Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion/Archive 4

< Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

Kamikaze

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

Issues on the talk page. The lead doesn't really explain what kamikazes are, and overall the article needs a copy-edit to remove broad, filler terms with numbers and estimations. Albacore (talk · changes) 15:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a clear fail IMO. The introduction is very poorly written and addresses the word instead of the topic. The rest of the article lacks overview, with some details but little perspective. Use of literature is weak. I've put a longer assessment on the talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Macdonald-ross, this is a very clear fail. The points on the talk page say it better than I can. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look through this on the weekend and try to address some of the concerns. Osiris (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed a few things, but it doesn't look like I'm going to have the time to address it in full. Plus it's way shorter than what it really should be, so it's no small task. Osiris (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Time is no concern, since you can work on the article and re-nominate it for VGA status when you're ready, and the end result is the same. Albacore (talk · changes) 16:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted. Osiris (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool tramway

change
Blackpool tramway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

As much as it 'pains' me to list an article I worked on here (knowing that when I do get the time sort it out it will take forever to get it re-promoted...), this one currently falls way short of the mark. I've not had the time to give it the substantial updates it requires since it was written in October 2009, and I'm not going to be able to in the forseeable future. Much has changed since this time, and factually it is no longer deserving of a spot as one of 'our best'. So, reluctantly, listing it here. This is really only a formality to avoid cries of 'ERMAHGERD' were I to just do what I'm best at doing, and IAR/BOLD'ing and demoting it myself. Cheers, Goblin 22:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

Can you please tell us how much it is outdated? Are there many outdated information or nowadays even wrong information in the article? Just asking, because it might be ok to "only" demote it to GA status. -Barras talk 09:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Nothing in there is 'wrong', per se, but rather just outdated. A demotion to GA could well be acceptable, though I think everyone knows that I am generally against such demotions... Anyway:
  • The 'History' section basically stops in the mid-1960s, and is far from comprehensive. This should really have been an issue when the article was promoted, but I didn't highlight it. It basically misses out many of the important developments of the 1970s and 80s, and the decline of the 90s.
  • The 'Blackpool tramway today' section completely ignores the upgrade works over the past two years, and the status of the newly-re-opened and upgraded tramway. It is also questionable how much is relevant to the article still, and much should probably be shuffled into other sections.
  • More should probably also be made of the tramway's fleet and infrastructure. It had been my intention to create some separate articles on some of these, however I never got round to it, and am unlikely to do so.
  • Finally, there are also numerous 'small' tweaks that, imo, add up to make this article very much not a VGA any more.
Cheers, Goblin 10:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
  • I agree with Barras here, it would be better to just demote it to GA status. It's okay that its 'outdated', especially since you seem to be willing to update it once you are more available to do so. According to WP:GA? point #2 states that a GA should be "fairly complete" and the article is fairly complete and not comprehensive. Best, Jonatalk to me 14:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably clarify that the likelihood of me being able to update the article in the near future is very unlikely. Far too many IRL commitments to dedicate time to articlespace at the moment. It is 'fairly complete', though, but as I say I'm against 'half-demotions' and would prefer it to simply go all the way. Goblin 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]
Well, since you are the original author and the one who took care of the article for quite some time, and considering that you think it should be completely demoted, I think we should demote it completely. -Barras talk 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At present, we do not have the option of demoting to GA, and I think we should change that. Considering that we scarcely have time to manage the present proposals for GA, we should not add to the burden. I think it's crystal clear this meets GA standards better than mosr GA articles. Routine should be to demote to GA; a special case should be made to double demote. I have in mind, too, that we want to make a gap between GA and VGA. If we do that -- and some important users have not yet voiced their opinion -- then this will not be the only VGA to be demoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A purely clerical note, process should not be changed for any 'in progress' proposals, meaning that, even if process changes are created, this proposal would still come under the previous policy. Any chance of a link to the ongoing discussion btw, I've lost it... Goblin 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
It's at Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, that would make sense... Goblin 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

Epping Ongar Railway

change
Epping Ongar Railway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Pretty much exactly the same as what I said below. In fact, I'll just copy-paste it and change a few words.

As much as it 'pains' me to list an article I worked on here (knowing that when I do get the time sort it out it will take forever to get it re-promoted...), this one currently falls way short of the mark. I've not had the time to give it the substantial updates it requires since it was written in March 2010, and I'm not going to be able to in the forseeable future. Much has changed since this time, and factually it is no longer deserving of a spot as one of 'our best'. So, reluctantly, listing it here. This is really only a formality to avoid cries of 'ERMAHGERD' were I to just do what I'm best at doing, and IAR/BOLD'ing and demoting it myself. Cheers, Goblin 01:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]

This has been here for nearly six months now; I'm going to go ahead and demote it, as there is clearly no objection. Goblin 18:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Mh7kJ![reply]

