Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 22

< Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

Sugar

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

Has enough sentences, and has about 3,500 bytes. It has many references and it definitely belongs to stay on this wikipedia. It’s got GA status on the English Wikipedia as well. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 05:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No progress on this for quite a while. Long past three weeks. Can an admin please close this? --Gotanda (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still no progress on this. The nomination appears to be abandoned. Can this be removed from the queue, please? --Gotanda (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted --Ferien (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


AGS-17

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.
AGS-17 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is comprehensive, detailed, has sources and citations. Simple writing and nothing really complicated, and it meets most of the criteria, no red links, it belongs in wikipedia, linked to other wikipedia pages, has citations from journals and books, no templates like {complex} and such, misses no major fact, has illustrations that are labled properly and its pretty much complete. DawnTheFirst (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. There are currently no good/very good articles about weapons, so AGS-17 would help diversify their topics. I'm not sure that the article meets the criteria currently, but I'll try to help over time. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the help. I'll attempt to add references, add more information and generally make it way more comprehensive. DawnTheFirst (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The writing is not quite simple enough. For one thing, there are compound and complex sentences that need to be divided. I just simplified the lead to give an idea of what I mean. There are also words that need to be changed to lower case. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are complex words that can be replaced IMO. Like manufactured --> Made, produced, I think similar alternates can be sought for many other complex words. There are shorter sentences that should also be simplified like, 'It was first seen in service in 1971'. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in this page.--BRP ever 12:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrible article in my opinion! It needs to be a tiny bit more simple, more comprehensive and more citations. As said by BPR, some words need to be changed and simplified. That is all! Yodas henchman (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yodas henchman Terrible means "extremely bad". Did you mean "terrible" or "terrific" (which means "extremely good")? Lights and freedom (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible! But not in an insulting way, but more of constructive critisism. Yodas henchman (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Interlingue

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

I believe the article is well-written, explains the history and the grammar of the language in a simple yet thorough way and has a lot of references. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the article is, is one-sided propaganda. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you base your argument on? The article is fully referenced so unless you point out where exactly is "propaganda", you are basically giving a worthless opinion. Caro de Segeda (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the article is propaganda? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 13:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of it, because it does not address the literature of why artificial languages have been rejected for over 100 years, and none is widely used. Nothing is new in Interlingua, and it has failed as all universal or artificial languages have failed. In fact, even where language is a problem (such as in Belgium), artificial languages have made little or no progress. That is without considering the absolutely failure in Eastern countries, where what has happened in China is the forceful introduction of one dialect of an existing language. In any event, articles written from the point of view of an advocate are by definition biased. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Interlingue, not an article supporting the use of an artificial auxiliary language, which is beyond its scope. The purpose of the article is to explain what Interlingue is, its history, its grammar and its literature, and that is what is should be judged for. Your last phrase (articles written from the point of view of an advocate are by definition biased), is an assumption with no base so your criticism is biased and does not focus on the article we are discussing here. Also, the fact that you say InterlinguA, instead of InterlinguE, tells us that you haven't even read the article, you are just against artificial languages in general and believe "everything is propaganda" without even taking the time to read the actual article, which, in my point of view, is quite disrespectful with the work that several Wikipedians have put in order to try to get it to a certain quality. Caro de Segeda (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a biased and one-eyed view of the topic. WP tries to give pro and con accounts of topics which advocate non-standard ideas. You have not done this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't give examples on why is biased. If we follow your standards, the article about Coca-Cola, for instance, is biased because "it doesn't give pro and con accounts" and so many more on this Wikipedia would be the same. You need to support your statament. The article just explains the language history, grammar and literature, and it is well referenced. It doesn't try to "sell you" Interlingue. So maybe the one who is biased against artificial languages is you, given the fact that you criticise very generally, do not support your critiques and, as per your previous message, don't even write the name of the language we are talking about correctly. Saying "all of it" [is propaganda]" clearly shows how you haven't even read the article, you just write a general statement against it, disrispecting the work put into creating it. It there is something in the article that needs to be improved, please let us know here, but do not come with general statements that state nothing but hte fact that you haven't even taken the time to read it. Caro de Segeda (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we perhaps focus ob the article? Note we are taking about a language so perhaps look at Dalmatian language or Spanish language as a comparison.-Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I have tried to promote. I believe the article complies with the requirements to be a Good Article and that is why I have proposed it in order to get that distinction. Caro de Segeda (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing that I can see that would be an issue is some of the linguistic terms. "Occidental had a bigger Germanic substrate" -> "Occidental was more influenced by Germanic languages" or "sounded more like Germanic languages", maybe? Blue linking other things such as 'vowels' and 'consonants' would also help. Also, might be a bit of a nitpick, but Cosmoglotta is interchangeably italicized in the history section. Otherwise, I support it, unless any other issues come up. Great page!🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I have made the necessary changes following your suggestions. If you find anything else that you believe needs to be changed, please let me know. Caro de Segeda (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The one consistent event in the history of invented languages is that they fail. Even when there is an absolutely uncontested need for a language (for example, for deaf or mute children) sign language is a very poor substitute. I am totally sceptical about the prospects of an international language getting any grip worldwide. Apart from functional deficiencies, nationalism is a huge barrier. I think it's true that over 100 have been proposed, and none has been widely used except by enthusiasts. I was once a convert (don't laugh!) to Basic English. But an article which avoids the elephant in the room is not to my taste. What is the elephant in the room? That's the question for you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the article is not about constructed languages, it is about Interlingue. It doesn't matter whether Interlingue met its purpose or not, that is not the scope of the article. Its purpose it is to present the language, end of story. The fact that Interlingue (or any other constructed language suceeded) has nothing to do with the article, which doesn't need to explain whether artificial languages failed or not (and also, "failure" can be interpreted differently by different people, so it includes some personal perception). This is the last time I will try to explain it to you because you clearly don't want to understand. Caro de Segeda (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last known person to speak a Dalmatian dialect was killed in a car accident at the end of the 19th century. IIRC, Dalmatian had like 3-5 large varieties, but only one can be reconstructed (there's not enough material for the others). The region where it was spoken was re-settled by speakers of Slavic languages; as far as I know, everyone there speaks a Slavic language now, there may be Italian-speaking minorities. Did Dalmatian fail? - I started the article on Dalmatian, if it failed, shoud the article be removed? - Following that reasoning, any extinct language failed, yet we do have articles about some of them. We do have an article on Russell's teapot, even though we will never be able to prove its exisence... Eptalon (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the discussion between Mac and Caro above, the article just is not simple. See the talk page for an example. An editor needs to go through and break everything down into simple sentences. I do not have enough interest in this topic or feel it is important enough to spend my time on it. Others may. If they do, it can be renominated, but this is not ready. Here is another example, "Only a few parts of speech (such as verb infinitives) in Interlingue have entirely obligatory endings, while many others either have endings the usage of which is optional and sometimes recommended." Not even close. --Gotanda (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Caro de Segeda (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No new edits in six weeks on this article. The many complex sentences have not been simplified.Readability of Wikipedia gives it a Flesch reading ease score of 48 (even as low as 5 for some passages). I do not think this qualifies as a good article. Time to move this out of the queue, please. --Gotanda (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No new edits in eight weeks. Long past time to close and clean up the queue, please. --Gotanda (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Atom

