Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

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, they 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 demotion

change

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 talk 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 demotion

change

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.

Use this code to add a proposal: {{subst:Pgapropose|page title|reason}} ~~~~

Slavery

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

Here are 5 reasons why this article should be demoted.

  1. Article structure. This article is structured in dubious and seemingly arbitrary ways. Instead of a single history chapter with six subsections, there are six chapters based on historical slavery. This doesn't really make sense. Another srange thing is that Slavery#Sources is between Slavery#Stopping slavery and Slavery#Famous people who were slaves. Why is this section not at the end of the article? Speaking of which, why is Slavery#Famous people who were slaves even a section? An arbitrary selection of 16 notable individuals in a category without any reliable source to back it up is subject to bias. And that is what has happened here; half of the people on the list are American. This is why we have categories.
  2. Incompleteness. According to the requirements for a good article, this article should be fairly complete. Despite this fact, it is not. It provides none of the following: terminology (such as classifications between types of slavery), abolitionism movements, portrayal of slavery in media, characteristics (such as how slavery is defined). These are some general ideas. Of course, the article does not have to be comprehensive, but there should be more included.
  3. Sourcing. The article is poorly sourced. Slavery#Early civilizations: Reference 13 is dubiously placed. The part about deuteronomy, the part about slaves being assigned to certain houses or temples, and the part about citizens being protected (also, where in the world did this happen specifically, as an example would be notable information about slavery). is never mentioned in a source in the article. Slavery#Slavery in ancient Rome: Not only does this entire section of text only have a single source, that source is a book that is not available anywhere online for free. This would not be problematic if there was more than one source in the section, but this source cannot be easily accessed. Furthermore, due to the placement of the reference, there is no source of the final paragraph of the section. Slavery#The Arab slave trade: Citation 22 (Atlanta Black Star) is the only source in this section, despite being re-referenced four times in a row. It is also a top 10 article. While Atlanta Black Star is generally a pretty reliable source, and this article may be accurate, articles like these are notorious for having inaccuracies and are not especially reliable. Slavery#Slavery in the United States: Citation 27 is not cited correctly (I am not sure how you would resolve this issue). Slavery#Sources: There is a chance that some of the missing sources' information has come from here. Out of these sources, however, only one of them is available online, and many of these are 700 pages long with no page range listed. These sources have the same amount of purpose as a further reading section. From sourcing alone, it is clear that this article should not be a good article.
  4. Improvement templates. There are multiple {{fact}} and {{when}} templates in the article.
  5. Redlinks. There are two redlinks directly in the article. As for the "Part of a series on Slavery" template, I understand that not every article included in templates is going to be linked, but linking articles like History of slavery and Slavery and religion is the bare minimum.

