Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:PAD)

Good articles and very good articles are some of the best articles on Simple English Wikipedia. They have certain criteria that they must meet before they can be considered as a good or very good article (see Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles and Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles). If someone notices that an article meets most or all of those criteria, he or she may list it on the Proposed good articles or Proposed very good articles page. The article is then voted on, and if enough people agree that the article is good or very good, it is promoted to that higher status.

However, sometimes a good or very good article is changed in such a way that it no longer meets the criteria, or new information may become available about the topic, making the article incomplete. In such a case, the article should be demoted from good article or very good article status.

Process of demotionEdit

Demotion of a GA or VGA can be done in this way:

  1. A named editor notices that the article no longer meets the GA or VGA criteria.
  2. The editor lists the article on this page and adds {{pvgademotion}} (for VGAs) or {{pgademotion}} (for GAs) to the article's page to show that it is currently being reviewed and improved.
  3. Major contributors to the article who helped it become a GA or VGA are notified, along with a note at Simple Talk to let the community know about the proposed demotion.
  4. For two weeks following the discovery, the article can be fixed to again meet the criteria. If there is agreement that the problem has been fixed during this time, there does not need to be a re-vote; a named editor can remove the tag from the article, and put the {{vgood}} or {{good}} tag back.
  5. If the problem is not fixed, the article will lose its status after the two-week period. When the article once again meets the criteria, it can be re-nominated for GA or VGA status and will follow the full promotion process from beginning to end.
  6. When an article is demoted, the associated badge in its Wikidata entry should be removed.

Proposals for demotionEdit

List proposals here, newer ones at the top. Each proposal should list what needs to be fixed. Within two weeks from being listed, an article listed here must be fixed to again meet the criteria, or have its higher status removed.

=== Article name ===
{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be demoted. ~~~~ 

Victoria lineEdit

Victoria line (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Should be demoted from VGA to GA. The process has changed since 2009 and more could be written about it. Certainly a Good Article, but very good? I'm not so sure. IWI (chat) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Article is good for GA, but for VGA? Not so much. The article has sections that lack citations and (I'm no expert) the future section should be checked if it has updated information. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@TDKR Chicago 101: I mean there are cn tags in the article, these would need clearing before it could be considered a GA. I also updated some outdated numbers. Other than that it is fine, but not a VGA.
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Bottom line is that the article is not VGA material. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, put succinctly. IWI (chat) 23:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Well I've cleared all the {{cn}} tags and simplified some fairly difficult text. Now it is good enough for GA. Before it was not. IWI (chat) 16:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe BidenEdit