Joseph Goebbels

change
Joseph Goebbels (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article, Joseph Goebbels, should be demoted from its current good article status because there are a lack of sources, it is not long enough, simplification needed in some areas, most of the references are dead links and one is even a discontinued site, and citation tags or in other words, needs more referencing. Sadly, the article does not have a good article quality anymore. If the community decides to keep the article as a good article then some repairs are needed then. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk note: Original discussion & promotion can be found here (archive). Original proposer has been notified, as has the community at large. Goblin 00:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]
Thanks Goblin. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote. The article very clearly fails our present standards. It's not just a matter of sources. His activities just before and during WWII are only briefly discussed. If you leave aside the Führerbunker, then there is only a short para on WWII. Any of the major histories of WWII would give heaps of information. The En wiki page is also short of citations, but it has a huge amount of detail, so do take a look. The Goebbels Diaries 1939-1941 have been published in English: just one example of a good source which was not used. An angle not mentioned at all is his deadly rivalry with Albert Speer, the minister of munitions. I have never seen a GA so incomplete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been like four or five years since I've written that in my early days around here. I haven't really done anything to the article since then or even re-read it for a very long time. As wikis grow and improve, the standards do also rise usually. So, If there are issues, I see no problem to demote it. If I had the time, I'd try to work on it again, but I really can't afford the time currently for such fairly complex and time consuming work. Maybe you can just close this and demote it as I'm as the original author won't object. Saves us all some time. -Barras talk 08:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little note on the sources part. Usually when there is no inline citation direct for one sentence, it is wise to check the source after the next sentence. I never liked the "Sentence 1.[1] Sentence 2.[1] Sentence 3.[1]" Style in articles, so I always only add the source after the last sentence, when it belongs together. Right now I was just clicking on some sources, and they aren't even any longer available on those pages. I really have not the time get it fixed and I doubt anyone else is interested, so just feel free to demote it right away. -Barras talk 08:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote. The article’s source citations need attention and the article needs to be brought back up to GA standards again. Rus793 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote Sources won't be difficult to handle imo, but the article needs more detail. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as demoted: per SNOW and also as we have a precedent for demoting articles where the original nominator has not objected. Thanks everyone for your input. Goblin 22:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]
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.

Closed as demoted. Recommend changes and resubmission as GA. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanami

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

I saw this article on the main page as the selected article. Just in the small section there, I saw compound sentences, complex words, links to dab pages, and links to Wiktionary. I don't think any of those belong in very good articles here, and two of them violate the requirements for very good articles. Looking at the version of the article that was approved for very good status, I see the same issues. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree with the concerns about this article. Looks like this was promoted over 10 years ago and standards for VGAs have (obviously) changed since then. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The linking to dab pages should be a pretty easy fix, linking to Wiktionary is actually something we encourage if I recall correctly so that isn't an issue for VGAs. The others though, perhaps some people want to look at them to quickly clean it up instead of demoting it, it isn't that big an article after all. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What DJ said. A Wiktionary link is inferior to a Wikipedia link, but sometimes it just makes more sense to lay out a definition there than to put a lengthy explanation of a term in the VGA. (Sometimes it doesn't, too, but that goes on a case-by-case basis.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had not read this recently. The language in the main body of the article is much too complex for this to be a VGA. It should be demoted to GA, and still I would feel the English needed attention. It's an interesting article, however. That saves it for me as a GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2018 (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.

Bloc Party

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.
Bloc Party (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Saw this on the main page again. Tagged for updating in January, but this article hasn't attracted any attention. Information in the article stops in 2009. A lot has happened in the past ten years. Gotanda (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should expand this proposal. Unless the dead links are fixed and the article is updated to include albums, hiatus, reunion, and member changes from 2009-2019 then it is incomplete and no longer represents our best work. It could probably use some general tightening up and simplification as well since we have moved along a bit since 2009 as well. Looking forward to any other comments, questions, or discussion as this moves to a decision. --Gotanda (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair something being out of date can still represent out best work if the rest of our work is lesser than it. Though I agree it should be updated, updating it rather than posting it for demotion is probably the more productive thing to do. -DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ten years in popular culture is practically a lifetime. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said it did need to be updated. I was just pointing out that being out of date doesn't necessarily mean it isn't one of our best written articles as Wikipedia has no deadline, being out of date doesn't necessarily make it bad, it just makes it out of date. -DJSasso (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still ... if it's something that out of date, in a setting where out of date can really matter, do we want to show it off on the Main Page? English Wikipedia wouldn't, for sure. I'm inclined to delist it as VGA temporarily (could be left as GA in the interim), until a fix happens. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia has more views and a diversity of pages to put on the front page. The more we demote the more likely we get to a point where we have the same article always on the front page which would be a worse situation. Of course the best thing to do would be to get more VGA articles written, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I would also point out that I am not arguing to not demote it, I am just putting out things to be considered. Our very best probably need to meet a much lower standard than on en.wiki or we won't have any to feature. -DJSasso (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's many pages which could be discussed as GAs or even VGAs. However, to propose a page is a considerable gift of time, because the proposer has to meet all the challenges. The gift of time means one of our really literate editors is not going to do much else while a proposal is being assessed. It's a consequence of our surviving on a few competent editors and admins. Polishing buttons is an extra few can afford. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The final paragraph still ends describing future events to take place in 2009, so not sure this can even scrape by as a GA. Half the life of the band goes unreported here. I've worked on some articles for promotion and will again, but as Macdonald-ross commented, it takes a lot of time. Time I'd rather put into something more significant than a band. --Gotanda (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda: I strongly agree. The article is outdated and therefore does not meet the criteria for VGA or even GA --Examknow (lets chat!) 19:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has come back around full circle to be on the front page again since nomination for demotion with some minor updates (infobox and categories) but no improvement to the body of the article to cover the past ten years, so is it time for a decision on this? --Gotanda (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two months now since I proposed demotion. There has been no substantial improvement to bring the article back to VGA or even GA status. Can an admin move this forward, please? Thanks, -Gotanda (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2019 (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 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.


