Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review)
GA candidate.svg

Good articles are articles that many people find to be better than other articles. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria.

This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles. Please only put one submission in at a time.

Articles that are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles that are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

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

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly. 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.

ArchivesEdit

Proposals for good articlesEdit

To propose an article for 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.

RainforestEdit

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

One of the older articles (created in May 2005, by an IP editor).

  1.  Y Article belongs in Wikipedia - I'd be surprised if it didn't.
  2.  Y Article must be fairly complete - It tells us about the subject, describes different layers, and also talks about animals and people there.
  3.  Y Article must have gone through a few revisions possibly by different editors - Over 500 revisions since creation; can't tell you how many editors.
  4.  Y The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. - yes
  5.  Y The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). - If i do ont count capitalization, or moving sections/parts of the article, I have less than 20 real changes in the last half year or so.
  6.  Y All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. - No red links; I suppose all important terms are linked, but don't know.
  7.  Y If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. - We do have five properly-labelled images
  8.  Y There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. [...] The article also should not need them. - I haven't seen any...
  9.  Y Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. - We get five references, all books from the looks of it.

What might be misssing:

  • There's one comment on the article talk page (From 2014) about the source of oxygen turnover numbers; I have no idea if that has been addressed.
  • There are forests in temperate climates (Chile, US west coaat/Canada/Alaska, Tasmania, New Zealand that have perhaps also been called 'rainforest', do they need a mention?
  • There may be more or less large forested areas (also in Europe, and Asia) ('primal forest', or similar) do they need a mention?

Despite these issues, I think we should discuss whether we award the 'Good Article' flag...--Eptalon (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to be about tropical rainforests only. There are no tapirs, jaguars, or gorillas in the Olympics in Washinton, but it is a rainforest. I would seggest moving everything to a article titled "Tropical Rainforest." EnWP has one. Then remove any mentions of temperate rain forests. Will make everything more coherent and manageable.
Also, there is still quite a bit of simplification to be done. Many sentences are not simple sentences.
But, I think this is on the right track and necessary. --Gotanda (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I have created Temperate rainforest. Yes, I know its a stub, and could probably be extended, but it's better than nothing. It is linked form the rainforest article Eptalon (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Emu WarEdit

Emu War (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've been working away at this for a while. Tagged my edits with Towards Emu War VGA, so you may have seen that in New Changes. I think it may be VGA, but based upon some recent discussions, I am nominating it for GA first. I hope it can be reviewed within three weeks as noted in the guidelines, but I appreciate that that takes the time of other admins and editors.

Using https://readabilityofwikipedia.com/ , this Simple version has a Flesch reading ease score of 66 where the original EnWP version is 48. This is significantly simpler.

As a historic event, it is unlikely to require much upkeep or maintenance. Though it does have its comic elements, the underlying issue of farming penetrating rural areas is important. This might be useful for school or interesting for some younger readers.

There has also been some discussion of too much ownership of GA or VGA proposals, so I will step back and let the discussion move for a while unless I am addressed directly. I expect to rejoin the discussion after a week or two to try to resolve any issues before closure.

Thanks!

Requirements: I think it ticks all of the boxes

  1.  Y The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia. (Long standing article on EnWP. 43 languages.)
  2.  Y The article must be fairly complete. (I adapted it from a pretty thorough EnWP article.)
  3.  Y The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. (This is mainly my work, but I asked for help on Simple Talk, and several other editors pitched in at the end, or at least reviewed.)
  4.  Y The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. (Yes)
  5.  Y The last few revisions should be minor changes. (Pretty much. Some very minor wording changes near the end, but nothing new added for quite a while.)
  6.  Y All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. (Yes)
  7.  Y If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. (I think so.)
  8.  Y There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. (OK)
  9.  Y Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. (I checked quite a few of the refs from EnWP by reviewing the original sources when possible.)