Joe Biden (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article not updated and some sections are lacking information. Compare article to Bernie Sanders who has been up to date about the 2020 primaries and his Senate career his longer and well sourced than Biden's (even though Joe had a longer career). Vice President section could be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems alright, the Bernie article is better doesn't mean Biden should be demoted? It needs improvement for sure but this seems quite complete an article (as compared to the rest). See no reason to demote.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Not trying to attack or anything... but you think this might be a bit a partisan nomination considering your userpage talking about wanting Bernie to be a president? -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I disclosed that it wasn't partisan, what I meant was that Bernie's article is more up to date with the 2020 primaries and Biden's isn't. I put all my beliefs aside when here on the Wiki. Plus I think his Vice President and Senate sections should be longer than they are. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Then why not Bernie Sanders article be nominated for VGA instead?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Camouflaged Mirage: If you guys think Sanders' article is up to VGA standards then good, I was actually waiting 'till after the primary season so that the article has all the updated information. What I'm getting it at is that:
  • What did he do before his senate career? Doubtful he graduated from college and jumped straight to the Senate.
  • Biden's Senate career section is only two paragraphs long. For a man who's been in the Senate roughly 30 years, don't you think it should contain more information? (Sanders has been in the Senate for thirteen years yet his career section is more fleshed out). Ronald Reagan (even before going from GA to VGA) his entrance into politics had its own section. Reagan's first presidential run in 1976 has its own section. Jeremy Corbyn, who is a GA, has a fleshed out MP section. Bottom line is that Biden's Senate career section resembles more than that of a stub article. I mean Hal Holbrook's career section is longer and its not event a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • His run in 1998 only has a brief mention. His 1988 run should at least have its own section.
  • Some references are dead links.
  • How come his 2008 campaign trail section is in the same length as VP? Shouldn't his VP section be more fleshed out?
  • 2020 run should be more updated like include debate performance, how he went from front-runner to behind Sanders and then back up to front-runner? His primary wins and losses?
  • The article's lead could be expanded, look at Sanders, Corbyn, even Fred Rogers and Ronald Reagan's lead back when it was a GA had longer more detailed leads.
  • Note: His personal life and honors section is pretty good. The article is written well, as in non-complex wise. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I am still not convinced these require demotion. GA means that this is one of the best in simple, which is still true by now. We had lots of GA that's need updating, but they are still the best articles here. Also per Gotanda below. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: These discussions seem quite variable. If Hermann Göring remained at VGA with similar issues, then hard to demote this article. --Gotanda (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: At most an update needed tag on the article is needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101:*In which case the article no longer meets the GA criteria and should be demoted. These demotion discussions have become very subjective and no longer follow our own requirements. "There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. Some of these templates are {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them." --Gotanda (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: the point that I'm getting it before it went all political is that this article needs and update and the Vice Presidency/Senate sections could be beefed up more. I added the update tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Like what Gotanda said above, if the article is identified as requiring improvement (and even tagged accordingly), I see no reason the article can keep GA status per WP:GA?. Whether other allegedly worse off articles were demoted or not is not particularly relevant to this demotion discussion. Chenzw  Talk  05:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not commenting on this particular case, but any drive by editor can thrown on a tag. Whether or not that tag should be there is an important thing to consider. On a few of our GAs/VGAs in the past editors have thrown up tags that weren't necessarily valid. So to demote because a single user putting a tag on is something we have to be careful of. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Djsasso: The template was added because the article needs to be updated. Regardless I've add expand section templates to his Senate section, VP section and 2020 run section because they need more info. How are you going to tell be a section with two paragraphs is enough to sum up a near 40 year career in the senate. His role in the Clarence Thomas hearing nearly basically has a mention. His VP section could also be expanded with the specifics that he did to fix the Great Recession and his role in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The bottom line is that this article has limited amount of info. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • On simple.wiki compared to en.wiki yes. Remember our articles are never going to be the novels that en.wiki articles are. I think people are forgetting that. Yes the topic should have a good coverage of the topic, but we don't necessarily go into every detail the way an article on en.wiki would. That being said, I am not against adding more information if there is more to add. -Djsasso (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Djsasso: I understand. I am not saying Joe Biden's article here should match the length as English Wikipedia. What I have been saying is that the article does need more information. Its common sense that a man's 40 year career cannot be summed up in two paragraphs. When I nominated Bernie Sanders, Ronald Reagan and Jeremy Corbyn, everyone said that their career sections should be expanded accordingly to Simple English. I highly doubt had this article been nominated a year ago it would have passed because there are just short sections. How come Sanders' senate section is larger then Biden's (Sanders has been in the senate for 13 years and Biden was in the senate for 40). The article is good yes, but I do not feel that it has enough information to maintain GA status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, people are always going to ask for expansion. Always, everytime. The question is whether or not expansion is always warranted. Sometimes overly detailed sections will actually detract from a subject rather than enhance it. Two different people who had different careers for example one might have more notable things happen in their term than the other. I don't know if that is the case between the two you are comparing or not as I haven't taken the time to really dig into it. I do know that prior to being VP even though he was in the senate he wasn't really all that well known a senator compared to Bernie. Bernie has been in the public eye a lot more than Biden was. You can't really compare two articles in that way. The key factors for being VGA and GA are all about the quality of the writing and the simpleness. Yes obviously comprehensive is one of the criteria but the other points are far more important. -Djsasso (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also err on the side of needing to expand the article. I also wouldn't argue that Bernie was more high profile than Biden was in the Senate. The overwhelming majority of people had never heard of Bernie Sanders until he decided to run for president. The sections for Biden's career, given how expansive it is, is far too short. If this remains a GA, it will need a serious overhaul. ~Junedude433talk 00:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Junedude433: I wasn't saying that Bernie was more high profile, what I was saying is that how come is Sanders' senate career section longer than Biden's when Sanders was barely in the senate for 20 years in comparison's to Biden's high prolific senate career. I agree that Biden's article needs an overhaul --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: I was actually responding to Djasso's statement that Bernie was in the public eye for much longer than Biden. I disagreed with that assessment. ~Junedude433talk 16:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