Hermann Göring

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.
Hermann Göring (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article should be demoted to just GA. It's not necessarily a bad article, but considering how much better many other VGA are, I think the quality standards have shifted. This article just simply doesn't isn't anywhere near as good as many of the other VGAs. The sections are relatively short, all of them basically being one, maybe two paragraphs each, and there isn't even an infobox. This is not as comprehensive as a VGA should be. ~Junedude433talk 22:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Length wise it actually passes what we need for a VGA. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has a far more comprehensive reference list than most articles here. I think that ideally it should be fleshed out a bit more, and probably an infobox added. But I don't see a reason to demote it. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article could use an infobox. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not VGA. It fails 2 and probably 10.
"2. The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is one which does not miss any major facts and details."
This article is a brief summary. For example, the years 1933-1945, "Göring during the Third Reich," is two or so paragraphs for a total of just over 300 words to cover 13 momentous years. Single sentences skip over large topics. There is a single sentence for planning the holocaust and a single sentence for his 50th birthday party.
"10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced."
There are references, but many of these do not seem reliable. For example: Ref 1 is a Wayback Machine capture of a geocities site. Ref 8 is a hobbyist site. Ref 9 is a dead link. Ref 13 is the personal website of David Irving, a Holocaust denier. Have a look at this for some writing that calls anything else into question. "The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Hitler's role in the Holocaust" Ref 14 seems to be a blog for a memorabilia collector? Ref 17 IHR is a holocaust denial organization. Ref 18 also seems to be a blog. Ref 20 likely was a blog but is now a dead link. The refs that seem the most authoritative are books in German and therefore difficult for many to examine; there must be good, reliable refs available online in English for such a notable figure.
I do not think this even meets GA as 2. "fairly complete" or 9. "needs to be referenced." UPDATE* I just added the demotion template to the article. Before this Demotions on New Changes showed zero so some editors may not have been aware of the proposal. --Gotanda (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I take it some references need fixing.As to "Holocaust denial" sites - ref 13 is used (with another ref), to say that he became dependent on morphine, and that he was promoted to another rank. Neither of which has anything to do with Holocaust denial, and both cites are supported by another reference. SO yes, the dead links probably need replacing, but I currently don't see how Ref 13 (the Holocaust denial site) cannot be used. Remember: You don't need a skilled historian, specialized in WW II to make a reputable source. During/After the war propaganda by the allies was used in the same way to get the image of Nazi Germany many people (and historians) now accept as true. --Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added an infobox per TDKR Chicago 101 suggestion. Do help to remove the redlinks in the infobox if possible. I don't think it is VGA. GA should be ok with some fixing ----Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re Eptalon's comment that, "You don't need a skilled historian, specialized in WW II to make a reputable source." This is a VGA discussion not a general article discussion. Given there are so many reliable references available for this subject, it seems to me that these should not be used. The dishonesty in holocaust denialism calls into question the rest of the writing by this author. In addition, good practices for students using Wikipedia include reading the articles but then following the sources for themselves. Linking to sites such David Irving is leading students to untrustworthy sources--something I think we should avoid, but is definitely not "very good". --Gotanda (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with StephenJ81. I don't see a demotion here. While it could definitely be fleshed out more, I think people are forgetting our VGAs are intended to show the best of our articles, not the best of articles anywhere. This article met the criteria for being made a VGA and it hasn't decreased in quality since it was which is the only time a demotion is relevant. It is still easily in the 1% of the best articles on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just stumbled upon this. I think it's pretty clear that this is still a VGA for simple Wiki. A concern I have is I'm not a fan of the image formatting, but that doesn't take away from the article.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:56, 30 January 2020 (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.


Violin

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

This VGA has been lacking proper citations with the history sections needing more citations, the construction and playing sections are not even sourced, the music section is depended on only one source and out of the thirteen sources that the article has (which I think is a bit low seeing at the quality of article and how it lacks sources) two of them are deadlinks. Overall the article needs some major citation improvement, perhaps expansion on the history section and some more reliable sources for it to be VGA. Seeing on the state of the article I don't think it should even be a good article seeing the citation work needed and chunks of the article is not referenced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2020 (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.


Lenzburg

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

This is the oldest GA on this project still standing, and it shows. There are multiple problems with this article. The most noticeable is its lack of references. The entire article has only eight references, and most of the sections have no references at all. There are plenty of statements made that are unreferenced, particularly in the History section.

