Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 15

< Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

Archived requests

change

Thumbelina

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

Well written article. We do not have a fairy tale among the GAs. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, yes, but not simple enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to become familiar with Basic English. When I run a check on the article, it is full of complex words. Your answer above, has three complex words in it. What I have written here to help you, has none at all.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More references needed under Sources and Adaptation sections. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: No updates here from the nominator in one month, and there are clearly outstanding issues remaining. Goblin 02:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I ♥ TDKR Chicago 101![reply]

Nelson Mandela

change
Nelson Mandela (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well written article which I've worked on a lot during the past year to get it into GA, but failed. Now I feel that third time is the charm! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you haven't understood why the article failed on previous occasions, nor listened to the advice offered then. I see only a handful (and I literally mean a handful) of edits to the article since August, its last nomination, and at that time there were still outstanding concerns for its promotion. I can't stress enough how much easier you will find this process if you get as many reviews as you can get before nominating it here and, indeed, waiting to nom until someone else says that it is ready. As ever, this isn't an opinion either way - just trying to add some advice - but I am concerned that we are slipping back into the habit of users (generally speaking, now) slipping into "drive by" nominations - throwing up an article and creating work for editors but then the article not passing anyway, for whatever reason. A (V)GA is a big undertaking, and isn't to be underestimated. Goblin 05:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Don't worry Goblin. Back then I was a rookie at GA's. But since Ronald Reagan, I think I'm ready for another one. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having now looked at the diffs more carefully, though, there have been no content changes since the last nomination at all. This is something that I recall was raised with Reagan also. I'd strongly recommend withdrawing this notation, undertaking a thorough look through the article and outstanding comments from last time, as asking other users to look over it before coming back here - but it is, of course, entirely up to you. Goblin 01:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]
So in other words, withdrawing this nomination, ask users for their opinions of the article now, fix them, and then comeback? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I've been saying in pretty much every nomination you (And others) have put in for the last year or so... Goblin 04:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I ♥ DJSasso![reply]
A quick scan of the vocabulary shows that there is a lot of work to be done to get this into Simple English, in fact it probably should have a complex tag on it. Using the basic check tool you can see it has problems - http://www.readabilityofwikipedia.com/check/Nelson%20Mandela although because it has a lot of African names this will generate a more complex score. But he is worthy of a good article, so don't be discouraged, just get to work.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pike Place Fish Market

change
Pike Place Fish Market (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a GA on enwiki and I thought I might bring it here and try and make it a GA myself. I think it meets 5 or more of the GA criteria. It definitely needs simplifying and a peer review. I'm not sure why but there is a red category at the bottom of the page that I don't know of. If anyone could try and help this article, I would appreciate it greatly. Eurodyne (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That red link is there because some of the references are flagged as dead links. A dead link, in case anyone doesn't know, is a link to a website where the link doesn't work. The link might be wrong or outdated, the website might have been down when someone tried to access it, or the website might not exist any more. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the link is dead, I think the reference needs to be replaced with a reliable website. I also think that some of the words are too complicated to remain as red links as well. I would recommend creating the articles to explain them, even if it does take some work. Bella tête-à-tête 09:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with those comments. And, necessary work should be done before bringing a page here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to see articles in better shape before being proposed here (or for DYK or PVGA), but the rules say an article only has to meet five if the nine requirements. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put back the dead links that were removed because they can help find active links. I found replacements for 2 or 3 of them. I'll look more later, unless someone else gets to it first. If anyone wants to know how to look for them (a good thing to know how to do), let me know and I'll explain what I did. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I would like to know, if it doesn't trouble you too much. Eurodyne (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no trouble. I'll put the info on your talk page, so it doesn't take up space here. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Auntof6. I haven't gotten anything yet... Eurodyne (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't posted anything yet. I have some other things to do before I get to that. It will probably not be until at least tomorrow. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I think this article could use some work. I'm currently working on another article that I'm trying to get to GA status. Could someone archive this? Eurodyne (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted. Issues still to be fixed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffernutter

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

This is a GA on enwiki. I've expanded the article a ton, but it probably needs simplifying. Currently, I'm working on creating pages for the red links. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Eurodyne (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to withdraw. I think this request is already "done". I'll work on the article later when I have some time. Also, no need to comment on this request from many months ago. eurodyne (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted. Apologies; I hadn't noticed the date, and Mac's response wasn't dated. I'll mark this as closed for now. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna

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

I believe that the article should be a GA because it gives a detailed info about the R&B singer, it has all of her albums (including the yet-to-be-released #R8 album) as well as the bit about the assault with her ex boyfriend Chris Brown too. C-Sqwad (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It needed simplifying, so I just did some, along with some copy editing. Have you checked Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles to make sure the article qualifies? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I may have done (I was half asleep). -- C-Sqwad (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not sure, please go back and check now. That should be checked before you propose a page here. When you check the length, you don't include any infoboxes, tables, navigational boxes, lists, etc. You only count the text.
I answered your other question on your talk page, because it didn't belong here. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following on what Auntof6 said: The general text of this article seems thin. It may not be, and I'm no expert on Rihanna. But do you mind checking? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted - Per what is written above, the article is not yet in shape to be a GA here. We surely don't need to be as detailed as enwiki, but just by looking there it seems clear to me that this article is missing a lot. -Barras talk 13:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany national football team

change
Germany national football team (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article should be a GA because it gives a detailed history on the team, it displays the fixtures of the team, shows their achievements, uniforms and players, etc. Any recommendations for improvements needed will be appreciated. Also, compare the article to other national football teams and you will see that it is superior. Alicezeppelin (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alicezeppelin: References are not formatted and more importantly, German football didn't start in 2000, so the page is significantly lacking content for a GA. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The intro is for a summary, not a list of wins; the layout is so-so: left-ranging photos opposite right-ranging photos; content is so-so: if you miss the point about how national leagues interact with national teams, then you are missing important content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles/Archive_15&oldid=5273749"