Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion/Archive 3

< Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

Violin

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

Promoted to VGA two years back. One ref, lots of unsourced texts, and nowhere near GA, let alone VGA at the moment. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It still needs a final polish, but per the improvements Megan has so efficiently carried out, I now lean towards keep promoted. Classical Esther♣ 12:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed Used {{cite book}} template for refs in Further Reading section. I still need to add some missing info to some of the refs, but I will fix this a little later. Megan|talkchanges 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to demote but not because of references... It doesn't meet today's VGA standards. This includes:
  • No red links (there are currently three)
There is now only one. I did some research on this person, but I didn't find any reliable, online sources. Maybe someone could help?
I did more research on this person and I don't think he's notable enough to have his own page, so I unlinked his name. Now there are no more red links, so I think this is   Fixed.
  • Some non-Simple language (e.g. "and highest pitched instrument in the string family" entirely unlinked - what does this mean to a Simple English reader? pitch? instrument? string family
  Fixed Went through and simplified the whole article. See readability here
  • Some terms which really should be linked for VGA e.g. Middle East, vibration, horsehair, Stephane Grappelli   Fixed
  • MOS is complied with:
  • Headings shouldn't start with "The..."   Fixed
  • We don't link dates, or individual years.   Fixed
  • We link consistently e.g. why is "hand" linked and "chin" not?   Fixed
  • While in-line citations aren't mandatory, claims like "They are some of the best instruments in existence" really need a source.
I will try to work on sources. If I'm unsuccessful, should these claims be removed?
  Fixed I added sources to these claims.
  • The other pages links to articles which are already linked to in the main body of the article   Fixed
  • "Violin - And Easy Guide, by Chris Coetzee " should that be "An" easy guide?   Fixed
So, quite a bit to be done (and this is a quick glance over the article, not a line-by-line review) for me to keep it based on today's current VGA standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to fix the concerns brought up by TRM. Megan|talkchanges 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the concerns are now   Fixed. Megan|talkchanges 15:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Demote per Rambler. Yet another case of a GA a few years old that just doesn't cut it anymore Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)No vote per Bluegoblin7 Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep promoted: Well what a turn around! Well done Megan for your hard work on keeping this article at VGA status. It's probably not overly perfect still and could use a few more tips, but it's certainly not in need of demotion and there's consensus to keep, thus my close as such. Yay! Goblin 00:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]


Wernher von Braun

change
Wernher von Braun (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hasn't been GA quality for some time now. Main concern is it's a little too short, and there are a lot of problems with the references. Further outlined on the talk page. Purplebackpack89 04:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's length and there's comprehensiveness (see you comment on Nickel Creek, below). Whereas it passes the "bare minimum" for length, I am concerned that it's too short to be comprehensive and am almost certain that more information could and should be added Purplebackpack89 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you point nominating this again? -DJSasso (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's redonkulous. I nominated it because I thought it wouldn't pass GA in its current state. I've given several reasons why both here and at the article's talk page Purplebackpack89 21:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There's length and there's comprehensiveness" yes, and you said "a little too short", not "it's not comprehensive enough". Perhaps you could be clearer in your nominations and state precisely what issues you have in future. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It doesn't seem too short to me (about the same length as many other GAs), and the quality's obviously good. —Clementina talk 06:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all actionable concerns addressed. Vague concerns unrelated to the criteria left for interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I can see why this came under question. There's so much of potential interest left out. I know he's written some autobiographical stuff, and I really want to know something about his motivation. He's a pivotal 20th century figure: the technician who works for anyone who pays him. There's a noticeable lack of direct quotations from him. Anyway, I think it's borderline, but I vote for keep. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK we scrapped the length criteria for GA, and there is also no criteria regarding comprehensiveness. What I generally see, though, is that certain sections could be a little longer (this is especially apparent when you look at the last two sections). A heading doesn't make sense if you group 3-4 sentences, esp. not if you want to showcase the article as one of the better ones. Looking at the changes made since promoting the article, this has not been addressed, so what I point out is nothing "new" that was not there when the article was promoted (20th July 2009). All that happened since promotion was mostly adding more references, and updating templates and interwiki. The big question is therefore if the community wants to spend more time with the article. Personally I see no "concerns" that were not there when the article was promoted, but I agree that it is a bit on the short side. I am not particularly good with writing biographies, so I cannot help a great deal with improving the article. --Eptalon (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as no action taken per WP:SNOW: This is snowballing, so there's no point keeping it open longer than it needs to be. The concerns raised are addressed, as indeed are all the concerns relating to the GA criteria, and if any further action should be taken it should probably undergo a Peer Review rather than a demotion proposal, as there are no issues relating to the GA criteria left. Goblin 09:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