Another issue is its leading sentences in each section are not particularly neutral and are rather subjective. "The area has a long history," but how long is long? "The main place to see in the town is the Lenzburg castle," but who's to say that it's the main place? What even counts as a "main" place at all? "Lenzburg is an important economic centre," but by what metric? According to whom? What scale? Is it important locally? Nationally? Globally? "Lenzburg is a good place for transportation," has the same problems as the previous example.

Many sections of the article include passive voice and (improperly punctuated) compound or complex sentences. For instance, in the Places of Interest section: "It was built in the 11th century and has been added onto several times," and "Some of the city wall has been kept and is now under protection." The History section is full of these.

In general, the article feels lacking. I understand that GAs don't need to be as comprehensive as VGAs, but this article is missing multiple sections that have become commonplace in city articles. It is missing a section for the demographics, education, and notable people. Other than the lead, I can't find the population of the city anywhere. What's the makeup of its inhabitants? Switzerland is a country that is lingually diverse, but what about this place? Are there any schools, universities, or libraries in this city? Or is everyone simply self-taught somehow? Was there anyone noteworthy that came from this place? Surely, there must be someone from here. Even if we ignore the lack of sections, the sections that are there aren't impressive. The Economics section is too short, and it doesn't provide much detail. What industries is this place known for? If this is such an "important economic centre," I would expect it to elaborate as to why and how it's important.

Other issues include the redlinks in the article, words that should be linked (i.e. all of the municipalities listed in the Geography section), and the fact that this article is outdated in some respects. There has barely been any edits on this article in the past 8 years. While the standards of this project have improved, this article has not. ~Junedude433talk 02:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support demotion - There are simply too many issues here to be fixed. Some drastic work would be needed. This article is nowhere near to being a "good article". In fact, I can identify many articles that are not GAs that are much better than this one. Certainly not an example of our best work. IWI (chat) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pinging User:Peterdownunder here as he was the main contributor that got this promoted to GA nine years ago. IWI (chat) 02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was a long time ago, I don't even remember working on it. If it no longer meets the standard then it should be demoted. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support demotion - Too many issues in this article especially in regards to sourcing. Major overhaul needed to get this article into shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.It is a city of about 10.000 people today, there's a castle; there was a Roman settlement (name unknown) for about two centuries. Between 15 and 20 tombs fromthe Neolithic have been found in the area nearby. Modern history: the probably two most prominent employers are ABB (Asea Brown Bowery) and Hero (which lives from canned food, and is a name, at least in Switzerland). It takes 20 mins to Zürich, by train. Note: that most references are likely in German. --Eptalon (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2020 (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.