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

A lot of people have helped with this article, and I think it's now ready to propose for good article. I think it meets all of the requirements, except that it should be simplified some more. There is a "complex" tag, which is technically disqualifying, but this can be removed if others find it unnecessary. Also, I would like to know if it goes too far in depth in a topic, and if it misses any important content. It would be great if we can get this essential topic to GA. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should like to know what the word "almost" in the first para is referring to. What are the exceptions? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I originally wrote that almost all matter on Earth is made of atoms. There are a few other things like neutrinos, which are constantly passing through everything, and of course the particles in physics experiments. David spector has recently added that almost all matter in the universe is believed to be made of atoms. Which is not believed to be true, as dark matter is believed to be more common. Maybe we could say all "normal matter" and explain the details somewhere else? Lights and freedom (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article only has to deal with its topic, and neutrinos are not part of atoms (they pass through normal matter). I don't think these are real exceptions. The page only has to deal with atoms as we know them. Dark matter is just an hypothesis to explain an observation. I don't think it is relevant to the topic of the article. I want to get this page finished because it is educationally useful to secondary school physics. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross Please inform me if this edit resolves the issue. If not, feel free to change it. Lights and freedom (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. If this Wikipedia is in simple English, the topics covered should be simplified, too. I realize that some of its audience are adults of advanced education and intelligence for whom English happens to be a second or third language, but there are also others who can benefit both from simple English and simplified content, and they should not be neglected. Dark matter is one of many advanced and/or speculative topics that could be covered separately, so as not to be a source of confusion. David spector 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word "almost" is no longer in the first para, because it really wasn't referring to anything which would contradict the sentence. So as far as I'm concerned, the article can should be promoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph doesn't seem to flow very well. I think the most important points to start off with are

  • Atoms are a fundamental unit that needs to exist before larger collections of matter can exist
  • Everything around us (including us!) is made from atoms
  • There are types of atoms, called chemical elements
  • From a limited number of types of atoms, an unlimited number of things with different properties can be made