Nickel Creek

change
Nickel Creek (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Does not seem to be comprehensive. Contains some {{fact}} templates. Only 16 references. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it has templates, it's clearly not VGA quality. Demote Purplebackpack89 04:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only "template" has been removed. There are no other concerns raised here that can be "fixed". Look at the en-wiki page if you wish to check whether it's comprehensive, or else point out where it's not comprehensive. As for "only 16 references", it needs precisely the "right number" of references, not a "minimum". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TRM. If it just needs some references, it's probably easier to just add them instead of nominating it here and removing it. We really don't want to remove VGA/GAs, we want to keep the ones we have and create new ones. If something is wrong, just fix it... It looks fine now.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be a comprehensive and thorough article worthy of being a VGA. —Clementina talk 06:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article seems to be in fine shape. Kansan (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one could be more out of touch with popular culture than I am, but in my ignorance I fail to see why this is VGA. There's almost nothing in it, almost no continuous prose, almost no critique. It would be flattered by GA. Demote to GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide specific examples of your issues. I don't see "continuous prose" or "critique" as being part of the VGA criteria, unless I'm mistaken of course. Generic "not good enough" claims are pointless as they don't provide the community with the ability to action issues. Please list each concern and which criterion/criteria it fails, and I'll happily do my best to fix it. As an aside, it may be worthwhile you refreshing your understanding of what this article could become by looking at the English Wikipedia article. And for what it's worth, we don't "demote to GA". We demote. Full stop. Please review carefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as no action taken per WP:SNOW: As above, largely. If this article did fail at any of the VGA criteria it no longer does, and any further concerns with the article should be raised through the Peer Review system as opposed to through a process that is simply here to ween out (V)GAs that don't meet criteria; this one does. No need to drag it out further! Goblin 10:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Little Red Riding Hood

change
Little Red Riding Hood (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Some of the most prominent issues with the article are:

  • Only five references for a GA.
  • The Art section could be easily quadrupled in size.
  • The Telling the story for young children seems completely unencyclopedic.

Other issues can be found at its talk page and upon request. Albacore (talk · changes) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: To be totally honest, there's little point dragging this one out any longer, as it's clear where it's headed! If anyone desperately disagrees please feel free to revert, but there's little point letting it run another week as it's unlikely anyone is going to fix it when it's already been here for some time. Goblin 00:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

Avril Lavigne

change
Avril Lavigne (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Outdated, uninformative and lacks sources. The grammar is wrong in places as well. I think all my comments in the talk page need to be taken care of if this needs to remain a GA. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demote per nominator. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear demote. I've added more thoughts to the talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Per all. Goblin 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]


Pipe organ

change
Pipe organ (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article, while seemingly comprehensive, is sorely lacking in in-line references. There are huge sections without a single in-line reference, perhaps the general references (which are all books) cover this all, but they should be used in-line with page referencing, otherwise this article really is unreferenced. There's a dead link as well, ref 3 is a bare URL (but at least it's a direct reference), an external link which appears to imply we're now a service to provide links for streaming pipe organ music... Overall, it's the referencing which is a serious issue here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a good article, but weakly referenced. Many references are available in the enWP article, upon which ours may well have been based. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that's what I meant. --SEPTActaMTA8235 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Per consensus, again. Goblin 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Kurt Warner

change
Kurt Warner (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is incomplete. It says in the lead he retired in 2010 but there's no mention of the 2009 season anywhere and the table doesn't list 2008 either. There is a vast amount of information in the enwiki article which isn't shown here, including his various records and his time in broadcasting. There's a "warning" at the bottom of the page, and many dead links. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demote per nom. Gotanda (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Per consensus. Goblin 13:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]

