Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/vgood)

Proposed very good articles

Shortcuts
This star represents the proposed very good content on Wikipedia.
This star represents the proposed very good content on Wikipedia.

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.

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.


Joining the talk

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.

Proposals for very good articles

change

To propose an article for Very Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code, filling out 'page title' and 'reason' with your proposed page's title and why you think this page should be a proposed article: {{subst:Pgapropose|page title|reason}} ~~~~

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.


Proposals closed recently

change
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.

Bowls

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

Recently passed GA without much hassle. I think this article now meets the criteria, and is a well written simplified article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

  •   Support Just went through the page and I see no problem with this being a VGA. All the gaming terms like 'ends' and 'ditch' are described there. Can't see much that can be improved from what is already good.--BRP ever 08:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result:promoted By Eptalon Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

CBRNE

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

I think this is a very good article W;ChangingUsername (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is mostly bulleted lists and isn't particularly well put together. Is it even CBRNE, when most sources give the same name as that on Enwiki W:CBRN defense.
Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the article yet, so no verdict there, but wouldn't it be easier to try Good Article first? - It is more lenient in many ways... Eptalon (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We probably should go for GA first before pushing towards VGA.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a critique if this goes any further. It doesn't seem to me to be near GA let alone VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to flat out oppose. I don't think it meets the criteria. Maybe do some work and put it through GA process. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result: not promoted - while the VGA promotion process does not require an article to be already a GA, I will note that this article at its current state might even struggle with the GA criteria. Chenzw  Talk  08:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

1st Provisional Marine Brigade

change
1st Provisional Marine Brigade (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe that this article should be a VGA, it meets all of the criteria, it is comprehensive, has no red links, has references, has been edited by others, no bad templates, has illustrations that are labeled, it's enough for a VGA and I believe it should be one. . Yodas henchman (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources. 90.154.71.161 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result: not promoted - I'll close this, in nearly two months of the article being nominated, all we have is the two comments above. As VGA also have criteria as completeness (which GA doesn't have), I guess going for good article first would be a good option; the GA criteria are a subset of the VGA criteria.
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.

Neptune

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

I've always thought this is a brilliant article and supported its promotion to the article's current "good article" status. Going through the criteria from Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles:

  1. The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia.  Y Neptune definitely belongs in Wikipedia.
  2. The article must be comprehensive.  Y
  3. The article should be several kilobytes long, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories.  Y 47,582 bytes including all those things, but it is certainly way beyond several kilobytes in prose alone.
  4. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors.  Y The article passed this criterion at the PGA discussion.
  5. The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.  Y The article passed this criterion at the PGA discussion too.
  6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).  Y
  7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left.  Y No red links at all, apart from in the collapsed Solar System navbox.
  8. If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled.  Y
  9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement.  Y
  10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced.  Y References across the article and the article passed this criterion at the PGA discussion.