Does anyone have an idea of how to make it flow better? Lights and freedom (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it, Einstein's original idea was that the there were two fundamental things in the Universe, and they were and are matter and energy. If so, it is perhaps misleading to talk about matter in isolation. You can't have a universe with just matter. En wiki Universe, 4th para addresses the issue. It's something when we read "Ordinary ('baryonic') matter is therefore only 4.84%±0.1% [2015] of the physical universe". And " Stars, planets, and visible gas clouds only form about 6% of the ordinary matter."!! We gotta keep in touch, man! Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: It says that matter is things that have mass, and energy doesn't have mass directly. Does this other information belong on the atom article? It seems to me like a tangent better fit for the matter article. And most of the other stuff in the universe is thought to be dark matter/dark energy - didn't you want to keep that of this page because it's too complicated? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the En page on matter needs to be carefully read. It will have professional physicists and astronomers amongst its editors. It's tricky for us, because: "For much of the history of the natural sciences people have contemplated [thought about] the exact nature of matter" (so far, so good), but then "In the Standard Model of particle physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because the elementary constituents of atoms are quantum entities which do not have an inherent "size" or "volume" in any everyday sense of the word". !! Perhaps we just have to say something like "here's the simple idea but in advanced physics...". Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: This has been open for over six months and has not gained any votes in favor. I am withdrawing this so people can focus on things that will actually make progress. I may renominate this later. Lights and freedom (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Concrete

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

As I explained elsewhere, this is the work of many editors, and has historical and present-day relevance. It's been a good page for a long time, and it should be recognised. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be far too short to be a GA. Lallint (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While Lallint says this is too short, looking through it quite easily passes most of the GA criteria. Passes 1, 2 (it is over a few kilobytes long and goes into a reasonable amount of detail), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Although, I do think there should be a few more references for an article of this length. --Ferien (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it does pass criteria two. "Additives" is more of a merge of history and additives, and I think both of them could be elaborated. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I have trouble deciding on this one. On one hand, I approve of the article and think it covers all the essential aspects of the subject. On the other hand, it's a bit short, only 3.1 kB of readable prose. It was suggested before that good articles should have a minimum of 3.5, 5, or 6 kB. So I'm not sure what's missing, but maybe expand it a bit? Lights and freedom (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the general information, I think this page is sufficient. However, I believe more information needs to added and better referencing should be done for it to be one of the best work of the community.--BRP ever 12:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not a subject-matter expert on this, just a drive-by editor who thinks it's a good page. The importance is great for civilizations which were not in near-desert conditions. They needed something to stand up to the rain. Fired bricks and concrete were two things they invented. These inventions let you build almost anywhere on land. Otherwise you rely on nearby sources of rock, as the Egyptians did. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has potential. I have simplified a bit, added a bit, and left a comment on the talk page. If a few people work on this, I think we can get it there soon. --Gotanda (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, editors are not interested in working on this. This proposal has been open for six months for a process which is supposed to three weeks. Can an admin please close this as promoted or not? If not, it can always be renominated at any time when it is definitely ready. Gotanda (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Not promoted - While the article does show potential, little work has been done to fixit up to meet all the criteria. Please feel free to re-nominate when you think it is ready, and when actual work will be done to fix remaining issues.--Eptalon (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Russia

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

Enough short sentences, many images and many sources. A sensitive topic nowadays but very important (in English Wiki this article has GA status). And Russia is really rich country to explore. Frontfrog (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good overall. The history section (mainly the first half) needs more sources. It would be good if someone from Russia or has lived in Russia could evaluate this. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a lot of complex words still in the article. Looks great content-wise, but I'll try and help replacing the ones that I spot. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot of work Complex vocabulary and sentences. Here is just one example: "Extending from eastern Europe across the whole of northern Asia, Russia spans eleven time zones and has a wide range of environments and landforms." Not ready yet. --Gotanda (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone will simplify the text? I'm a little bit busy now for it but I want to find all missing sources. Frontfrog (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out: Yesterday I replaced a map (showing the administrative divisions); while Russia is de-facto in control of the Crimean peninsula (It has been, since 2014 I think), the peninsula is still considered part of Ukraine. Recently, Russia annexed Ukrainian territories - It doesn't show on the map yet (no one recognizes it, afaik), but when doing statistics, it is important that these territories are not included. Given that Russia and Ukraine are fighting at the moment, this needs very careful examination. Eptalon (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for map. We can omit details about the war. Frontfrog (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is more important to give general objective info about the country. Frontfrog (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a useful book about History of Russia (in notes). But complete book is available to patrons with print disabilities. Please, someone who is this patron add info about Tsardom of Russia (about Ivan the Terrible and so on). Frontfrog (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Readability site gives this a 49, which is still quite complex. This has a long way to go and either needs a lot of simplification now, or perhaps need to be renominated when it is ready. --Gotanda (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear for the count to five, this is an   Oppose at this point.--Gotanda (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose At this point, it's clearly too complex and not ready, with sentences like "Russia took responsibility for settling the USSR's external debts, even though its population made up just half of the population of the USSR at the time of its dissolution." I would suggest that the nominator try to improve this, and propose it again soon. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Between readability tests, the page is at about a 10th grade reading level. Considering that 'Did you Know?' nominations have a requirement of being around or below 8th grade, I believe this is still too complex, and it will take much more work to get to the point of a good article. The content is good, but it's not simple enough. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Not promoted - Currntly, we have three people who feel that the article is not ready, so I think there's no use in promoting it. This article has been sitting in the queue for months. Feel free to re-nominate when you think it is rady (and when people are prepared to fix the remaining issues)--Eptalon (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Rainforest