Saturn (planet)

change
Saturn (planet) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Lack of references, many red links, poor grammar, MOS fails, there's a list on the talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demote Although I've improve the intro a bit, the article is probably an automatic demote: three sections flagged and also many difficult scientific terms which IMO are not adequately explained for this wiki. The latter will take a lot of time to fix, and maybe need complete rewriting of sections. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I have done a fair bit to address some of the concerns, but I think at this stage we should delist, spend time to get the quality up to VGA level, and then resubmit. --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Per consensus. Goblin 09:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]


World history

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

Several problems:

  • The lead is woefully inadequate.
  • Dead links (see this).
  • Unreferenced sections:
    • First part of "Influence of climate".
    • Second half of Prehistory.
    • Last para of Paleolithic era.
    • Last half of Sumer.
    • Most of Ancient India/Pakistan.
    • All of Illyria.
    • Most of Ancient Greece.
    • All of India.
    • All of Mongols.
    • No point in pursuing that, you get my drift.
  • Terrible formatting, including dozens and dozens of tiny paragraphs, too many images squashing text, all different sizes...
  • A final sentence of "As the 20th century ended and the 21st century started, people relying on one another to deal with common dangers could be achieved. Some scientists referred to this as a "Planetary Phase of Civilization"." which is entirely unreferenced and meaningless to a Simple English reader.
  • Many reference issues including bare URLs, incomplete reference formats, inconsistent formatting of simple things like page ranges (e.g. compare ref 67 with ref 68 with ref 21 with ref 81), foreign language refs are not identified by language...

In summary, just not "good" enough any more. This Wikipedia needs to keep on its toes to update articles and ensure they don't deteriorate into this sort of situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article is the result of many editors working together, some of these editors have since left the project, or are inactive. When I last checked about half a year ago, it was one of the biggest articles we had at SEWP. If I play devil's advocate here, "Wikipedia is not a history book"; besides of the items mentioned above, one of the biggest issues is that the article has a europe-centric view. I think we need to take a general decision whether the artcle belongs in the project (which is independent of any discussion about a possible flag.)--Eptalon (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. This process is about whether or not articles are WP:GA-quality or not. Of course, if the article doesn't belong here, it won't be a GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully endorse demotion: The present article is trying to do too much, and doesn't have a clear goal. The article needs to be better outlined...we need to make an outline of the major points, and make sure we hit on them. I'm afraid I have to support demotion simply on these formatting issues, to say nothing of the referential problems TRM talked about. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demote. I don't think we can fix this in any straightforward way. Agree we must do something constructive with it then. I think we should interpret it more narrowly, at least in its time range. It would help to get rid of the human evolution, pre-history and paleolithic sections. Our Human evolution and Palaeolithic articles are sound, and well referenced. The Mesolithic is just a scrap at present.
I think the Neolithic period is pivotal: that is when permanent settlements, farming and writing were developed. We have two articles (Neolithic and Neolithic Revolution), neither of which is adequate as a 'main article' IMO. I could do a makeover there. I haven't thought yet about the rest of the article, but I notice it fails to get to grip with the variety of societies which developed. Quite a few neolithic-type societies lasted into the modern era, without writing, using stone and wood tools, and hunter-gathering. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that I stopped counting the hours I spent with this article;Fixing the issues is a task that can be done, but it requires agreement on what needs to be done. Then, a team of editors (3-4) can implement the changes. --Eptalon (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demote per nom. Gotanda (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a look at [en:History of the world] and that article is much the same. There is really too much information. Do you think for here it would be better suited to have a paragraph per section and then a link to a new/existing article on the subject? &#0149;martyx&#0149; talkcontribgallery 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after reading [en:World History] and [en:History of the world] more carefully it seems to be a mash of both articles! &#0149;martyx&#0149; talkcontribgallery 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Per consensus. Goblin 15:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.