This is not a comprehensive or complete list of issues. These are just some issues that I found while checking the article for maybe 20 minutes. I understand that this is not english wiki, and that standards are not the same here as they are there, but there are some glaring issues in the article. I have read that you are not supposed to make major changes to a good article without discussion, and this is many major issues. I have made some minor changes while reading this article that are quick fixes, but this article needs lots of major improvements. This article is very good and the work done so far on this article is great, but I do not think it should be a good article. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 02:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did most of the edits to make this a good article:
  • In my opinion, it focuses too much on "classic" Atlanic Slave Trade (Get the Slaves from Africa, move them to the Americas to produce something, and move the produced goods fromn there to Europe. There likely is too little how this worked "inside Africa", in Asia/Oceania, or perhaps even Central/South America (outside of colonialism). Forced labor during wars....
  • We do have a Cateogry:Slavery with related articles, for different aspects. There's a Category:Slavery, with currently 20 pages, it has subcategories, where you'll easily find anouther 30-40 pages.
  • References do not have to be accessible online.
  • I am not studying at university, and spending days in (well-equipped) university libraries is not my favorite pastime. Also, I do not live in the English-speaking world. I am not a historian, or sociologist. I have a technical background.
  • Our article currently has a size of 36kb. As a comparison, the EnWP article, has a size of 276kb. Without too much effort, the article could easily double in size
  • The idea behind the GA/VGA processes is that the community works together, to create articles that are of higher quality. It is not that one editor does it all.
  • You will see that the articles in the Category:Slavery, or its subcategories often are in a very bad state.
My guess is thatfixing this will need 3-5 people (who coordinate their work); working on this article for several weekends. I would stipulate though, that in the end, the article should not be more than triple the size it is now. I am committed to helping, but before starting, I want to see committment from at least two other people. This likley is a major overhaul.
Thoe are of course just my views. Note also: copying the EnWP article and simplifiying that shuldn't be the main goal. We want articles written for our community; the EnWp crowd is different. Eptalon (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, just a note, the first part about the structure is valid, but very easily solved (I've done most of it, I have no opinions on if it should be a single section on the history or not. The main issue will be the sourcing, and any missing info. If we are missing sources and large amount of info about the subject (I don't know much myself) it's probably a lot of work to fix. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you have a workable solution please implement it. As to sections: we should avoid sections of 4-5 sentences as it disrupts reading flow. Eptalon (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by avoiding sections of 4-5 sentences? Should they be longer than that?
Also, just to mention, you make good points in your bullet points, and I would be committed to helping. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 14:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean: having a titled section of 5 sentences, and then having another titled section disrupts reading flow and these should be paragraphs instead. Eptalon (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to the article layout mostly, I think this is more coherent. The big issue is the citation needed tags. Will need to do some work for finding the sourcing. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that these layout changes really make sense, specifically with "around the world". Around the world implies that these are current examples of slavery around the world, yet the only sections in this are historical examples of slavery. Also, wouldn't Roman slavery also count as around the world? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 16:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add: I believe that the article does not talk enough about today's sexual slavery (forced marriages, prostitution and porn), especially when it happens to children and teenagers. Dream Indigo 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I think that's probably out of scope, would maybe have a section on it that scopes out to our other articles. We already have articles for forced marriage, for example. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like sexual slavery is a bit too different from the "hard labour" types of slavery that is generally thought of when slavery is brought up.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery covers all types of slavery, including sexual slavery. Lee Vilenski brings up a good point, that we do have articles such as forced marriage, prostitution, etc. However, I feel like there are ways that we can incorporate another paragraph or two more in about this type of slavery, because it is a major type of both modern and historical slavery. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 17:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can add a section it, I think it is one of the main forms of 'modern-day slavery'. Remember Wikipedia isn't censored, and I would at least expect a short mention, though in modern times identifying a slave has become more difficult. Eptalon (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention is what is already in the article. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is always to find halfway reliable secondary sources for this; depending on what you search for this can be non-trivial, to near-impossible. Prostitutes being lured into a country, and then being exploited by a pimp is likely pretty normal. What would be interesting (but likely its difficult to find numbers: In what way did internet technologies (such as live streaming) change the way prostitution (and likely: slavery) work? - sex tourism might be worth mentioning, if it isn't already. If wanted, needs in-depth discussion on the resp. article talkpage. Eptalon (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should discussion about article improvement be moved to the talk page, or is it fine here? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 23:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree that we spend some time (likely 2-3 weekends) fixing/improving and that we are at least three people to do this, then we can discuss details on the article talk page. Note: When I started to prepare slavery for GA, I brought over quite a few articles, so we do have them. Problem is that they may be stubs or in a bad state. So for all these suggestions it will likely come down to a paragraph or two in the slavery article, and a link to another article where details can be found. And as always: we need reliable sources for claims made. Eptalon (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Demote - that is what i am leaning toward, if it is not good enough at this time. 2001:2020:30D:D58A:4FB:BBC6:DB63:E5FE (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

change
Tropical Depression Ten (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article is currently nominated to be merged, enwiki has the article merged with 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and the article is rather short to be VGA hence why the merger is being proposed (to benefit said 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article). Not to mention a third of the sources used are deadlinks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demote. The storm wasn't all that important and the article is rather short. The important information is about Hurricane Katrina, but Hurricane Katrina would be a better choice for a VGA and could include this information. Kk.urban (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment perhaps we should just close the merge discussion, and demote the article as cleanup. It's been a long time in discussion. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That's the approach I was thinking too. The discussion about the merger has been going on for quite a bit. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the consensus to demote. I don't feel it's representative of a VGA, and not as simple as it could be. However, I'm not so sure about the idea of merging. It seems to warrant its place as its own article. Yottie =talk= 18:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Demote. As a VGA it feels malnourished, but as a GA, it would feel more suitable.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Demote per the nominators reasons. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 11:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Result: demoted to regular article--Eptalon (talk) 21:10, 2 June 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.