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

One of the older articles (created in May 2005, by an IP editor).

  1.  Y Article belongs in Wikipedia - I'd be surprised if it didn't.
  2.  Y Article must be fairly complete - It tells us about the subject, describes different layers, and also talks about animals and people there.
  3.  Y Article must have gone through a few revisions possibly by different editors - Over 500 revisions since creation; can't tell you how many editors.
  4.  Y The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. - yes
  5.  Y The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing). - If i do ont count capitalization, or moving sections/parts of the article, I have less than 20 real changes in the last half year or so.
  6.  Y All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. - No red links; I suppose all important terms are linked, but don't know.
  7.  Y If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. - We do have five properly-labelled images
  8.  Y There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. [...] The article also should not need them. - I haven't seen any...
  9.  Y Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. - We get five references, all books from the looks of it.

What might be misssing:

  • There's one comment on the article talk page (From 2014) about the source of oxygen turnover numbers; I have no idea if that has been addressed.
  • There are forests in temperate climates (Chile, US west coaat/Canada/Alaska, Tasmania, New Zealand that have perhaps also been called 'rainforest', do they need a mention?
Absolutely not, unless they meet the criterion in paragraph 3.
  • There may be more or less large forested areas (also in Europe, and Asia) ('primal forest', or similar) do they need a mention?

Despite these issues, I think we should discuss whether we award the 'Good Article' flag...--Eptalon (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be about tropical rainforests only. There are no tapirs, jaguars, or gorillas in the Olympics in Washington, but it is a rainforest. I would suggest moving everything to a article titled "Tropical Rainforest." EnWP has one. Then remove any mentions of temperate rain forests. Will make everything more coherent and manageable.
Also, there is still quite a bit of simplification to be done. Many sentences are not simple sentences.
But, I think this is on the right track and necessary. --Gotanda (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have created Temperate rainforest. Yes, I know it's a stub, and could probably be extended, but it's better than nothing. It is linked to the rainforest article Eptalon (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case we should change the title of this page to "Tropical rainforest". But it wasn't really necessary: the page did do justice to temperate rain forests, so they were not being ignored. We don't have a policy whereby because En wiki has a page, therefore we must have an identically titled page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should be renamed to Tropical rainforest as it mainly covers that and does not cover rainforests in general. Toucans, monkeys, slash and burn agriculture, hunter gatherers all feature prominently here and they are in tropical not temperate rainforests. Then remove the small amount of temperate information to the other article. This article is not about all rain forests as written. Gotanda (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still not ready. The contents do not match the title. The title is Rainforest but the content is primarily Tropical Rainforest see Characteristics "The characteristics of present-day tropical rainforests are:" Look at En where the two main types of rainforest are introduced and described. --Gotanda (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Not promoted - There are no editors who think this is ready, so I haven't promoted it. Feel free to re-nominate, when you think the issues have been addressed.--Eptalon (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Later, mainly as a result of this discussion, the content was split between "Tropical rainforest" and "Temperate rainforest". Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Yellowstone National Park

