enough. The article was obsessive in its coverage, and its main points could have been said more simply. And it could have been shorter without the loss of any important content. I think we tend to ignore the effect of length on readers whose language skills are limited. Some of the refs are not working, and one I picked up on was the "green can be seen more easily". It wouldn't surprise me if it were true (primates in trees), but the link failed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 7:54 am, 19 February 2022, Saturday (5 months, 2 days ago) (UTC+0)

I absolutely agree. I reviewed the article, then ran it through several readability programs and I could see many improvements that were necessary. I simply don't know enough (and honestly don't have the time) to essentially re-write the article in a more simple tone, but if you bring it back to PAD, I'll support demotion. Thanks for your quick response, Griff (talk) 7:13 pm, 19 February 2022, Saturday (5 months, 1 day ago) (UTC+0)

• I still think this page is not simple, and should not be a "good article". Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC) 14:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)