But, if anyone disagrees, please point out how myself or another editor can fix a problem, or even better, if you can, please fix it yourself. That would be a huge help. --Gotanda (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Article looks well-written! Greatly simplified everywhere - don't know about a few words (conducted, desperate, estimate), but other than that I think it is great. Tried to help a little with some of the things I saw. Didn't think starting sentences with conjunctions was normal, but after looking it up I stand corrected. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Not too many edits in the past ten days, and all minor: mostly emu singular to emus plural in a few places, one simplification, a couple of links, and the expansion of G. P. W. Meredith's name. I am not sure if that last one should stick as it seems complex and the initials were often used. Thanks, DovahFRD and Lights and freedom. --Gotanda (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


InterlingueEdit

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

I believe the article is well-written, explains the history and the grammar of the language in a simple yet thorough way and has a lot of references. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

What the article is, is one-sided propaganda. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
What do you base your argument on? The article is fully referenced so unless you point out where exactly is "propaganda", you are basically giving a worthless opinion. Caro de Segeda (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
What part of the article is propaganda? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 13:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
All of it, because it does not address the literature of why artificial languages have been rejected for over 100 years, and none is widely used. Nothing is new in Interlingua, and it has failed as all universal or artificial languages have failed. In fact, even where language is a problem (such as in Belgium), artificial languages have made little or no progress. That is without considering the absolutely failure in Eastern countries, where what has happened in China is the forceful introduction of one dialect of an existing language. In any event, articles written from the point of view of an advocate are by definition biased. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Interlingue, not an article supporting the use of an artificial auxiliary language, which is beyond its scope. The purpose of the article is to explain what Interlingue is, its history, its grammar and its literature, and that is what is should be judged for. Your last phrase (articles written from the point of view of an advocate are by definition biased), is an assumption with no base so your criticism is biased and does not focus on the article we are discussing here. Also, the fact that you say InterlinguA, instead of InterlinguE, tells us that you haven't even read the article, you are just against artificial languages in general and believe "everything is propaganda" without even taking the time to read the actual article, which, in my point of view, is quite disrespectful with the work that several Wikipedians have put in order to try to get it to a certain quality. Caro de Segeda (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
It is a biased and one-eyed view of the topic. WP tries to give pro and con accounts of topics which advocate non-standard ideas. You have not done this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
You still don't give examples on why is biased. If we follow your standards, the article about Coca-Cola, for instance, is biased because "it doesn't give pro and con accounts" and so many more on this Wikipedia would be the same. You need to support your statament. The article just explains the language history, grammar and literature, and it is well referenced. It doesn't try to "sell you" Interlingue. So maybe the one who is biased against artificial languages is you, given the fact that you criticise very generally, do not support your critiques and, as per your previous message, don't even write the name of the language we are talking about correctly. Saying "all of it" [is propaganda]" clearly shows how you haven't even read the article, you just write a general statement against it, disrispecting the work put into creating it. It there is something in the article that needs to be improved, please let us know here, but do not come with general statements that state nothing but hte fact that you haven't even taken the time to read it. Caro de Segeda (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we perhaps focus ob the article? Note we are taking about a language so perhaps look at Dalmatian language or Spanish language as a comparison.-Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I have tried to promote. I believe the article complies with the requirements to be a Good Article and that is why I have proposed it in order to get that distinction. Caro de Segeda (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Only thing that I can see that would be an issue is some of the linguistic terms. "Occidental had a bigger Germanic substrate" -> "Occidental was more influenced by Germanic languages" or "sounded more like Germanic languages", maybe? Blue linking other things such as 'vowels' and 'consonants' would also help. Also, might be a bit of a nitpick, but Cosmoglotta is interchangeably italicized in the history section. Otherwise, I support it, unless any other issues come up. Great page!🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I have made the necessary changes following your suggestions. If you find anything else that you believe needs to be changed, please let me know. Caro de Segeda (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The one consistent event in the history of invented languages is that they fail. Even when there is an absolutely uncontested need for a language (for example, for deaf or mute children) sign language is a very poor substitute. I am totally sceptical about the prospects of an international language getting any grip worldwide. Apart from functional deficiencies, nationalism is a huge barrier. I think it's true that over 100 have been proposed, and none has been widely used except by enthusiasts. I was once a convert (don't laugh!) to Basic English. But an article which avoids the elephant in the room is not to my taste. What is the elephant in the room? That's the question for you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, the article is not about constructed languages, it is about Interlingue. It doesn't matter whether Interlingue met its purpose or not, that is not the scope of the article. Its purpose it is to present the language, end of story. The fact that Interlingue (or any other constructed language suceeded) has nothing to do with the article, which doesn't need to explain whether artificial languages failed or not (and also, "failure" can be interpreted differently by different people, so it includes some personal perception). This is the last time I will try to explain it to you because you clearly don't want to understand. Caro de Segeda (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The last known person to speak a Dalmatian dialect was killed in a car accident at the end of the 19th century. IIRC, Dalmatian had like 3-5 large varieties, but only one can be reconstructed (there's not enough material for the others). The region where it was spoken was re-settled by speakers of Slavic languages; as far as I know, everyone there speaks a Slavic language now, there may be Italian-speaking minorities. Did Dalmatian fail? - I started the article on Dalmatian, if it failed, shoud the article be removed? - Following that reasoning, any extinct language failed, yet we do have articles about some of them. We do have an article on Russell's teapot, even though we will never be able to prove its exisence... Eptalon (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Aside from the discussion between Mac and Caro above, the article just is not simple. See the talk page for an example. An editor needs to go through and break everything down into simple sentences. I do not have enough interest in this topic or feel it is important enough to spend my time on it. Others may. If they do, it can be renominated, but this is not ready. Here is another example, "Only a few parts of speech (such as verb infinitives) in Interlingue have entirely obligatory endings, while many others either have endings the usage of which is optional and sometimes recommended." Not even close. --Gotanda (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Caro de Segeda (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No new edits in six weeks on this article. The many complex sentences have not been simplified.Readability of Wikipedia gives it a Flesch reading ease score of 48 (even as low as 5 for some passages). I do not think this qualifies as a good article. Time to move this out of the queue, please. --Gotanda (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