change
Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

As I said on ST, this is lacking in comprehensive coverage. This article is basically the lead of the en.wiki article. It needs expanding to meet our current expectations of a comprehensive article, as recently witnessed during the demotion of Avril Lavigne. To attempt to cover this issue in two sentences in an "About" section is somewhat pushing it. Also, a dead link, mixed date formats in the references, en-dash issues, etc. etc. This really isn't GA quality in our "modern times". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demote Seriously? Barely comprehensive. --SEPTActaMTA8235 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demote per nom. Gotanda (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Per consensus. Goblin 15:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Oklahoma

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

Basically Mc–ross's comment here at the Kansas PVGA. Additional comments are at the article's talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist entirely. It may "seem" like a GA to some but there are numerous reasons why it needs work and driveby commentators should spend some time analysing the content in more detail.
    • Some dubious and dead links.
    • Comments on the talkpage raised by Albacore are all valid and need addressing.
    • Refs need formatting (i.e. en-dashes needed, we don't have SHOUTY titles)
    • Refs 37 & 38 are the same, use ref name.
    • Ref 15 and 37/38 have the same source website but are formatted differently.
    • Generally out of date. We have figures from 2007. It's now 2011.
  • Bring it down to earth and build it back up again, if anyone cares to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed a few dead links, but would seriously need to be rewrote. Promote delisting. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 22:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote per nom. --SEPTActaMTA8235 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Realise this is three days early, but there's been no input for a few days now and it's snowballing towards a demote. Furthermore, only three edits have been made to the page since it was put up for demotion, ergo suggesting that it's not going to get fixed. Thanks, Goblin 13:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Hyderabad, India

change
Hyderabad, India (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

While referenced, there are a number of issues of grammar, far too many red links, many dead links, MOS problems, and it's way too short compared to the amount of information that could be covered. Not good enough. Many comments available on the talk page if anyone's interested in improving the article... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an extension on this one. I'll keep it a Good article. Albacore (talk · changes) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is my command - this PAD will now close on Sunday, 15th May 2011. Cheers! Goblin 08:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]

Closed as demoted: Regretful on this one as work has taken place, but it's had an extra week and there's not been any changes in the extension time. A shame, but it's just not a good article, unfortunately. Goblin 13:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Jimi Hendrix

change
Jimi Hendrix (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Far too may claims unsourced, some of them now tagged for citation needed. Simply not good enough to be the "very best" this Wikipedia can offer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reffed most of the facts you marked with cn. I will look for refs for the others tomorow. Could you possibly bring up any other issues? Thanks, Yottie =talk= 23:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yottie, thanks for that. I'm glad you've worked some of this out. I'm away for a few days but will try to get half an hour sometime to get some more comments for you. Well done so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that would be great. And thanks for the encouragement. Yottie =talk= 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. So, some comments on the lead and the opening couple of sections...

  • The lead is far too short. A VGA of this length needs something like three paragraphs. Remember the lead is supposed to "adequately summarise" the content of the article.
I'm no article writer, but I'll have a go. Yottie =talk= 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move refs to behind punctuation wherever possible (e.g. ")[1]," should be "),[1]")
  Done
  • Is "left-handed" simple? Compare it with the fact we link "world".
  Done
  • Rolling Stone magazine should be in italics.
  Done
  Done
  • Garfield High School should have an article and those levels of schooling should be linked too.
Linked, article needs creating.
  • Shouldn't unorganized use a z because this is USEng?
  Done
  • "Sick's Stadium" needs a link.
Linked, I think it need creating.
  Done
  • "can be seen in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio." ref please.
  Done
Linked but needs creating.
  Done article created...Peterdownunder doing an Elvis movie article...amazing --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Hendrix' or Hendrix's?
  Done Hendrix's I believe.