Jupiter

change

  Administrator note: The consensus was to keep to keep the article as a VGA fr33kman 19:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is currently a VGA, but entirely avoids the recent work on the way Jupiter affected the other planets during the formation of the Solar System. If you read En wiki not only on Jupiter, but also on the Grand tack hypothesis you will see what I'm getting at. [1] [2]

Should be demoted at least to GA until we have a reasonable account which addresses the key issues about Jupiter's effects on the early Solar System. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on the infobox and etymology of the symbol and name. What you mentioned is also a valid mention, though. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see few have picked this one up (Grand tack hypothesis), but I did read through the En wiki page, and this one is quite deficient. Time for action. We can't expect to be respected when our page does not mention important issues. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have a version of the Grand tack hypothesis.
@Macdonald-ross: Do you still think the article is insufficient, or can this be closed? Lights and freedom (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence, because the text still had a "Jupiter the Great Protector" bias. I sense we are just at the start of a great journey before we understand the Solar System better. Err, yes, you can close the item now. But, personally, I don't regard it as VG. We are too eager to show off our stuff with flags IMO. I repeated: should be demoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's need to demoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontfrog (talkcontribs) 11:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good information about the grand tack hypothesis has been explained. Went in and did some general copyedits to clean up the page, but the content is in good, updated shape. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Demote. The writing is not very well organized in places. Right at the start, the third "paragraph" is not coherent (visibility, name, brightness, brightness). The third sentence needs work. That is just in the first few lines. --Gotanda (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: the section Mass does not give the mass of Jupiter. There are five sentences in the section. Two reference mass. Most of the passage is about the volume of the planet (Sentence topics: 1. mass 2. heat 3. diameter and mass. 4. volume. 5. volume.) That is plainly wrong. Mixing volume and mass is misleading and may confuse some readers rather than help them. --Gotanda (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the content of the Mass section could be merged into the beginning of the Structure section? I agree that the section title Mass is misleading given the contents of the section. (There is also the repetition of the "eleven times larger" fact between these two places.) The beginning of the Structure section could then contain an overview of size (both diameter and volume) and mass. --Thrasymedes (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The intro is supposed to be an overview of everything. There's not going to be a whole paragraph about whether Jupiter can be seen with the naked eye, or about the brightness, or about the name. In any case, these sentences do fit together. It is only because Jupiter can be seen without a telescope that the Ancient Romans were able to see it. Only 5 planets can be seen in the sky without a telescope. This is also related to its brightness. I don't think anything is wrong with the intro at all. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:17, 10 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.

Ronald Reagan

change
Ronald Reagan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This rolled around on the main page and I had a look. Please see the talk page. Many cited references are incorrect. They do not support the statements they are attached to. I broke each issue down into separate topics on the Talk page. They can be fixed if someone wants to invest that much time in this subject. --Gotanda (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the talkpage (except the first header of 2020) is now related to this request for demotion. Eptalon (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Eptalon. That does make it a little bit easier to manage the discussion. There is now an IP editor making some bold changes, but those are mostly different from this demotion request. Briefly, the article hass errors of fact, poorly written sections, and completely misuses the sources it refers to in many cases. Accurate referencing is key to a Good or Very Good article and is one of the virtues of Wikipedia. The reference sections should be a useful tool to leearn more, not misleading. --Gotanda (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did spend several minutes editing that, but I have something important: click here. Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 23:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DovahFRD made a few improvements, but most of the issues remain unaddressed. I think this should return to regular article, not Good, as it fails: 5. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). 8 There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. and 9. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Demoted to regular article - The article has many issues to fix, which are outlined on the talk page. As it currently does not meet the VGA criteria, I have demoted the article to regular article. Feel free to re-nominate, once you feel it meets the criteria again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptalon (talkcontribs) 07:11, 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.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

change
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

If you examine the article history and talk page, you will see that I put in a lot of effort trying to simplify the article and correct the many errors it still included after it was promoted. Lights and freedom put in time as well, thanks! However, there are still about a half dozen major problems listed on the Talk page which nobody has tried to address. The original nominator may have retired or may still be around as an IP.

