Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

(Redirected from Wikipedia:PVGA)

Very good articles are the highest status of articles at Simple English Wikipedia. In order to become a very good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles.

This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the VGA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pvgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed very good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{pvgood}} tag replaced with {{vgood}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Very good articles and are placed in Category:Very good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{vgood}} tag removed.

Articles that are below the very good article criteria can be nominated to be a good article at Wikipedia:Proposed good articles.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for very good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comment. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

In order to make sure the article you are proposing meets the required size, use this tool. Please notice that the text size is important, not the wikitext size.

ArchivesEdit

Proposals for very good articlesEdit

To propose an article for very good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a VGA. ~~~~

Lawrence, KansasEdit

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

The previous time I nominated this article to be featured never reached a conclusion, even though all responses were supportive of it. Therefore, I am resubmitting my nomination for this article to be featured. It is among the longest articles on this wiki, everything is properly sourced, linked, and written, it is comprehensive, and the layout is exactly what an article should look like. Seemingly, the only reason it did not get promoted was simply because not enough users had reviewed it, not because of any negative responses. In fact, there was not a single negative response from any of the reviewers. I think that this should not only be a featured article, but could become the gold standard of what city articles should look like. I will gladly accept any and all criticism to make this article the best it can be, if there is anything left to improve. ~Junedude433talk 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It has been some time since I wanted to do a thorough review of this article. I had done some copyedits at the time it was promoted to Good Article. However, I see it has been improved even more since that time. It is an excellent page, and frankly much more complete than many of our existing Very Good Articles. When reading the criteria at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles, I believe it meets all of them. Many of our existing Very Good Articles are out of date, having been promoted many years ago. Now they need work to get back up to date. This one would represent the wiki better, I think. I agree with promoting. After a review, I have no further edits to it at this time. I didn't even find formatting to fix. Desertborn (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Reference: Past discussion was here and included thoughts from Auntof6, MJL, and Aurora. It appears issues were addressed and consense was leaning to promote. Just not enough participation, so it got archived. Desertborn (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Peterdownunder on possible improvements are listed on the talk page of the article. Desertborn (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Not sure if this is the place to comment/valid comment but:The template at the bottom of the article has a lot of redlinks, also there seem to be some redlinked categories saying that the article is containing some cs1 errors --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the cs1 issue was resolved by Hiàn, but the template Is still my question --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: I would argue the red links there are not necessary to fill in since they themselves are not part of the article. We currently have five good articles that have a navigation box template with red links in them: City of Manchester Stadium (Template:Premier League venues), Ronald Reagan (Template:Governors of California), Bobby Robson (Template:England Squad 1958 World Cup, Template:England Squad 1962 World Cup, Template:England Squad 1986 World Cup, and Template:England Squad 1990 World Cup), Portman Road (Template:Premier League venues), and Yellow (Template:Coldplay). I included the navigation boxes there because categorically they make sense, and they follow the format of other city articles. It helps facilitate the linking of pages together quite well. However, I do not consider any of the links in the navigation boxes inherently important or intimately related to the article itself. Would imposing this requirement on any other type of article make sense either? If an article about an American vice president were to be nominated, but say we did not have some articles of some of the vice presidents already created (and appeared in a navigation box), should that inherently stop that article from being promoted? I don't think so, and the criteria listed don't explicitly say anything about navigation boxes. I think your concern would make more sense if there was a Lawrence navigation box that had red links in them since they would all be directly related to the article, but that's not the case here. ~Junedude433talk 03:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that red links in the nav box don't need to be taken care of. They are external to the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I yearn for the day that I can make a point as succinctly as you can, @Auntof6:. ~Junedude433talk 16:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Not to make a judgement one way or the other, but in the past we have required any links not be red. Navbox or not because this page will show on the front page. The way it was often fixed if a person did not want to take the time to fix the red links was to either edit the navbox to remove those links or to remove the navbox itself. -Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Its too long, has some sources that need dates and proper formatting, and uses complex words. Its almost as if the article on the Simple English wiki is longer than the one on the English wiki. Also the first sentence needs some sentence fluency fixing. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The sources is a valid matter and is easy to clean up. The article being long does not mean it is complex. IWI (chat) 03:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: Being too long is not a problem for any article here, as long as the language is simple. Indeed, one of the criteria for very good articles is that they be comprehensive, and that can require an article to be longer than our average. Just because we have many short articles here doesn't mean that we want articles to be short. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The article has lots of complex words though, I don't know if I can give examples, but I think they should be easy to spot and could be simplified down. Also, sources play a big part of the article. If sources are dead links and aren't well formatted, then there is nothing available to back up the information in the article. Thats why it shouldn't be a VGA until all sources are fixed. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: First of all, I appreciate the concerns you are laying out. I'm glad that there are more eyes on it, and I welcome the critique. That being said, I disagree that length is an issue. Perhaps if the article rambled on about things that weren't seriously related to it, I would agree; not everything is worth putting in the main article. However, I think all sections and subsections of the article is deeply related to it, and it is worth putting there. If there are any parts you think should be shortened, please specify them. Furthermore, the standard English Wikipedia's article is actually substantially longer than the Simple English Wikipedia's article. Some sentences might appear fleshed out, but this is because standard English benefits from being able to use more complex words that can specify an idea better and more concisely. If we must use simple grammar and direct, active voice, it's inevitable that there will be many more simple sentences that may seem to flesh out the length of the article.
On the subject of simplification, I am aware that not every word is inherently simple. There are many proper nouns and some technical terms, for sure. The way around this is to have a link to another article for a more complex term. That way, if someone were confused, they could simply view the article for that word and see a simple explanation of what it is. If we didn't have this workaround, articles would be unnecessarily long due to the sheer amount of short explanations needed, and that would also hurt the flow of the article. Instead of saying "I think they should be easy to spot," perhaps you could point these out? I would be particularly concerned if it were in a section in which it would be subject to copying and pasting to other articles (i.e. the People section about the census data). I want this to become the standard for city articles, so I want to make sure it is as easy to read and use as a template as possible.
As for sources, I fail to see where there are any issues. I have personally reviewed many of the sources, and I cannot remember any that were dead that were not already archived, and they are all formatted properly. I understand some of them don't have the publisher nor the author, but that was because that information did not appear in the source (e.g. no author was cited in a newspaper article, there isn't an author for the profile of a state legislator on the legislature's official roster, etc.). Since you noticed this issue, can you point out any specific sources that are problematic? I would love to fix them, but I don't see any problems, so I need another pair of eyes on it to specify them. Also, in the interest of not crowding this page, perhaps it would be a good idea to include any specific criticisms in the talk page of the article. Ping me so I know you posted. ~Junedude433talk 18:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Related pagesEdit