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.
Yellowstone National Park (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I can scarcely believe we don't already have this as a GA!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Talk page. I agree that this should be a GA. This is the kind of encyclopedic content that should be a VGA on the front page. But it isn't there (yet). --Gotanda (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and made some changes to try and simplify. With a few more changes, I can be more confident in its promotion. For now, I will weakly support, pending additional edits. ~Junedude433talk 19:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I simplified Bison, but Other predators, Fish, and Birds all still need work too. It is getting closer but still not ready. Can be simpler and needs some editing after simplification to make sure there is a good organizational flow and enough context. --Gotanda (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been simplified. Seems stable at this point. I do not think there are any outstanding issues to fix. No new comments for a couple of weeks and proposal open for three months. Can an admin please evaluate this for promotion? --Gotanda (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d agree with this. Is cited and everything looks good. There are red links for sure, but 8/9 is still very good. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 05:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Y Definitely belongs in Wikipedia
  2.  Y 28,040 bytes as of writing and goes into plenty of detail about Yellowstone
  3.  Y Many different editors in history
  4.  Y In the correct categories. Linked to Wikidata where the page is linked to 84 other Wikipedias.
  5.  Y Copyediting has been recently done by Macdonald-ross, Lights and freedom, and Gotanda.
  6.  Y 6 red links, but well over 100 blue ones.
  7.  Y Plenty of related illustrations, all of which are labelled.
  8.  N More simplification needed in a couple of areas. According to this readability test, the U.S. grade level needed (if you take an average of all 4 tests) is 8.8. For an article to be eligible for DYK, the article needs to indicate a U.S. grade level of no more than 8. On this article, it is less than 8 on 2 out of the 4 tests. So the article currently fails this requirement, but I don't think it will take too much work to get this up to an acceptable level. I also believe that more references are needed, as there are none in a couple of sections.
  9.  Y
--Ferien (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous readability link gives Flesch 62.41, but seems to not handle captions and bulleted lists that well. It now gives a grade level of 7.87 This one gives a rating of 68, so I think this may be ready. --Gotanda (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most readability measures were developed and validated on continuous prose. For sections which are not continuous prose, one just has to use one's own judgement. Words and sentences intimately connected to graphics have to be assessed by common sense. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's the point. The tools evaluate the full article. Just running text without captions and bullet points would no doubt be rated even simpler, such as these ratings are. I think this is "Good." --Gotanda (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Ferien's concerns have been addressed so that this now meets all criteria, but a neutral admin's evaluation is needed here. Thank you. --Gotanda (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda I think it's about ready, but by your very high standards on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, it wouldn't be. There you seemed to want every claim stated directly.
  • The source doesn't state that "Three years later, [John Colter] came back to St. Louis and told the people there that he had found an beautiful place of hot springs and geysers. This area was Yellowstone, but nobody believed him."
  • Several sources are dead links.
  • The geography section has no sources.
I believe I can fix these issues within one week (by February 7). But it's probably not good to push it through or apply different standards for promotions and demotions. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross and Gotanda: Currently, many of the facts and narratives are updated to 2007: for example, the numbers of elk, brucellosis outbreaks, and fire management plans. The status probably hasn't changed that much in the last 15 years. Do we need to update it to 2023 for "good" status, or can we leave it as it is? Note that some of these wildlife species have cyclical population patterns, so a description of "increasing population" may be misleading; population could fall a few years later. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have brought over some geography refs from EnWP. Can you point out which sources are dead links? Those do need to be fixed, but are not the same level of just plain historical errors with statements that were completely the opposite of the facts that were in Jackie O, I think. Also, GA not VGA. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda The remaining redlinks are:
  • 2006-2007 Winter Count of Northern Yellowstone Elk (#20). This is 15 years old, so should it be used as a source if found, or replaced?
  • Vital Habitats: Wetlands and Wildlife (#24)
  • Fire Management Plan: 2004 Update of the 1992 Wildland Fire Management Plan (#33). There was a new fire management plan released in 2014, and if we are to keep this up to date, someone would have to actually read through the 2014 plan to see what the differences are.
  • Wolverines at Yellowstone (#23) links to a website for the Sundance Festival, an annual film festival which has nothing to do with Yellowstone.
Lights and freedom (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was confused red links and dead links are different, right? Started patching up the last couple of red links. Replaced this Vital Habitats: Wetlands and Wildlife (#24)
with two specific sources for reptiles and amphibians. @Macdonald-ross, what do you think of the other points, especially age of a couple of sources? I'll see what I can do about the wolverines. --Gotanda (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the wolverine info and reference. Gotanda (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Colter issue by removing the overly specific "three," but the cited source does indicate everything else there. That he returned is not in doubt and the specific amount of time is perhaps not needed. --Gotanda (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda It doesn't say that nobody believed him. It says he told Clark, who included his reports on a map. As far as that reference goes, it could be that nobody cared about what he had seen. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be changed to something less specific like 'most people didn't believe him.' I think that's that's what the reference suggests. BRP ever 13:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm out of action with the Kraken variant of Covid which is not covered by the current antiviral preps. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Take care, @Macdonald-ross! --Gotanda (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was OK after a week or two. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Meets all requirements. At https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php, I got an average of 6-7th grade reading level. We can discuss whether it should have more information if it goes to PVGA, but for now, it's a good article. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Looks comprehensive and simple enough for GA. Definitely a good article about Yellowstone with the changes that have been made from this process. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Just want to indicate that I think this is ready and have nothing else to add or change at this point. --Gotanda (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support It looks really good to me and is really useful for Americans or for people who want to learn about USA, as it is a very important historical topic. Blissyu2 (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Promoted to good aticle - Looking at the result above, many people believe this should be a good article, so I promoted it. Congrats everyone--Eptalon (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Emu War