Joe Biden

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.
Joe Biden (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article not updated and some sections are lacking information. Compare article to Bernie Sanders who has been up to date about the 2020 primaries and his Senate career his longer and well sourced than Biden's (even though Joe had a longer career). Vice President section could be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems alright, the Bernie article is better doesn't mean Biden should be demoted? It needs improvement for sure but this seems quite complete an article (as compared to the rest). See no reason to demote.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to attack or anything... but you think this might be a bit a partisan nomination considering your userpage talking about wanting Bernie to be a president? -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disclosed that it wasn't partisan, what I meant was that Bernie's article is more up to date with the 2020 primaries and Biden's isn't. I put all my beliefs aside when here on the Wiki. Plus I think his Vice President and Senate sections should be longer than they are. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why not Bernie Sanders article be nominated for VGA instead?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Camouflaged Mirage: If you guys think Sanders' article is up to VGA standards then good, I was actually waiting 'till after the primary season so that the article has all the updated information. What I'm getting it at is that:
  • What did he do before his senate career? Doubtful he graduated from college and jumped straight to the Senate.
  • Biden's Senate career section is only two paragraphs long. For a man who's been in the Senate roughly 30 years, don't you think it should contain more information? (Sanders has been in the Senate for thirteen years yet his career section is more fleshed out). Ronald Reagan (even before going from GA to VGA) his entrance into politics had its own section. Reagan's first presidential run in 1976 has its own section. Jeremy Corbyn, who is a GA, has a fleshed out MP section. Bottom line is that Biden's Senate career section resembles more than that of a stub article. I mean Hal Holbrook's career section is longer and its not event a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His run in 1998 only has a brief mention. His 1988 run should at least have its own section.
  • Some references are dead links.
  • How come his 2008 campaign trail section is in the same length as VP? Shouldn't his VP section be more fleshed out?
  • 2020 run should be more updated like include debate performance, how he went from front-runner to behind Sanders and then back up to front-runner? His primary wins and losses?
  • The article's lead could be expanded, look at Sanders, Corbyn, even Fred Rogers and Ronald Reagan's lead back when it was a GA had longer more detailed leads.
  • Note: His personal life and honors section is pretty good. The article is written well, as in non-complex wise. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced these require demotion. GA means that this is one of the best in simple, which is still true by now. We had lots of GA that's need updating, but they are still the best articles here. Also per Gotanda below. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like what Gotanda said above, if the article is identified as requiring improvement (and even tagged accordingly), I see no reason the article can keep GA status per WP:GA?. Whether other allegedly worse off articles were demoted or not is not particularly relevant to this demotion discussion. Chenzw  Talk  05:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not commenting on this particular case, but any drive by editor can thrown on a tag. Whether or not that tag should be there is an important thing to consider. On a few of our GAs/VGAs in the past editors have thrown up tags that weren't necessarily valid. So to demote because a single user putting a tag on is something we have to be careful of. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djsasso: The template was added because the article needs to be updated. Regardless I've add expand section templates to his Senate section, VP section and 2020 run section because they need more info. How are you going to tell be a section with two paragraphs is enough to sum up a near 40 year career in the senate. His role in the Clarence Thomas hearing nearly basically has a mention. His VP section could also be expanded with the specifics that he did to fix the Great Recession and his role in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The bottom line is that this article has limited amount of info. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On simple.wiki compared to en.wiki yes. Remember our articles are never going to be the novels that en.wiki articles are. I think people are forgetting that. Yes the topic should have a good coverage of the topic, but we don't necessarily go into every detail the way an article on en.wiki would. That being said, I am not against adding more information if there is more to add. -Djsasso (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djsasso: I understand. I am not saying Joe Biden's article here should match the length as English Wikipedia. What I have been saying is that the article does need more information. Its common sense that a man's 40 year career cannot be summed up in two paragraphs. When I nominated Bernie Sanders, Ronald Reagan and Jeremy Corbyn, everyone said that their career sections should be expanded accordingly to Simple English. I highly doubt had this article been nominated a year ago it would have passed because there are just short sections. How come Sanders' senate section is larger then Biden's (Sanders has been in the senate for 13 years and Biden was in the senate for 40). The article is good yes, but I do not feel that it has enough information to maintain GA status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, people are always going to ask for expansion. Always, everytime. The question is whether or not expansion is always warranted. Sometimes overly detailed sections will actually detract from a subject rather than enhance it. Two different people who had different careers for example one might have more notable things happen in their term than the other. I don't know if that is the case between the two you are comparing or not as I haven't taken the time to really dig into it. I do know that prior to being VP even though he was in the senate he wasn't really all that well known a senator compared to Bernie. Bernie has been in the public eye a lot more than Biden was. You can't really compare two articles in that way. The key factors for being VGA and GA are all about the quality of the writing and the simpleness. Yes obviously comprehensive is one of the criteria but the other points are far more important. -Djsasso (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also err on the side of needing to expand the article. I also wouldn't argue that Bernie was more high profile than Biden was in the Senate. The overwhelming majority of people had never heard of Bernie Sanders until he decided to run for president. The sections for Biden's career, given how expansive it is, is far too short. If this remains a GA, it will need a serious overhaul. ~Junedude433talk 00:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Junedude433: I wasn't saying that Bernie was more high profile, what I was saying is that how come is Sanders' senate career section longer than Biden's when Sanders was barely in the senate for 20 years in comparison's to Biden's high prolific senate career. I agree that Biden's article needs an overhaul --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More information is definitley needed if it is to stay as a good article. It is not exhaustive enough. Comparing to other articles or other Wikipedias is futile; the article is not up to date. IWI (chat) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need a bit of an update, however there are parts that have been updated. Some sections need major expansion, try comparing this article to Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, or Bernie Sanders and it would be easy to tell. It does have lots of sources. However, a lot of them are dead links, unreliable, not well formatted, and sections needing citations. There are also very few red links, or none. I think the article can keep it's GA status, as long as cleanup templates are solved and issues are fixed and it gets expanded. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that Djsasso suggesting it is a biased nomination was unnecessary, and is most certainly not assuming good faith. It is clear this article needs an update, so there is no reason to suggest bad faith. IWI (chat) 22:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fair comment, a demotion request slapping a big negative tag on a page right in the middle of the primary which was still being hotly contested at the time by someone who very clearly puts on their page they support the other guy. It is very much a fair assumption considering how the tag makes the subject look bad right in the middle of running for the nomination. It also wasn't clear that the article needed to be demoted. Still not sure it does. It can definitely be expanded, the question is whether it has to be to avoid demotion. -Djsasso (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The tag does not make the subject look bad, only the article. I can see why you might have thought that it was a partisan nomination, but regardless it is clear the article needs an update. The article having a tag on it is nothing to do with Joe Biden himself. Nobody is going to be influenced by a tag on Wikipedia. If the article isn't updated, it needs demoting. Let's just keep to the content not contributor thing from now on. IWI (chat) 11:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is on the subject thus makes the subject look bad. And I was commenting on the nomination not the nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but an assumption based on the contributor who made the nomination. Anyway, let's put this behind us now. IWI (chat) 12:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are my reasons for this proposal. The article needs expansion to detail his large 30 year senate career, his VP career and details on his 2020 run. A section that explains what Biden did between his post-university years and before running for the senate. An perhaps a bit of an update, example article does not mention in his awards section on how on his finals days as VP, President Obama presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. A section what Biden did in his post presidency (2017 through 2019). Bottom line the article is not fleshed out with enough information to remain a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the article just doesn't look very fleshed out. Not worthy of GA without a major reworking. I would support demotion.--Yottie =talk= 16:19, 22 July 2020 (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.