More information is definitley needed if it is to stay as a good article. It is not exhaustive enough. Comparing to other articles or other Wikipedias is futile; the article is not up to date. IWI (chat) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The article does need a bit of an update, however there are parts that have been updated. Some sections need major expansion, try comparing this article to Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, or Bernie Sanders and it would be easy to tell. It does have lots of sources. However, a lot of them are dead links, unreliable, not well formatted, and sections needing citations. There are also very few red links, or none. I think the article can keep it's GA status, as long as cleanup templates are solved and issues are fixed and it gets expanded. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that Djsasso suggesting it is a biased nomination was unnecessary, and is most certainly not assuming good faith. It is clear this article needs an update, so there is no reason to suggest bad faith. IWI (chat) 22:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It was a fair comment, a demotion request slapping a big negative tag on a page right in the middle of the primary which was still being hotly contested at the time by someone who very clearly puts on their page they support the other guy. It is very much a fair assumption considering how the tag makes the subject look bad right in the middle of running for the nomination. It also wasn't clear that the article needed to be demoted. Still not sure it does. It can definitely be expanded, the question is whether it has to be to avoid demotion. -Djsasso (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The tag does not make the subject look bad, only the article. I can see why you might have thought that it was a partisan nomination, but regardless it is clear the article needs an update. The article having a tag on it is nothing to do with Joe Biden himself. Nobody is going to be influenced by a tag on Wikipedia. If the article isn't updated, it needs demoting. Let's just keep to the content not contributor thing from now on. IWI (chat) 11:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the article is on the subject thus makes the subject look bad. And I was commenting on the nomination not the nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but an assumption based on the contributor who made the nomination. Anyway, let's put this behind us now. IWI (chat) 12:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Here are my reasons for this proposal. The article needs expansion to detail his large 30 year senate career, his VP career and details on his 2020 run. A section that explains what Biden did between his post-university years and before running for the senate. An perhaps a bit of an update, example article does not mention in his awards section on how on his finals days as VP, President Obama presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. A section what Biden did in his post presidency (2017 through 2019). Bottom line the article is not fleshed out with enough information to remain a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

ClosedEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crich Tramway VillageEdit

  • Result: Demoted to GA. Chenzw  Talk  04:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is essentially made-up of History of the museum, Methods of tramcar operation, tramcar fleet and a timeline. Article has been tagged with some lack of source citations with 4 out of the ten total sources cited being dead links. I can't even see this article being suited for GA status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, this is about the level at simple wikipedia that we considered an article a VGA. I would just fix the dead links. Most of the rest of the article hasn't really changed since it was promoted. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
All dead links have been fixed and pretty much anything that needs a source has a source. Not sure I see the problem here. The needs citation templates that were added by an IP weren't things that we would require a cite for so they were removed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: What I was getting at is that this featured article is essentially three sections and a long list. Perhaps it should be demoted to Good Article. Personally I feel the article is not good enough for FA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Remember, short articles can be featured as well as long as they cover the topic in full. So the question is, is there a major portion of this article missing? -Djsasso (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I am aware of that but with our current standards it does not meet that criteria. Present nominations go through a heavy process to make sure it has sufficient citations and sources. Look at Bloc Party, it was a lengthy article with good enough info and it went from VGA to GA (which is what I think should happen here). Well for starters the article is not updated. It is a museum and the article should be reflected as such maybe moving the article title to National Tramway Museum. It should touch on specific exhibitions as seen on English Wiki. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it does meet our current criteria. If anything our process was much more detailed in the past than it is now. Now people just seem to demote if they don't like it without any thought to actually making changes to the article to maintain its quality. Bloc Party is different, it was missing a number of albums and a big chunk of time from the bands career. So the two are not really equivalent. -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree in that it needs more information. Much like on the standard English Wikipedia, it basically glosses over all of the different kinds of tramcars. If the museum is dedicated to this, I would expect to learn more about its exhibits than simply "it has a bunch of tramcars from all over the country," and leaving it at that. I don't feel that this article is particularly comprehensive. I guess I look at this not as a matter of "can this stay promoted?," but rather "should this stay promoted?" My belief is no; it should be a GA. ~Junedude433talk 00:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't fell super-strongly about this, but I can see why others have thought it should be demoted. It makes a number of slack suggestions as to the history of trams which are not sourced. As a child I remember trams in London, and I think some of the general points made are superficial. I can see that the construction of the road in the museum does not bring this out. Anyway, for me I think missing sources and vague comments in the general sections should mean demotion to GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Per TDKR Chicago 101 Support Demote to GA status, huge chunk of article just the history/timeline --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Result: No consensus to demote. Chenzw  Talk  08:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hermann GöringEdit