RussiaEdit

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

Enough short sentences, many images and many sources. A sensitive topic nowadays but very important (in English Wiki this article has GA status). And Russia is really rich country to explore. Frontfrog (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks pretty good overall. The history section (mainly the first half) needs more sources. It would be good if someone from Russia or has lived in Russia could evaluate this. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I think there are a lot of complex words still in the article. Looks great content-wise, but I'll try and help replacing the ones that I spot. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Needs a lot of work Complex vocabulary and sentences. Here is just one example: "Extending from eastern Europe across the whole of northern Asia, Russia spans eleven time zones and has a wide range of environments and landforms." Not ready yet. --Gotanda (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe someone will simplify the text? I'm a little bit busy now for it but I want to find all missing sources. Frontfrog (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out: Yesterday I replaced a map (showing the administrative divisions); while Russia is de-facto in control of the Crimean peninsula (It has been, since 2014 I think), the peninsula is still considered part of Ukraine. Recently, Russia annexed Ukrainian territories - It doesn't show on the map yet (no one recognizes it, afaik), but when doing statistics, it is important that these territories are not included. Given that Russia and Ukraine are fighting at the moment, this needs very careful examination. Eptalon (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for map. We can omit details about the war. Frontfrog (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
It is more important to give general objective info about the country. Frontfrog (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I added a useful book about History of Russia (in notes). But complete book is available to patrons with print disabilities. Please, someone who is this patron add info about Tsardom of Russia (about Ivan the Terrible and so on). Frontfrog (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yellowstone National ParkEdit