Victoria line

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.
Victoria line (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Should be demoted from VGA to GA. The process has changed since 2009 and more could be written about it. Certainly a Good Article, but very good? I'm not so sure. IWI (chat) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: I mean there are cn tags in the article, these would need clearing before it could be considered a GA. I also updated some outdated numbers. Other than that it is fine, but not a VGA.
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Bottom line is that the article is not VGA material. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, put succinctly. IWI (chat) 23:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: Well I've cleared all the {{cn}} tags and simplified some fairly difficult text. Now it is good enough for GA. Before it was not. IWI (chat) 16:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, good enough for GA, but it needs adding to to return to VGA status. Given how long it's been since the conversation has started, I suggest demotion now. --Yottie =talk= 13:50, 21 July 2020 (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.


Crich Tramway Village

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.
Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is essentially made-up of History of the museum, Methods of tramcar operation, tramcar fleet and a timeline. Article has been tagged with some lack of source citations with 4 out of the ten total sources cited being dead links. I can't even see this article being suited for GA status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this is about the level at simple wikipedia that we considered an article a VGA. I would just fix the dead links. Most of the rest of the article hasn't really changed since it was promoted. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All dead links have been fixed and pretty much anything that needs a source has a source. Not sure I see the problem here. The needs citation templates that were added by an IP weren't things that we would require a cite for so they were removed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: What I was getting at is that this featured article is essentially three sections and a long list. Perhaps it should be demoted to Good Article. Personally I feel the article is not good enough for FA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, short articles can be featured as well as long as they cover the topic in full. So the question is, is there a major portion of this article missing? -Djsasso (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: I am aware of that but with our current standards it does not meet that criteria. Present nominations go through a heavy process to make sure it has sufficient citations and sources. Look at Bloc Party, it was a lengthy article with good enough info and it went from VGA to GA (which is what I think should happen here). Well for starters the article is not updated. It is a museum and the article should be reflected as such maybe moving the article title to National Tramway Museum. It should touch on specific exhibitions as seen on English Wiki. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does meet our current criteria. If anything our process was much more detailed in the past than it is now. Now people just seem to demote if they don't like it without any thought to actually making changes to the article to maintain its quality. Bloc Party is different, it was missing a number of albums and a big chunk of time from the bands career. So the two are not really equivalent. -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in that it needs more information. Much like on the standard English Wikipedia, it basically glosses over all of the different kinds of tramcars. If the museum is dedicated to this, I would expect to learn more about its exhibits than simply "it has a bunch of tramcars from all over the country," and leaving it at that. I don't feel that this article is particularly comprehensive. I guess I look at this not as a matter of "can this stay promoted?," but rather "should this stay promoted?" My belief is no; it should be a GA. ~Junedude433talk 00:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't fell super-strongly about this, but I can see why others have thought it should be demoted. It makes a number of slack suggestions as to the history of trams which are not sourced. As a child I remember trams in London, and I think some of the general points made are superficial. I can see that the construction of the road in the museum does not bring this out. Anyway, for me I think missing sources and vague comments in the general sections should mean demotion to GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Per TDKR Chicago 101 Support Demote to GA status, huge chunk of article just the history/timeline --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:23, 9 June 2020 (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.


Yellow (song)

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.
Result: Demoted to good article - I have removed the update needed template, as completeness is not a criterion for good articles. The main reason fro demotion was the many redlinks (in linked templates). Also, there were no major updates in the last two months or so, so the interests has clearly faded.--Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow (song) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Update needed, many red-links, also in transcluded templates. Demote? --Eptalon (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demote to GA? it looks good enough for a Good Article status though --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as VGA there isn't much that needs much updated here, and if attempted, this is one of the easiest fix.-BRP ever 11:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redlinks in navboxes have always not been considered a problem with VGAs as it isn't the article itself that has redlinks. -Djsasso (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks good enough to keep its current status. Demote to GA The article is good but seeing the update tag and seeing the two dead links on it, I feel the article is good as a GA but not as a VGA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question This has rolled around to be the display article on the front page again, so it would be a good idea if an admin could make decision on this. Either remove the demotion nomination if this is a Keep so it isn't on the front page, or demote it. Two of 19 sources are dead links so those would have to be fixed for a Keep, right? --Gotanda (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's still very easy to read and good sourced. The red links are not problem especially when they are not visible in article. Demote to GA... Didn't the dead links. Frontfrog (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2021 (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.


Powderfinger

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.
Result: kept at VGA level, no apparent red-links--Eptalon (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Powderfinger (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Update needed since 2019; some problems with bad template parameters. Fix red-links, demote to GA? --Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2021 (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.


Jessica Alba

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.
Jessica Alba (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Update needed, since 2017. Some problems with red-links in citation templates. Demote to GA (where completeness is not an issue), after fixing the red-links? --Eptalon (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demote all the way if this article doesn't get updated, like the other ones haven't. If the article does get updated then maybe it can only be demoted to GA. But seriously, another article being demoted?   We need more articles to be promoted... --Ferien (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Demoted to regular article.--Eptalon (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2021 (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.