In my view, this is clearly VGA material, but what do others think? --Ferien (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently missing: the effect of Neptune on the Kuiper belt, Neptune trojans, and the gravity on the surface of Neptune. Its formation could be mentioned, but it seems to be disputed, so it might be okay not to include it. Also, there was some disagreement whether Rayleigh scattering should be mentioned (see the article's history). Everything looks simple enough except "Crediting and naming". Lights and freedom (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure why Macdonald-ross said it's far too complicated for this wiki. It's simpler than Evolution, which is a VGA. Unless he's talking about the infobox. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution could be simpler, but looking at this article itself, I simplified one section (edit history). There is a lot more that can be done to simplify with vocabulary but also keeping to basic SVO sentence structure and eliminating excess words. Gotanda (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Item 7: I see some important terms that are not linked: ammonia is one.
  • Item 9: This item also says "The article also should not need them." I do see some non-simple words (similarities, decomposes, flyby) and phrasing (such as some use of passive voice that would be better as active voice), although I haven't read the whole article.
I'll see if I can do some simplifying, but I don't have time right this minute. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Not promoted - This is a relatively recent nomination. While I feel this article has potential, more work is needed fine-tuning. Unfortunately I don't see a broad community support to promoed the article. I therefore close this nomination. Feel free to re-nominate when you think it is almost rerady, and when you are prepared to help fixing the temaining issues.--Eptalon (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon, it was prematurely. Frontfrog (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we reopen, do you think that within 1-2 weeks we get a result that there are 5 votes, and 3 support promoting? - How close are we? Eptalon (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many people already support promoting. We need to give about a one or two months. Frontfrog (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened -Let's give it a try...--Eptalon (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that the article's still some problems I   Support it. Frontfrog (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ferien, it's enough to close the nomination? Frontfrog (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it needs improvement but I don't have the time to improve it right now. --Ferien (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we need to close the nomination for better days when we will polish the text well enough. If u don't mind. Frontfrog (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not supported Close but needs more time. Either give it ore time of close. think either is fine fr33kman 22:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Several possible explanations have been suggested. Firstly, radiogenic heating from the planet's core. Among the explanations is the continued radiation into space of leftover heat made by infalling matter during the planet's birth. Another explanation is gravity waves breaking above the tropopause (!). It has also been suggested that the friction and ram pressure of the diamond hail heats up the planet.[41][42]". Well, I have no qualifications in physics or astronomy, so I'm just bewildered. How old is Neptune? Well, the age of the Earth is about 4,500 million years. Either my query can be explained or it can't. If I had edited the page, I would at least have asked the question of one of the astronomy buffs on En wiki. However if this question is really an unknown, then of course it does not count against the article. What I'm suggesting is that there are occasions when we have to understand what we are talking about, and it is our responsibility to anticipate and answer any obvious queries the reader might make. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section on En wiki Neptune which covers this is "Internal structure", and I have to say it is not very helpful. It does have a diagram, which is: File:Neptune-intern-en-info.png. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Promoted. - Now that I see that the community stands in for the article they created, I don't see why it shouldn't be promnoted. Tank you to all who helped and contributed..--Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Promoted by Eptalon. fr33kman 21:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Fred Rogers

change
Fred Rogers (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been at GA for a long time without issue. Some small additions and changes improve the content and make it simpler. The subject of the article seems ideal for Simple with our goal of helping language learners and early readers. Rogers was a model educator.

  1. The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia.  Y
  2. The article must be comprehensive.  Y
  3. The article should be several kilobytes long, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories.  Y
  4. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors.  Y The article passed this at PGA where TDKR ddid much of the heavy lifting. Since then I and @DovahFRD have worked on it. I asked for and received help on the Talk page.
  5. The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.  Y
  6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). I hope it will pass this. Recent edits have been pretty minor except for the addition of the funeral information.
  7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left.  Y No red links at all in main article
  8. If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled.  Y I moved and resized some of the images and added one more.
  9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement.  Y
  10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced.  Y Passed at PGA.