Yellowstone National Park (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I can scarcely believe we don't already have this as a GA!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Talk page. I agree that this should be a GA. This is the kind of encyclopedic content that should be a VGA on the front page. But it isn't there (yet). --Gotanda (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Went ahead and made some changes to try and simplify. With a few more changes, I can be more confident in its promotion. For now, I will weakly support, pending additional edits. ~Junedude433talk 19:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I simplified Bison, but Other predators, Fish, and Birds all still need work too. It is getting closer but still not ready. Can be simpler and needs some editing after simplification to make sure there is a good organizational flow and enough context. --Gotanda (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This has been simplified. Seems stable at this point. I do not think there are any outstanding issues to fix. No new comments for a couple of weeks and proposal open for three months. Can an admin please evaluate this for promotion? --Gotanda (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d agree with this. Is cited and everything looks good. There are red links for sure, but 8/9 is still very good. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 05:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  1.  Y Definitely belongs in Wikipedia
  2.  Y 28,040 bytes as of writing and goes into plenty of detail about Yellowstone
  3.  Y Many different editors in history
  4.  Y In the correct categories. Linked to Wikidata where the page is linked to 84 other Wikipedias.
  5.  Y Copyediting has been recently done by Macdonald-ross, Lights and freedom, and Gotanda.
  6.  Y 6 red links, but well over 100 blue ones.
  7.  Y Plenty of related illustrations, all of which are labelled.
  8.  N More simplification needed in a couple of areas. According to this readability test, the U.S. grade level needed (if you take an average of all 4 tests) is 8.8. For an article to be eligible for DYK, the article needs to indicate a U.S. grade level of no more than 8. On this article, it is less than 8 on 2 out of the 4 tests. So the article currently fails this requirement, but I don't think it will take too much work to get this up to an acceptable level. I also believe that more references are needed, as there are none in a couple of sections.
  9.  Y
--Ferien (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The previous readability link gives Flesch 62.41, but seems to not handle captions and bulleted lists that well. It now gives a grade level of 7.87 This one gives a rating of 68, so I think this may be ready. --Gotanda (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Most readability measures were developed and validated on continuous prose. For sections which are not continuous prose, one just has to use one's own judgement. Words and sentences intimately connected to graphics have to be assessed by common sense. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Right, that's the point. The tools evaluate the full article. Just running text without captions and bullet points would no doubt be rated even simpler, such as these ratings are. I think this is "Good." --Gotanda (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe Ferien's concerns have been addressed so that this now meets all criteria, but a neutral admin's evaluation is needed here. Thank you. --Gotanda (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Gotanda I think it's about ready, but by your very high standards on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, it wouldn't be. There you seemed to want every claim stated directly.
  • The source doesn't state that "Three years later, [John Colter] came back to St. Louis and told the people there that he had found an beautiful place of hot springs and geysers. This area was Yellowstone, but nobody believed him."
  • Several sources are dead links.
  • The geography section has no sources.
I believe I can fix these issues within one week (by February 7). But it's probably not good to push it through or apply different standards for promotions and demotions. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross and Gotanda: Currently, many of the facts and narratives are updated to 2007: for example, the numbers of elk, brucellosis outbreaks, and fire management plans. The status probably hasn't changed that much in the last 15 years. Do we need to update it to 2023 for "good" status, or can we leave it as it is? Note that some of these wildlife species have cyclical population patterns, so a description of "increasing population" may be misleading; population could fall a few years later. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I have brought over some geography refs from EnWP. Can you point out which sources are dead links? Those do need to be fixed, but are not the same level of just plain historical errors with statements that were completely the opposite of the facts that were in Jackie O, I think. Also, GA not VGA. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Gotanda The remaining redlinks are:
  • 2006-2007 Winter Count of Northern Yellowstone Elk (#20). This is 15 years old, so should it be used as a source if found, or replaced?
  • Vital Habitats: Wetlands and Wildlife (#24)
  • Fire Management Plan: 2004 Update of the 1992 Wildland Fire Management Plan (#33). There was a new fire management plan released in 2014, and if we are to keep this up to date, someone would have to actually read through the 2014 plan to see what the differences are.
  • Wolverines at Yellowstone (#23) links to a website for the Sundance Festival, an annual film festival which has nothing to do with Yellowstone.
Lights and freedom (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
OK. I was confused red links and dead links are different, right? Started patching up the last couple of red links. Replaced this Vital Habitats: Wetlands and Wildlife (#24)
with two specific sources for reptiles and amphibians. @Macdonald-ross, what do you think of the other points, especially age of a couple of sources? I'll see what I can do about the wolverines. --Gotanda (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm out of action with the Kraken variant of Covid which is not covered by the current antiviral preps. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Whoa! Take care, @Macdonald-ross! --Gotanda (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