Anna Kournikova

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.
Anna Kournikova (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article needs to be updated (From October 2020). Generally in a good state; besides content update, there are several red-links that need looking at (also problems with citation templates). Given that there are red-links, how did this get to VGA? I don't remember this wiki ever having an article on 1999 French Open – Women's Doubles (And yes we have several such links). In this case, we could consider demoting to Good article, if we fix the few issues (Good articles don't need to be complete, they can show part of the picture...). Thoughts? --Eptalon (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Demoted to regular article--Eptalon (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2021 (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.

Daniela Hantuchová

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

Simple English Wikipedia's VGA Requirements, call for no tags, nor red links. However, in this case, we have an article tag since the year 2015, and they are too many red links in the article. It was brought to attention, on the article's talkpage that there were some issues. Since 2015, there have been less than 50 revisions in the maintenance of this VGA. Please share your thoughts on this. Thank you. Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Isn't their a way to improve this article? We can create the red linked articles or remove them. And then in Wikipedia:Simple talk we can discuss new changes or in the talk page. Also(humorous), what is up with tennis players get PAD requests all of a sudden?
SoyokoAnis - talk 03:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to the humour statement) Cause they are bouncing an edit war ;P --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, you could discuss at simple talk, if the article is fixed, then it will be kept as a Good Article --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote, but how far? IMO it should not have been an VGA in the first place. However, it was, and now the issue is how far, and what can be done? One observation is that young female sports people often have shorter careers than the men, and are less likely to move into training or other activities in their sport. This is often connected with "window of opportunity" before the person becomes fully adult and makes life-changing choices (often related to motherhood). This lady moved to Monaco to protect her money, and retired in 2017. Some of the media refs to main WP are deadlinked, and it will be difficult to find information which is more up-to-date. Here the argument is whether to drop the article one step or two. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote to normal article. Neither GA or VGA can have the {{update}} tag on them, so we should probably demote all the way for now. The red links should be relatively easy to deal with, but I think the issue with the {{update}} template is enough for demotion, as it is very clear that VGAs and GAs should not have these. --Ferien (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the history of the article (edit counts in the last years, this is probably a demote (to regular article). There's however the undelrying problm when writing articles about (active) sportspeople. The article will show the state at some point in their carreer; once it has the GA or VGA tag, people will be very reluctant to change the article. So, time takes its toll: the sportsperson moves on in his/her carrer, and perhaps retires, at some point. But since we have the state two years before retiring, and that article has a flag, it will be very hard to get people to update it. Also, GAs/VGAs are often pushed by one (or a small group of ediztors); when these editors move on and retire from SEWP, the article falls into oblivion. Things that need looking at, but that are distinct from this article. --Eptalon (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Demoted to regular article--Eptalon (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2021 (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.


Ana Ivanović

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

Currently a very good article. Unfortunately, it has had a tag that it needs to be updated, since mid 2014. Our criteria say that such articles shouldn't have the tag 'very good article'. So it should probably demoted. Big question though: do we demote to good article, or to no particular status at all? - Given the tag has been there for 7 years, it obviously isn't going to be updated. Comments? --Eptalon (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demote. (Second bite at this!) I have to admit that I never regarded this as a VG article. The person is so one-dimensional and not even in tennis is her record near the best. There is nothing about her in the article which would suggest it is worth re-writing because she is not notable for anything else. Not even a good article, actually. I do not blame the editors, it's just that some people are not interesting enough. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote as so far out of date it does not even meet GA. --Gotanda (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Looking at the statistics (here) there are almost no edits. In 2020, there were 12 edits, if I read that page correctly. Alos I would have expected more change since the flag was put up (diff), we are looking at a time period of 6-7 years, where we had about 60 revisions...--Eptalon (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote I don't think it can be a GA either, due to the dead links in the article --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote, unfortunately. I cannot imagine the article being updated now after 7 years. Maybe one day it can be promoted to a ga or, possibly, a vga. But for now, demote all the way. The fact that this article hasn't been updated (and still has the template on after 7 years) is enough for it to be demoted.--Ferien (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote Per nom, all of our very best articles must be kept up to date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This proposal has been up for over a month with a very strong consensus to demote, but it has rolled around to be displayed on the front page again. We do not want to feature articles with problems like this. Can an admin please take care of this? And, probably the others as well before they pop up again. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Demoted to regular article. The needs update tag is left in place.--Eptalon (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2021 (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.


Geisha

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.
Geisha (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Complex language. I counted one sentence as 43 words, which is not unusual for English Wikipedia. All-in-all, this is not an article which we should be holding up for imitation. Its content is good, but on this wiki the readability is paramount. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this sentence, by the way? "Shimabara was established as a red-light district officially in 1640, and became one of three areas in Japan ..." The two independent clauses could be split into two sentences. Chenzw  Talk  12:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: How many more days till the fate is decided? I will try and fix as much as I can... --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are a small community, all of us are volunteers; there's no point in setting a time. If you (and perhaps other editors) work on it, I think we can wait until the work is done. Note also: this is a very good article, so in theory, we could demote to good article (the GA criteria are a subset of the VGA criteria; every VGA is also a good article). --Eptalon (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only one edit (a bot) since 12 December, so it looks like this is not high on anyone's priority list for improvement and should be demoted before it rolls around on the main page again. --Gotanda (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it clearly isn't up to VGA, is it reasonably close to meeting GA criteria? --Eptalon (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (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.