I waited a while, but it has rolled around on the front page a few times. Another editor did make some corrections and tagged it as complex. The Flesch score is 61 which is more complex than our average of 66.5 for VGAs. Bios should be simpler. That average includes science articles such as Evolution which are much harder to simplify.

The original promotion discussion is here.

It no longer meets 6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). But, more importantly, it lacks references or references were completely misused/incorrect, parts of it are complex, and large parts are just poorly written or disorganized. --Gotanda (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the intro, the artcle is far from VGA. The entire first paragraph is a single 30 some word sentence. You could probably get 3 sentences out of that mess.. In the first 3 paragraphs. JFK is linked 3 separate times. The entirety of her time as FL in the intro is covered as 'She became First Lady. Her husband was assassinated." Different paragraphs but still back to back sentences. She apparently did nothing as FL. Breezing through the rest, it gets incredibly clunky and feels a bit off more than occasionally. the complex tag is certainly valid. That tag alone is enough to make it fail VGA. It is probably enough to drop it below GA standards. The article has seen 172 edits since it was noted as VG. A lot was changed in the interim. For an article on a dead person with very little need for updating since pretty much nothing has changed, there has been a lot of changes made here. This certainly is not the article that passed the VGA process one year, one day and 172 edits ago. Pure Evil (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the original VGA discussion, I have to wonder how this was promoted in the first place. The discussion was at a point where is was getting close to acceptance but there were still issues that needed to be fixed. It all sat there quietly for 6-7 weeks and as no one was doing anything, it got promoted. Not that there were no cases of people seeing problems that needed fixed (there were) just that no one was doing anything about it any more. The problems were still there but no one was working to fix them. That is no reason for promotion. It is more a reason to not promote. Issues are there and not getting fixed = failed since everyone gave up on it. Pure Evil (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your description of the promotion process. The only reason I put that much work into it--after--was that since it got promoted, I did not want the most glaring errors getting a lot of visibility as "our best." --Gotanda (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally notice that there's a lack of interest in the processes of GA and VGA. As to this article: Can we say that we demote to GA, perhaps putting some work into it (to fix the most glaring errors)? - I can understand everyone who works on these articles, and in the end, they get demoted anyway, which is frustrating. VGAs are supposed to be the best kind of article this community is able to produce. Like many other GAs/VGAs, this one was basically the work of one editor at the start, and when the editor leaves/becomes disinerested, the aticle sits there to rot. Eptalon (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a comment. Generally editors are very pushy as they try to get GA or VGA. I don't know that applies in this case, but it does in many. By being so possessive and defensive the process of commenting is often ignored or flat out denied. Single-author articles are the worst case. You can see this happening in the current PGA and PVGA. Editors see it as "their property", and their defensiveness is obvious. Another questionable feature is the number of biographies being a high percent of all the GAs and VAs we promote. So is the number of one-author proposals, or effectively one-author proposals. The end result is a general disaffection towards the process. Very often, the defects have been noticed, and were flat out denied by a pushy author at the time. Frankly, I don't see this being reformed without banning authors from the discussion, or banning authors who have contributed more than 50% of the article. Authors have been "judge and jury and old man fury", to use a phrase of Lewis Carroll. I'd like to add a final comment: the lack of participation may be due to a general perception that the process pf discussion has shown itself to be a waste of time. Generally speaking, it has not resulted in better articles. And articles which are pretty good were pretty good before discussion! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are coming up on two weeks and editors have not fixed the issues on the talk page or the complexity. This article no longer meets criteria 5 (recent edits) or 8 (tagged for improvement) for Good Articles either, so despite having put a fair amount of work into it, I think it should be demoted to regular article. Thank you --Gotanda (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Result - I have demoted the article to regular article. Issues raised need fixing. If wanted, the article can then be re-submitted to the process, ideally first trying to get the 'Good Article' flag.--Eptalon (talk) 09:08, 30 December 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.