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.
Emu War (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've been working away at this for a while. Tagged my edits with Towards Emu War VGA, so you may have seen that in New Changes. I think it may be VGA, but based upon some recent discussions, I am nominating it for GA first. I hope it can be reviewed within three weeks as noted in the guidelines, but I appreciate that that takes the time of other admins and editors.

Using https://readabilityofwikipedia.com/ , this Simple version has a Flesch reading ease score of 66 where the original EnWP version is 48. This is significantly simpler.

As a historic event, it is unlikely to require much upkeep or maintenance. Though it does have its comic elements, the underlying issue of farming penetrating rural areas is important. This might be useful for school or interesting for some younger readers.

There has also been some discussion of too much ownership of GA or VGA proposals, so I will step back and let the discussion move for a while unless I am addressed directly. I expect to rejoin the discussion after a week or two to try to resolve any issues before closure.

Thanks!

Requirements: I think it ticks all of the boxes

  1.  Y The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia. (Long standing article on EnWP. 43 languages.)
  2.  Y The article must be fairly complete. (I adapted it from a pretty thorough EnWP article.)
  3.  Y The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. (This is mainly my work, but I asked for help on Simple Talk, and several other editors pitched in at the end, or at least reviewed.)
  4.  Y The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. (Yes)
  5.  Y The last few revisions should be minor changes. (Pretty much. Some very minor wording changes near the end, but nothing new added for quite a while.)
  6.  Y All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. (Yes)
  7.  Y If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. (I think so.)
  8.  Y There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. (OK)
  9.  Y Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. (I checked quite a few of the refs from EnWP by reviewing the original sources when possible.)

But, if anyone disagrees, please point out how myself or another editor can fix a problem, or even better, if you can, please fix it yourself. That would be a huge help. --Gotanda (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks well-written! Greatly simplified everywhere - don't know about a few words (conducted, desperate, estimate), but other than that I think it is great. Tried to help a little with some of the things I saw. Didn't think starting sentences with conjunctions was normal, but after looking it up I stand corrected. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not too many edits in the past ten days, and all minor: mostly emu singular to emus plural in a few places, one simplification, a couple of links, and the expansion of G. P. W. Meredith's name. I am not sure if that last one should stick as it seems complex and the initials were often used. Thanks, DovahFRD and Lights and freedom. --Gotanda (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support there have not been any edits for a good amount of time, and I believe the article is in a good place to be promoted. Comprehensive and simple work on the Emu War. Ticks all of the boxes as far as I can see! 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can almost support. The only problem I have is that "the army" is used several times when referring to three soldiers. I find this misleading - three soldiers do not compose an army. In the fourth sentence of the article, it's okay because "the army" was the overarching organization that decided to kill the emus. In other places, however, the word should be changed. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even a small unit represents "the army," I think, but perhaps another editor can comment on that. Which specific instances of "the army" do you think should be changed? And, do you have any suggestion for a simple alternative? Thanks! --Gotanda (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. However, reference two says "...the machine-gun jammed. The five soldier-settlers supporting him immediately opened fire with their rifles..." (this refers to the second paragraph under "First try") The fact that other people, besides these three, also had guns, should really be mentioned. Because the article really sounds like only 3 people were involved. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Added "Some soldier-settlers also helped them." We can read that five opened fire. There may have been others who did not. Either way, they were not the main combatants. I think "some" covers their presence, but does not go beyond the reference. Does that work there? First paragraph. --Gotanda (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support this is a good article that I am passionate about. It is a very important part of Australian history that is also very interesting as not many people outside of Australia know about it. Not all that many people in Australia know about it either! It's very interesting and just feels like one of those Do You Know? kind of articles that can educate and inform. Blissyu2 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support It shouldn't be extremely difficult to reach GA status; this meets all criteria and is generally simple. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Just in case it was unclear, I approve the article that I nominated. --Gotanda (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: promoted to good article - There's a widespread support in the community, so this is now a good article; congrats.--Eptalon (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Megadeth