That's a start. There's also a dab link to suit much later on. Let me know when these are done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the issues above with help from Notimportant. The intro still needs to be expanded but will take a little longer. Also red links need fixing, but that shouldn't be an issue. Thanks for those comments, care to add more? Thanks, Yottie =talk= 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'm off to bed, so more in due course. Good work so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead still too short.
  • " two times" -> twice.
    Done.
  • Isn't there a direct link to the US Army?
There is now --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to join the Army" and "in the army" - consistent capitals.
I think capitals are now consistent, capital for US Army as proper noun, small "a" for just the army.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was bad with a gun " dubious, do you mean he did something antisocial with a weapon or do you mean he couldn't shoot? Unclear.
    Done.
  • "the army was an important time " perhaps "his time in the army was important"?
    Done.
  • Added a {{cn}} around this point about the guy he met and the band they formed.
Added a reference from Bass Player Magazine
  • "Hendrix later tried to say" he tried to say or he did say it but wasn't telling the truth?
Changed to "Hendrix later said..." --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " interview on TV" just "television interview" is fine.
    Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week: This PAD will now close on Wednesday, 25 May 2011, as it's clear that it's still being actively edited at the time when it is due to be closed. Cheers, Goblin 08:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

It seems the above issues have been addressed. Comments for the next section? :) Yottie =talk= 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, going from "Later life" ... (but don't forget the lead needs expansion and red links need to be dealt with).

Enough for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a couple of days past its due date. A shame that the efforts didn't continue to help the article retain its VGA status, I still advocate delist at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please extend this one, I didn't get too much time but I think I'll be able to finish it by next week. NotImportant 18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay as long as you know I haven't finished the review? There are a few sections let beyond this to make notes on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Sure, I'll tell you when I've fixed this part so that you can post the issues related to the other sections of the article. Just give it some more time so that I (and others if they want) can fix it. :) NotImportant 18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem being I'm away for the next two weeks. This was flagged nearly four weeks ago as demotion material, there's still major issues with it including (for the fourth time of saying) an inadequate lead, and red links. Then there are the remaining sections which I just don't have time to review right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there is no need to extend. I think it'll be simpler if I could fix the concerns and inform you so that you can review it later when you get time. Cheers, NotImportant 08:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Per above. Goblin 15:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]

Nickel Creek

change
Nickel Creek (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Comments at Talk:Nickel Creek. Albacore (talk · changes) 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at this in the next couple of days. Interest here seems to be at an all-time low (no comments on this for, what, two weeks?) so would advise keeping the nomination open a while longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I've done quite a bit of the technical stuff, but as I'm no fan of the band, I'm going to find it difficult to expand it per the talk page. And dead links are indeed a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: Self-explanatory, really. Goblin 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

Jean Balukas

change
Jean Balukas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Comments at talk page. A copy-edit and the page should still be a GA, but currently is not. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: I gave it a pretty good going over, which unfortunately required creating some red links. I've started making some of the pages to fix those and will try to do more. I think this article can be saved at GA, but will just take a little more time. Gotanda (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for one week: This PAD will now close on Wednesday, 25 May 2011, as it's clear that it's still being actively edited at the time when it is due to be closed. Cheers, Goblin 08:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