I hope this can go ahead to VGA and take its place in rotation on the Main Page. -- Gotanda (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda: Looks great overall! I reviewed the article for words that are not on the Basic English combined wordlist or VOA Learning English word book. (The words with asterisks are in the most common 1000 words in English, all ranked 900-999)
  • testimony, funding, diagnose, mansion, bully, confident, graduate, ordain, interview*, preach, episode, tape, sneakers, zipper, sweater, knit, soak, disability, duet, commit, "go viral", encourage, goosebumps, rumor, celebrity, routine, respond*, respective, spirituality, chancellor, restore, homily, pastor, guest, philanthropist, illustrator, devotion, annual, dedicate, documentary (linked), legacy, commemorative, quilt
These words could be linked to Wikipedia or Wiktionary, or simplified. But most of them are fairly easy to understand, so will probably support promotion even if you don't do that.
  • Enwiki says he was frequently "homebound" because of asthma. That word is also used in the reference. This page says he was "homeschooled many times", which I'm not sure is accurate. It sounds more like he was kept away from school because he was sick, not that he was educated at home.
  • I'm not sure this sentence is grammatically correct: "Rogers believed not to act differently when he was being filmed to how he acted normally."
  • The Death section says twice that he was buried in Unity Cemetery in Latrobe.
  • "Nantucket Park" is not the name of a park. It's a description of the location. Also, I couldn't confirm that a statue of Rogers has been put there.
Everything else looks accurate, well referenced, and grammatically correct. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed points 2 and 3 to make them clearer. This should help Illusion Flame (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed some of the more complex words. I have struck them out above - for 'documentary', I just linked the existing page. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The words testimony, testifying, testified, diagnosed, and ordination are still used in the article without links. I have changed the possessive format from Rogers' to Rogers's because that's what en:MOS:POSS says. However, it doesn't match with the name of his show. Lights and freedom (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I changed some but missed some. Now all three are simplified or removed. --Gotanda (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda Tiny note, "taping" is still used twice. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dovah addressed the grammatical comment. I have fixed up the others (home schooled --> stayed home), duplication in death section removed, and Nantucket Park removed. I could not find any reference that the statue was actually placed or the park renamed. There are plenty of other honors and remembrances in the article. This one was extra and not strictly needed even if we could get a ref. --Gotanda (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I haven't looked at the article super in-depth, my first impressions are very positive. It is definitely simple enough, there are good sources, and it is a general good read. I believe it meets the criteria. If I get a chance I can help with some minor fixes. Illusion Flame (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article when I worked on it for GA had gone through some extensive reviews and feedback to which I polished up the article to scratch. I thank Gotanda for seeing this article as being VGA worthy and for fixing it up some more to get it up to standard. What a great way to honor a great man and his great dream. Cheers. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TDKR Chicago 101 took this well beyond GA and with the comments on this discussion we have some minor but helpful improvements. I think this ready. --Gotanda (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This period of time coincides almost exactly with several other innovations in children's educational television. Why don't we see a cross-comparison between them? Or even a mention? I'm not arguing that he should not have a page. He is surely noteworthy. But not to mention Sesame Street (and one or two others) is to ignore the obvious questions which readers are bound to have. why was it that during the 1960s and 70s there was so much innovation in children's television in the USA? I think the answer is that there was a big audience of kids after the war, and there is not today. But even that is worth saying. 18:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Macdonald-ross (talk)
  • To answer the question "Why don't we see a cross-comparison between them?" I would say that this is a biography of a person. Comparing Rogers to Sesame Street is comparing a human to a TV program. The appropriate place for this kind of context would be Mister Rogers' Neighborhood about the television show. Exploring the growth of children's television programming would be a good, but different writing project. Could be population. Could be technology (affordable color TVs, cable)? Could be changes in education and approaches to child psychology. Probably some of all of the above. All good stuff, but not part of the life story of a single person. --Gotanda (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that he was not happy with children's television at the time, but it doesn't really explain why. It seems he thought other shows looked down on children; are there other reasons besides that? Lights and freedom (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have other details on this for Rogers specifically. If anyone is curious about children's television of the time, Rogers was not against Sesame Street (he appeared on the program). The preceding shows were things like Captain Kangaroo and Kukla Fran and Ollie. Children'S Television Series, Evolution of style in the US and beyond, but I think that is beyond the scope of this biography. Gotanda (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Promoted --Ferien (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Godfather

change
The Godfather (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article The Godfather completes several requirements for good articles, including 1. Wikipedia Content 2. Comprehensive 3. Appropriate Length 4. Multiple Revisions 7. All Terms Linked 8. Image with label 9. No Templates 10. Thorough References. -Schiller12 July 13, 2022