MegadethEdit

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

There's a couple of red links left, but at the moment I think it's good and comprehensive enough to propose. Looks like it passes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. A lot of cited, relevant information, relevant images that are captioned, and plenty of sections. DovahFRD (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot to work with here. It can also be much simpler. I went through the lede and simplified step-by-step. There are comments on each simplification in the edit history. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to update this. The page has gotten a lot simpler since the nomination, and some other issues have been fixed as well. I think it is in a much better state now than it was a month ago. DovahFRD (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

AGS-17Edit

AGS-17 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is comprehensive, detailed, has sources and citations. Simple writing and nothing really complicated, and it meets most of the criteria, no red links, it belongs in wikipedia, linked to other wikipedia pages, has citations from journals and books, no templates like {complex} and such, misses no major fact, has illustrations that are labled properly and its pretty much complete. DawnTheFirst (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. There are currently no good/very good articles about weapons, so AGS-17 would help diversify their topics. I'm not sure that the article meets the criteria currently, but I'll try to help over time. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help. I'll attempt to add references, add more information and generally make it way more comprehensive. DawnTheFirst (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The writing is not quite simple enough. For one thing, there are compound and complex sentences that need to be divided. I just simplified the lead to give an idea of what I mean. There are also words that need to be changed to lower case. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
There are complex words that can be replaced IMO. Like manufactured --> Made, produced, I think similar alternates can be sought for many other complex words. There are shorter sentences that should also be simplified like, 'It was first seen in service in 1971'. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in this page.--BRP ever 12:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a terrible article in my opinion! It needs to be a tiny bit more simple, more comprehensive and more citations. As said by BPR, some words need to be changed and simplified. That is all! Yodas henchman (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yodas henchman Terrible means "extremely bad". Did you mean "terrible" or "terrific" (which means "extremely good")? Lights and freedom (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Terrible! But not in an insulting way, but more of constructive critisism. Yodas henchman (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Not a good article, rather a poor one, I think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough information, and unfortunately I don't know how to fix it. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per obvious lack of info and earlier comm. Frontfrog (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mainly just a list of conflicts and variant names. This is not a substantial article. There has been no improvement for quite a while and seems stuck. Time for closure? --Gotanda (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

ConcreteEdit

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

As I explained elsewhere, this is the work of many editors, and has historical and present-day relevance. It's been a good page for a long time, and it should be recognised. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be far too short to be a GA. Lallint (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
While Lallint says this is too short, looking through it quite easily passes most of the GA criteria. Passes 1, 2 (it is over a few kilobytes long and goes into a reasonable amount of detail), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Although, I do think there should be a few more references for an article of this length. --Ferien (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I really don't think it does pass criteria two. "Additives" is more of a merge of history and additives, and I think both of them could be elaborated. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: I have trouble deciding on this one. On one hand, I approve of the article and think it covers all the essential aspects of the subject. On the other hand, it's a bit short, only 3.1 kB of readable prose. It was suggested before that good articles should have a minimum of 3.5, 5, or 6 kB. So I'm not sure what's missing, but maybe expand it a bit? Lights and freedom (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • For the general information, I think this page is sufficient. However, I believe more information needs to added and better referencing should be done for it to be one of the best work of the community.--BRP ever 12:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a subject-matter expert on this, just a drive-by editor who thinks it's a good page. The importance is great for civilizations which were not in near-desert conditions. They needed something to stand up to the rain. Fired bricks and concrete were two things they invented. These inventions let you build almost anywhere on land. Otherwise you rely on nearby sources of rock, as the Egyptians did. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I think this has potential. I have simplified a bit, added a bit, and left a comment on the talk page. If a few people work on this, I think we can get it there soon. --Gotanda (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