A bit more, please? I've been (slowly) working through the refs which will show up on the page history, but also fixing the red links (which will not) as time allows. These are cosmetic fixes, not changes to the substance of the article, so can we please wait a bit longer? I'm not so much committed to the subject of the article as to trying to keep our already anemic GA VGA stats from sinking even lower. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the article a copy-edit, except for the "Break with the sport" section, which I don't understand. That section should be rewritten and the red links should be created; more comments after those two are taken care of. Albacore (talk · changes) 16:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant closed as demoted: I'd been deliberately avoiding closing this in the hope that all the problems would be resolved, however it's now been sat without edits for five days and has already had an additional week since the original closure, with my 'delay' (And the lack of any other close) effectively giving it a double-extension, and then some. If an article cannot be saved in four weeks (And possibly a bit more!) then it's probably best to demote it and work it back up from the bottom, unfortunately. Furthermore, it sets an unfair precedent (Imo) to be double- and triple- extending articles in the hope of keeping them, when we have the time limit there for a reason. We shouldn't be highlighting articles of sub-standard quality, and it is better (Imo) to have fewer articles of 'best' quality, than lots of articles that just don't cut the grade. Cheers, Goblin 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]

Hi BG, I understand why you demoted it, but that was disappointing. The needed changes at this point were in fixing the red links, not in the article text itself. I'd created 16 articles, mainly stubs from EnWP, to try to keep this one. The last one was on June 2 and I was planning to hit a few more today. It just took time and I hoped maybe someone else would pitch in too. Do you think it is worth still trying to finish the remaining red links and renominate? Or, did you still see other issues that forced demotion? To be honest, I could care less about billiards, but wanted to try to keep a GA, so if there is no chance, I'll work on something else. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a perfectly good GA to me. I would cut some of the name-dropping in the article, names which are absolutely unknown outside that circle. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my late delay on replying to this - in the middle of exam season and not had chance to get around to replying I'm afraid! (And I missed it when it first got posted somehow!) I agree with the sentiments that are raised by both of you and do agree that it is largely in GA shape. However, as I mentioned in my closing rationale it would have been bad form to have kept the article as a GA without any input and after a further extension, particularly in light of the fact it was already an overdue close. It really wouldn't be hard to get this one back up to GA level, and I think it is a prime candidate to be listed sooner rather than later, and should get through relatively quickly and well before the GA time limit even with the current slow-down on contributors. Hope that makes sense. Goblin 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
I agree that the article is very close to a GA. I'd propose it at WP:PGA for another editor to review, however. Albacore (talk · changes) 17:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the community believe that demoting a VGA to a GA should be allowable, then the community should act like grown-ups and discuss it. Let's not forget that VGA and GA articles have different criteria and in each case articles should be scrutinised against them. Also, don't forget that renominating a newly demoted VGA back to GA is simply a matter of getting on with it and doing it. If it's such an obvious answer, it's only two weeks ago from being promoted up to GA. Unless the PAD process incorporates a check against GA criteria, demoting to basic article is the only answer. If the community disagree with this then get on with it and discuss it, change policy, change guideline, whatever. Let's make SEWP a better place, more dynamic, more responsive to common complaints. Let's ensure the quality of our GAs and VGAs remains paramount. Let's not dig at people like BG7 (or me) who simply identify poor quality existing VGA/GA and then demote because the community is too lacklustre to do anything about it. If anyone wants the system to change, let's talk about it!!!!. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper

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

Comments at Talk:Sniper. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: A clear case of WP:SNOW if there ever was one. No effort at all to fix the article in over a week, four of the most prolific editors in these processes saying demote, plus the nominator. No contest really. Goblin 15:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

Scottish Premier League

change
Scottish Premier League (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Numerous comments on the talk page need to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demote per issues at talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 18:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as demoted: I did think about extending this one due to a lack of consensus, but when the article's history is observed there have been few edits to the page since the nomination made and few - if any - of the concerns fixed. Taking into account, therefore, both the initial proposer, the sole commentator and my own views, demotion - sadly - seems the only real way forwards. Cheers. Goblin 19:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda![reply]

Lenzburg

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

Per my comments at the talk page and The Rambling Man's comments at Simple Talk a while ago. Best, Casey, (Albacore (talk · changes)) 21:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stuff from the talk page have been fixed in the meanwhile. -Barras (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not demoted/no consensus: The lack of comments here and the fact it's been running for twice the time stated by the 'rules' suggests that there is no consensus for the demotion of the article. From what I can see, some of the comments have also been fixed, though perhaps not all... Goblin 11:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]