Are we dealing with the books or the films? We must be clear about that, because there are differences. Just "The Godfather" as a title is not good. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Really great and simple article about one of the most great movies ever made. Frontfrog (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I found issues in 7 of the 8 sentences in the too short intro. I stopped reading at that point as it is not even GA quality work in its current form. Unlinked terms, over linked terms, ambiguousness, colloquialisms, unsourced statement. All before getting out of the intro. No idea about the rest of the prose but willing to bet there are further issues that would need fixing. I just had no reason to continue looking when the intro had that many issues. Pure Evil (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's time to close the nomination. Frontfrog (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made criticisms. The first is that it is weak on the first part of the book/first film, and relatively weak on the post-WWII period. It has never been adjusted to take care of these objections. Therefore, I vote against. The author made the decision to overview two films with one article. IMO that was a mistake. We should have an article for each film. I see that English wiki has three films, so obviously I'm out of date there. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Not promoted - This article has been sitting in the queu since july of last year; when I look at the verdict, I cannot see that the community supports promoting this article. For this reason, I close this nomination. But as always: If youz think the article has potential, and you are prepared to help fixing the remaining issues, feel free to re-nominate.--Eptalon (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Christopher Plummer

change
Christopher Plummer (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Plummer's article has been a VGA target, especially since his passing in 2021. The article meets all VGA requirements: 1 (obviously), 2 (the article is very comprehensive and covers Mr. Plummer's career in good detail and with citations), 3 (the article is several kilobytes long), 4 (the article has gone through revisions [minor recently] and from some other users other than myself), 5 (check), 6 (recent edits have been minor), 7 (no red links, important terms linked), 8 (images used are relating to Mr. Plummer or his career and have been appropriately labelled), 9 (no tags) and 10 (check, article has a variety of sources/citations). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have Bob Dole nominated at the same time. Pick one please. Jimmy Carter and Jacinda Ardern were started and then dropped. It would be great to go back and finish those based on the input and time given to those two nominations. Finally, I recently went through the Jackie O article and fixed up numerous errors. Editors cannot give full attention to multiple noms, and our work on the previous noms seems to be abandoned. --Gotanda (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not working on Carter or Ardern because of the very feedbacks, seeing how it appears to be an uphill nomination. I cannot find the requirement where it says I can nominate a VGA or GA at the same time, so I always assumed the one nomination rule was only for one nom for VGA and one nom for GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are all uphill nominations. Neither Carter nor Ardern is any more or less difficult than any other bio, I think. The issue continues to be simplifying without changing meaning and quotes. Quotes must be exact. Some can be eliminated, and some can be paraphrased. But, they must be paraphrased accurately. This applies to all nominations. Opening them and then closing them because you do not wish to do the necessary work but just going ahead to open more is not helpful. It takes time and careful attention to review nominations. Or, to review articles after promotion. See my recent changes on Jackie O, please. --Gotanda (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my best. Please see the article talk page. I gave about half of it a close read. This takes time. I suspect the source of the choppiness, disconnections, or squishing together of unconnected events comes from cutting down or simplifying the original from EnWP. Cut, simplify, cut complexity: soon it can be Swiss cheese. Reorganizing into a list in places may make sense. These are the same kinds of issues in Carter and Ardern. Please do return to Jackie O. I left notes for you there in the edit summaries. Several simplified quotes and references were incorrect. --Gotanda (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the writing on this needs a lot of work. Sentence and paragraph structure is often not very good, probably because of deletions in attempting to simplify the EnWP text. There are contradictions and unclear statements. The nominator has not resolved comments and has seemingly abaandoned the nomination. I do not think there is any consensus to promote. Perhaps this can be removed from the queue until someone wants to work on it and renominate when it is ready.--Gotanda (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been another month. Can an admin close this, please? --Gotanda (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted --Ferien (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bradley Winslow

change
Bradley Winslow (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Meets criteria 1 (obviously), 2 (Covers all major and minor details known about him, usually with more than 1 reference per claim), 3 (This is a bit tricky, however Hermann Göring has 6565 Bytes of prose size, with most of its size coming from its very long infobox, and Bradley Winslow has 7241 Bytes of proze size, so I'd say it's fine), 4 (Many revisions), 5 (Yep), 6 (check), 7 (no red links, all non-simple terms wiktionary linked), 8 (4 images, all of which are directly related to the subject, showing all life stages other than his youth), 9 (unless I am blind), and 10 (has it's own section for sources). Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 20:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.


change
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles&oldid=9783667"