Hermann Göring (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article should be demoted to just GA. It's not necessarily a bad article, but considering how much better many other VGA are, I think the quality standards have shifted. This article just simply doesn't isn't anywhere near as good as many of the other VGAs. The sections are relatively short, all of them basically being one, maybe two paragraphs each, and there isn't even an infobox. This is not as comprehensive as a VGA should be. ~Junedude433talk 22:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Length wise it actually passes what we need for a VGA. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
It has a far more comprehensive reference list than most articles here. I think that ideally it should be fleshed out a bit more, and probably an infobox added. But I don't see a reason to demote it. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The article could use an infobox. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is not VGA. It fails 2 and probably 10.
"2. The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is one which does not miss any major facts and details."
This article is a brief summary. For example, the years 1933-1945, "Göring during the Third Reich," is two or so paragraphs for a total of just over 300 words to cover 13 momentous years. Single sentences skip over large topics. There is a single sentence for planning the holocaust and a single sentence for his 50th birthday party.
"10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced."
There are references, but many of these do not seem reliable. For example: Ref 1 is a Wayback Machine capture of a geocities site. Ref 8 is a hobbyist site. Ref 9 is a dead link. Ref 13 is the personal website of David Irving, a Holocaust denier. Have a look at this for some writing that calls anything else into question. "The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Hitler's role in the Holocaust" Ref 14 seems to be a blog for a memorabilia collector? Ref 17 IHR is a holocaust denial organization. Ref 18 also seems to be a blog. Ref 20 likely was a blog but is now a dead link. The refs that seem the most authoritative are books in German and therefore difficult for many to examine; there must be good, reliable refs available online in English for such a notable figure.
I do not think this even meets GA as 2. "fairly complete" or 9. "needs to be referenced." UPDATE* I just added the demotion template to the article. Before this Demotions on New Changes showed zero so some editors may not have been aware of the proposal. --Gotanda (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I take it some references need fixing.As to "Holocaust denial" sites - ref 13 is used (with another ref), to say that he became dependent on morphine, and that he was promoted to another rank. Neither of which has anything to do with Holocaust denial, and both cites are supported by another reference. SO yes, the dead links probably need replacing, but I currently don't see how Ref 13 (the Holocaust denial site) cannot be used. Remember: You don't need a skilled historian, specialized in WW II to make a reputable source. During/After the war propaganda by the allies was used in the same way to get the image of Nazi Germany many people (and historians) now accept as true. --Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I added an infobox per TDKR Chicago 101 suggestion. Do help to remove the redlinks in the infobox if possible. I don't think it is VGA. GA should be ok with some fixing ----Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Re Eptalon's comment that, "You don't need a skilled historian, specialized in WW II to make a reputable source." This is a VGA discussion not a general article discussion. Given there are so many reliable references available for this subject, it seems to me that these should not be used. The dishonesty in holocaust denialism calls into question the rest of the writing by this author. In addition, good practices for students using Wikipedia include reading the articles but then following the sources for themselves. Linking to sites such David Irving is leading students to untrustworthy sources--something I think we should avoid, but is definitely not "very good". --Gotanda (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with StephenJ81. I don't see a demotion here. While it could definitely be fleshed out more, I think people are forgetting our VGAs are intended to show the best of our articles, not the best of articles anywhere. This article met the criteria for being made a VGA and it hasn't decreased in quality since it was which is the only time a demotion is relevant. It is still easily in the 1% of the best articles on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Just stumbled upon this. I think it's pretty clear that this is still a VGA for simple Wiki. A concern I have is I'm not a fan of the image formatting, but that doesn't take away from the article.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pagesEdit