Muhammad

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.
Result: Demoted to regular article--Eptalon (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Unfortunately, there are far too many unsourced statements in this article to be listed as a "good article". --IWI (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment Hello, you didn't followed all steps in nomination, #2 is missed, I fixed it. No comments yet about the state of the article. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage: Thanks for doing that for me. Apologies. --IWI (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And actually #3 isn't meet, let me do it too.... Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demote. This article has too few sources. Only three sections in the whole article have citations. All other sections have no citations at all. Belwine • 💬 • 📜 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left a few comments on the article talk page. Comparing to other good articles though I think this one needs quite a bit of work...--Eptalon (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demote. There are far too many red links and too few references. Many of the sections are very short and have only a couple of sentences. This is not what we should consider our best work. ~Junedude433talk 15:38, 30 January 2021 (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.

Saturn

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

Red links in the infobox, broken templates, shorter than expected, only 49 references. Exploration part is heavily dependent on Cassini (I understand that) and doesn't mention Enceladus Hopper and Dragonfly. Very little on the actual planet, rather focuses on its rings. Not alot of images either. Elytrian - Talk 07:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a very good article since 2011. A lot has changed since then. Apart from completeness (which is required for a VGA; and which I don't judge here, the main problem is the template at the bottom ({{Solar System}} which needs cleaning up. (Currently in contributes over 50 red-links). For the time being I would propose cleanup/rework of that template. Not looking at completeness at the moment, I'd say if that template is cleaned up (so that less than about 10 red-links remain), we can demote this to Good article. Without cleaning up (or removing) the template, I wouldn't feel good making this a good article.--Eptalon (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, we have the red-link Nemesis. Nemesis is supposed to be a brown dwarf, orbiting the sun at around 95.000 AU (1.5 light years). It likely doesn't exist. Sedna has a perihelion of about 937 AU (and an aphelion of about 76 AU). Sedna is about 1000-2000 kms in size (no idea if that's radius or diameter), one round around the sun takes Sedna about 11.500 earth-years. Note: With Sedna we are only at about 1% of the distance (if that's aphelion) of Nemesis. I don't know the exact formulas, but we are likely looking at time periods of millions of years (for one rotation around the sun); it looks like Nemesis was claimed to have rotation periods around the sun of 25 to 33 million years. Life on earth has existed for about 5 billion years. We would therefore look at Nemesis passing between 100 and 150 times. Now if those 1.5 light years refer to the perihelion, times would be even longer). And no, before you ask: no it doesn't take an astrophysicist to write an article about a solar-system object.--Eptalon (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that we don't hold redlinks in navboxes at the bottom against a VGA or GA. We only look at the article's content. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to say that the infobox Solar System was brought over, and if we change it (good idea, but...) we'd have to do the same to many other infoboxes in other parts of the wiki. And, as you all know, dj Sasso updates for many types of infoboxes. And, although the box sits on the page, it is not "owned" by the page. It is shared. On sources, the key thing for them is to read the article thinking "where would a reader expect to see support for that statement?" That should be the place for a source.
On the subject of Nemesis, it does not exist. There is simply no convincing evidence, and we should not have it in any infobox (but continue to have a page on it). It is nothing to do with Saturn anyway. I see the para about flattened shape is a bit slack because it doesn't distinguish between the solid part of the planet and its gaseous outer section. What are we calling core? Is it the core or the metallic hydrogen? or the layer of liquid hydrogen and helium? All these issues might call into question its GA, let alone VGA. There are good things on the page, but I think it cannot stay as a VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demote to GA, no mention of observations (properties) from Earth. The enwiki version is last assessed in 2009, so standard changes and cannot be considered recent. Actually, I will nominate the article there to be delisted as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a lot of concern has already been addressed while the discussion was ongoing (reference and redlinks). I think what's most interesting about Saturn is its rings, so it's only natural that it would be covered more. There are enough illustrations describing the planet, adding more is an easy fix but I think it's sufficiently illustrated already. I think improvements can be made after a discussion on the talk page, but demoting this is unnecessary. It still reflects one of the best works of the community.-BRP ever 12:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks good and maintain its current article status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll go along with the consensus. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2021 (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.

Carom billiards

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.

Not demoted Appears to no consensus to remove after sitting here two months no one but nom has commented. -Djsasso (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carom billiards (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article is not written in Simple English (check sentence length), and too close a copy of En version. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I should say this is an example taken from early Simple WP. Perhaps standards then were lower than today. But it also points up that we do have a lot of GAs sitting on articles that almost no-one ever reads! We could perhaps leave these early ones alone, but that doesn't seem to be just to today's editors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some/many of the refs don't deliver... Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_article_demotion/Archive_4&oldid=8894983"