AtomEdit

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

A lot of people have helped with this article, and I think it's now ready to propose for good article. I think it meets all of the requirements, except that it should be simplified some more. There is a "complex" tag, which is technically disqualifying, but this can be removed if others find it unnecessary. Also, I would like to know if it goes too far in depth in a topic, and if it misses any important content. It would be great if we can get this essential topic to GA. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I should like to know what the word "almost" in the first para is referring to. What are the exceptions? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: I originally wrote that almost all matter on Earth is made of atoms. There are a few other things like neutrinos, which are constantly passing through everything, and of course the particles in physics experiments. David spector has recently added that almost all matter in the universe is believed to be made of atoms. Which is not believed to be true, as dark matter is believed to be more common. Maybe we could say all "normal matter" and explain the details somewhere else? Lights and freedom (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, an article only has to deal with its topic, and neutrinos are not part of atoms (they pass through normal matter). I don't think these are real exceptions. The page only has to deal with atoms as we know them. Dark matter is just an hypothesis to explain an observation. I don't think it is relevant to the topic of the article. I want to get this page finished because it is educationally useful to secondary school physics. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross Please inform me if this edit resolves the issue. If not, feel free to change it. Lights and freedom (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree. If this Wikipedia is in simple English, the topics covered should be simplified, too. I realize that some of its audience are adults of advanced education and intelligence for whom English happens to be a second or third language, but there are also others who can benefit both from simple English and simplified content, and they should not be neglected. Dark matter is one of many advanced and/or speculative topics that could be covered separately, so as not to be a source of confusion. David spector 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The word "almost" is no longer in the first para, because it really wasn't referring to anything which would contradict the sentence. So as far as I'm concerned, the article can should be promoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't seem to flow very well. I think the most important points to start off with are

  • Atoms are a fundamental unit that needs to exist before larger collections of matter can exist
  • Everything around us (including us!) is made from atoms
  • There are types of atoms, called chemical elements
  • From a limited number of types of atoms, an unlimited number of things with different properties can be made

Does anyone have an idea of how to make it flow better? Lights and freedom (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If I understand it, Einstein's original idea was that the there were two fundamental things in the Universe, and they were and are matter and energy. If so, it is perhaps misleading to talk about matter in isolation. You can't have a universe with just matter. En wiki Universe, 4th para addresses the issue. It's something when we read "Ordinary ('baryonic') matter is therefore only 4.84%±0.1% [2015] of the physical universe". And " Stars, planets, and visible gas clouds only form about 6% of the ordinary matter."!! We gotta keep in touch, man! Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: It says that matter is things that have mass, and energy doesn't have mass directly. Does this other information belong on the atom article? It seems to me like a tangent better fit for the matter article. And most of the other stuff in the universe is thought to be dark matter/dark energy - didn't you want to keep that of this page because it's too complicated? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, the En page on matter needs to be carefully read. It will have professional physicists and astronomers amongst its editors. It's tricky for us, because: "For much of the history of the natural sciences people have contemplated [thought about] the exact nature of matter" (so far, so good), but then "In the Standard Model of particle physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because the elementary constituents of atoms are quantum entities which do not have an inherent "size" or "volume" in any everyday sense of the word". !! Perhaps we just have to say something like "here's the simple idea but in advanced physics...". Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposals closed recentlyEdit

SugarEdit

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.

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

Has enough sentences, and has about 3,500 bytes. It has many references and it definitely belongs to stay on this wikipedia. It’s got GA status on the English Wikipedia as well. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 05:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Not ready. There are many complex sentences. For example, here is just one, "It is harvested by a machine or by hand, and cut into pieces and is moved to the processing plant where it is milled." There are many more like it. Re-read each sentence and make it simple. --Gotanda (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Nowhere near. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No progress on this for quite a while. Long past three weeks. Can an admin please close this? --Gotanda (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Still no progress on this. The nomination appears to be abandoned. Can this be removed from the queue, please? --Gotanda (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted --Ferien (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2023 (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