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

There's a couple of red links left, but at the moment I think it's good and comprehensive enough to propose. Looks like it passes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. A lot of cited, relevant information, relevant images that are captioned, and plenty of sections. DovahFRD (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to work with here. It can also be much simpler. I went through the lede and simplified step-by-step. There are comments on each simplification in the edit history. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to update this. The page has gotten a lot simpler since the nomination, and some other issues have been fixed as well. I think it is in a much better state now than it was a month ago. DovahFRD (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted some things about the article a while back and left comments about them on the talk page- however, haven't gotten any feedback on them. Hoping they'll be more visible if I put them here. Just hoping to get the article in a better spot:
"A different bassist was going to make new recordings. Mustaine did not say who this bassist was. (...) Steve Di Giorgio, the bassist for Testament, played on The Sick, the Dying... and the Dead!". Is there a simple way to clearly connect the fact that Di Giorgio was the secret bassist? Chronologically, James LoMenzo plays bass with the band first (reason for the ellipse), so the fact that the new bassist was a secret and then it being Di Giorgio is broken up.
Is 'fired' (as in job) a simple term? Don't know a more concise way to put it, but wondering if I'm just not thinking hard enough. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these have been resolved on the talk page. Thanks, Lights - 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result:Promoted - thank you everyone, and congrats, we do have a new good article.--Eptalon (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

"Paint It Black"

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.
Paint It Black (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've been working on this page for a few days. "Paint It Black" is a song by the Rolling Stones, and one of the most popular rock songs from the 1960s. So far, I have been the only one who has made major edits to the page (except for the IP that made it) - I tried to see if others wanted to help on the Wikipedia Discord, but did not get any responses. So, I hope that this discussion will bring in the editors to help the page pass requirement 3.

Putting it through this readability checker, the page is at a 5th to 7th grade reading level, depending on which test you look at. There are many reliable citations, including biographies and other music-related books.

The requirements list (at a glance):

  1.  Y Popular song, which has been very important in the development of rock music - belongs on Wikipedia
  2.  Y Looks to be complete. Covers the song itself, as well as recording, sales/chart performance, and its legacy
  3.  N It has gone through many revisions, but not by different editors. See above statement. 🤟
  4.  Y Has links, and is categorized
  5.  Y Apart from a short paragraph added, all of the newest changes have been grammar, organization, and small simplifications
  6.  Y Complex words are linked, and there are not many red links left. You could say that there are many red links left in the performance tables - if that is a problem, then I would be happy to make pages for them.
  7.  Y Includes pictures, which are relevant and labeled
  8.  Y No tags that say it has major problems
  9.  Y Information is cited, and citations are properly formatted

What does everyone think? Thanks in advance. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promote. Looks pretty good to me. FusionSub (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DovahFRD: I went in and fixed a couple of the red links. I do not see any glaring issues, so I will Support this. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my help with the page should deal with #3. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support fr33kman 18:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support, if it does not follow one single criteria, then it still should be a GA. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Bobherry Talk My Changes 20:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Promoted to good article--Eptalon (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Slavery