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.

Chopsticks

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

See section "Origin of the word" which is obviously not simple English, but just obsessive. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the excess detail. I think it's now reasonable, as it explains the word/meaning of chopsticks in each of the main languages that uses them. If you still think it's too much, you could remove all the other languages and put the sentence about English into the history section above. I think this is still a good article and should not be demoted. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to fix up some of the issues. Removed a lot of old cruft. Reorganized a bit. But, there was never much here anyway. Not Good. Time to demote. --Gotanda (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result - I have demoted the article--Eptalon (talk) 09:13, 30 December 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.


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)

The article as promoted has two differing accounts of who discovered it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Result - Kept at current level (GA) --Eptalon (talk) 09:16, 30 December 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.


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.

Gothic architecture

change
Gothic architecture (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Lack of references, complex sentences and don't even follow the manual of style. The article is also very long compare to other articles not because it is comprehensive, it just have a ton of unnecessary info. The amount of work needed to push the article to VGA is just too much for a fix-up here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notify @Amandajm, @Eptalon and @The Rambling Man as major contributors CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of references on this page (note not all references have to be inline). Not sure what part you think isn't following the manual of style but it looks fine in that regard as well. There is very little wrong with this article. I think perhaps you are bringing your experience with en.wiki over here. We operate a lot differently than their processes. -Djsasso (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very comprehensive description. Lack of reference isn't necessarily a problem in this sort of uncontroversial topic, and in that matter, I see the article is already well-cited. Is there any statement that you think needs to be better cited?-BRP ever 11:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for your information, I haven't seen Amandajm or The Rambling Man edit i quite some time. As I also contributed quite a bit, I'll comment here: As I understood, our criteria do not require in-line citations, and the article has a list of 15 books/works cited. Note also: the usual cathedral took several hundred years to build. (In the case of Cologne Cathedral: 1248 to 1902;Reims cathedral: 1210 or 1211 to 1516). So, can you point to sentences or sections that you think should change? --Eptalon (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one I would leave alone (not delete), although I would not have constructed it this way myself. To have a title "Gothic architecture" and illustrate it entirely by cathedrals is to me a bit strange. We do have castles, which were part of that world! A better title for the page is "Gothic cathedrals". Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change the title to Gothic cathedrals, as being accurate, simple, and avoiding the criticism that I made above. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a more appropriate title be Gothic cathedrals and churches per enwiki? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, almost all the examples are of cathedrals. Titles should be as brief as possible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember, most are churches (likely cathedrals nowadays); you find a few palaces, and town halls, though. Examples of profane gothic buildings are Windsor Castle, (part of?) Blois castle, the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, town halls in Brussels, Siena, and Lübeck. There are also some scuptures, and altars... Eptalon (talk) 19:35, 1 April 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.


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.

Kingsway tramway subway

change
Kingsway tramway subway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article needs source work and giving it a read there's some complicated word choices (also noted on the page's talk page). The use of complicated terms such as: "parliamentary session", "commercially viable" and "abandonment". The article could pass for GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demoteː Article is complex in many places and the organization of the writing makes it harder to understand the main points. Just looking at the section titled "Through services" there are many problems. Complexity
Through servicesː not simple, jargon, what are they? Opening with something that is not simple is a bad way to start.
  • Diverted
  • Due to (use because and a direct svo order without fronting the cause
  • LCC (undefined acronym)
  • it was then decided that the headroom (passive and vocabulary)
  • The work resulted in the replacement (indirect, complex)
  • There is more... It really needs to be simplified
Also, perhaps the main point of through services is buried in the last two sentences "It was 16 miles (25.75 km) long. This made it the longest tram route operated entirely within the County of London." The organization of the text is poor. Gotanda (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Demote per above MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 14:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Demoted to Good article--Eptalon (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving. --Ferien (talk) 19:32, 22 September 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