Adolf Hitler

change
Adolf Hitler (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This should be demoted on grounds of not being complete. Comments on the talk page complain that the article does not give a proper account of the subject's activities during WWII. The enWP version gives considerable detail on exactly this issue, and no-one can deny its importance. The article is popular, and it will benefit us to repair it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it. You left comments there and I forgot about it, because it was dropped from my watchlist at some point. I just tried to fix the oldest comments on the talk page. Please take a look and tell me if it is ok so. -Barras (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just making a progress note: I'm currently very very busy (proofreading a friend's dissertation) and haven't finished the main point of this yet. The raw data is here. I will try to get it done as soon as possible. -Barras (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we hear you. It would not be right to close the case at the moment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended until 11 October 2011: This could really do with 'formally' extending. Barras has a 'history' of fixing concerns where they are raised and there is no reason why this will not happen again. However, at the same time, the process is there for a reason and this has already run for two weeks longer than intended: it does not seem irrational to hope that after a further week concerns could be met and, if it does get demoted, I'd also be in support of a fastrack re-promotion as and when the concerns are fixed. Goblin 00:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Closed as demoted: Although a day early, no content edits have been made since my extension was made (or, indeed, since Macdonald-ross made his comment) and it will be impossible for the article to be fixed before tomorrow, let alone then get a consensus to remain promoted. Although it would be nice to keep this running until Barras is active again, the process is there for a reason and it wouldn't be good to set any precedents, sadly. However, once the article is fixed I would recommend a fastrack promotion back to GA, whatever that means. :P Goblin 11:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]

Ana Ivanović

change
Ana Ivanović (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is wowfully incomplete and out of date. Makeithappen (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not demoted - Concerns have been addressed, article now up-to-date, no demotion consensus. ---Orashmatash 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Hantuchová

change
Daniela Hantuchová (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

better than Ivanovic above but still badly incomplete and out of date. Just because it's simple wiki does not mean that one can skip on the detail. Makeithappen (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was updated to the satisfaction of the community just three months ago, but if you believe it to be missing major facts, perhaps you would be kind enough to list them on the talk page so that I can assist in fixing them. Please do not try to make the article like the generally dreadful ones on en-wiki which are basically just lists and lists of "lost in the second round" in x,y,z tournament that is of no real interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. But there is nothing on the singles fact since 2008. Which I admit she has performed badly but surely stating what her best results are would help? Makeithappen (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not demoted - Article has been updated, no longer a candidate for demotion, no demotion consensus. --Orashmatash 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Graham

change
Billy Graham (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Issues on talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 20:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of my protégé articles are being demoted... *insert sarcastically angry face here* American Eagle (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not fix the concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the problems mentioned have been fixed. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 05:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also—and this is because (in my opinion) the criteria needs revising—many of the issues raised don't explicitly disagree with the criteria as it stands, though they all seem like common-sense issues. Osiris (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the list of criteria is necessary but not sufficient. That is very clear when one considers the prose. Criteria lean (rightly) on simplicity, but fail to cope with cases where the prose does not read as normal English, or is in poor English. A lack of flow often occurs when original prose is simplified. The sequence of sentences and paragraphs may lack logic, and so on. These things are hard to express as rules, but it must be right for reviewers to comment on style if that interferes with reading ease or comprehension. It has always been difficult to teach this. A standard text which some find helpful is: Walter Nash 1986. English usage: a guide to first principles. Routledge, London ISBN 0-7102-1200-3. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is time to revisit the criteria, based on what we actually have demanded from articles.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not demoted. All mentioned issues have been addressed. -Orashmatash (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Spurgeon

change
Charles Spurgeon (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Issues on its talk page, mostly dealing with the reliability of references. Albacore (talk · changes) 02:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_article_demotion/Archive_3&oldid=8894940"