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

Hello, I would like to nominate "Slavery" as a good article. It was started in 2003, so it might be one of the oldest articles this Wikipedia has (I am around since 2006, I think). Many people contributed. Without going into too much detail, I think the article is generally in a good condition. What I see though is the following: It might be a little too centered on what is called the "triangular trade", that is the situation in Europe, and the Americas. We might be a bit lacking in all the subjects conerning "indentured labor", or the moderrn forms of exploitation/slavery (sweatshops, exploitation of chldren, forced marriage,...). As all of these need to be done in annex articles though, I think this article is probably ready to get the flag "good article". Note: I am going for good article first, as with very good articles, things like completeness are an issue. So what do people think? --Eptalon (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will support this proposal as it looks ready to be a good article.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance, you might want to fix the red links. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all of them in the main article. As to the slavery template: there are some left. Some of them will be large articles, and in some cases, creating an accurate article is difficult. Eptalon (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My review:
  1.  Y Clearly belongs in Wikipedia.
  2.  Y 28,485 bytes. More than the few kilobytes required.
  3.  Y Has gone through 600 revisions, with 258 different editors over the years.
  4.  Y Categories appear appropriate. Wikidata has 149 interwiki links.
  5.  Y Since 5 August, the last few changes have all been minor – link fixing and spell-checking by Eptalon and me adding cats.
  6.  Y Other than the {{slavery}} template, there are a grand total of 5 redlinks in the whole article, which is not a problem. I'm pretty sure the templates don't count anyway?
  7.  Y Plenty of illustrations that relate to the article. All properly labelled, although some may need simplification.
  8. Going through each of the tags:
    1. {{complex}} I think some simplification will be needed. I've gone through with the readability test, and one section got around US grade level 20.
    2.  Y {{cleanup}} No issues that I can see.
    3.  Y {{stub}} Clearly not a stub.
    4.  Y {{unreferenced}} No unreferenced sections.
  9.  Y
So, I think some simplification is needed, but other than that, this looks fairly good. --Ferien (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, what needs to be done, to allow this to become a good article? - The only thing I can think of is cleaning up the slavery template. It looks like it has been copied over, without much thought what articles we might or might not need. Likely this is not part of making this a good article, though. Also, it likely is a community-effort... Eptalon (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support looks good. Bobherry Talk My Changes 19:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting but difficult topic. It involves criticism by modern technological societies of older non-technological societies. Of course, we don't need slaves now, so we can afford to look down on societies that did. They were a stage in civilisation without which we could not have our societies today. Slavery was almost universal in ancient times. There's always an air of sneering at this aspect of humanity. Having slaves was completely and utterly rational for ancient societies. We use machines! The other thing which we should avoid is the takeover of the topic by its example in the U.S.A. That was really unusual, because both whites and blacks were intruders on the land which originally had mostly buffaloes eating grass. Poor buffaloes, they really got it in the neck! The article is overburdened by the history of North America, to the detriment of the more general experiences of the Mediterranean area and Africa. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read your comment, rewriting the article to have a more gloal view is likely a lot of work, and not doable in a few weeks...? Eptalon (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And as to modern-slavery: Hand-made carpets are likely the work of children (because the small knots require small hands), affordably-priced clothes are often produced in sweatshops (don't ask where, and don't ask about working-conditions)..no, neither is called slavery... Eptalon (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that there are just as many, if not more, modern slaves than in the past. It's just criminal groups doing it today and calling it trafficking rather than whole societies dong it as in the past. fr33kman 07:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support looks good now fr33kman 07:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eptalon: There is a section about Japanese people taken as slaves. QUESTION: Were Japanese more likely than other Asians to be taken as slaves? If not this seems like undue weight/emphasis on one topic. I'm not saying it should be removed, but maybe general information should be added to balance it out? Kk.urban (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I remember, this covers the early modern period (since about 1500). Like anywhere else there was slavery in Asia. Note also that at GA level we are not looking for completeness. It is likely there was slavery elsewhere (China, Korea, India,Oceania?), but this needs to be covered in separate articles... note: I am not a historian,so I can't tell you exactly. In my opinion, the article puts too much weight on the slave trade between Africa and North America, and neglects others. A few weeks back I wrote a few annex articles about slavery in Islam/the Ottoman empire. Pointed out above: very extensive topic. Eptalon (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I am a bit concerned about some unsourced paragraphs in certain sections, but it isn't enough to make me oppose this. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell me what sections and I will try to find references Eptalon (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Early civilizations, Ancient Rome, Stopping slavery, and to a lesser extent Slavery today. Stopping slavery is unsourced, which is very bad. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added some text, and rewritten some sections(today: 'slavery today'). I have seen that there are a few fact templates, which prevent the article from being promoted. I also have to say that the subject is endlessly complex: yes, some child soldiers were likely forced or deceived, yet in other cases, being a child soldier is well paid (No one tells that it is illegal; as alwys: proverty, and likely missing perspectives/education play a role). My fundmental question thzough is a different one: I nominated this 1.5 month ago. Subject is endlessly complex, and we can likely spend a lot more work on it. Do we remove the sentences with the fact template, and promote. or do we forget about it. Can we get a decision by the end of October? Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support promoting. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As would I fr33kman 15:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: promoted - I have promoted the article, as there seems to be support in the community for that. --Eptalon (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Earth

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

I have been looking at this article, and have decided to nominate it for GA. This article is one of the oldest ever articles on Simple Wikipedia. And I think it deserves a nomination of GA if it hasn't already. How it fits the criteria:

  1.  Y Obviously Belongs in Wikipedia, being one of the oldest here.
  2.  Y It is pretty much complete, telling you the basics of the planet, also having more in-detail stuff to it about biology, geology, and astronomy.
  3.  Y As of current, it is 49,405 bytes long, or about 49 KBs long. And has more than 700+ editors that have worked on it over the years.
  4.  Y Categories are appropriate to the article. And has more than 300+ Interwiki links.
  5.  Y I've fixed up some stuff that was complex, and I think its good to go for now.
  6.  Y There is only 6 redlinks in the article. (1 in infobox, 5 in references. All 6 are very specific though.) All redlinks have been cleared and fixed. As of current, there is no redlinks in the articles.
  7.  Y A good amount of images, all related to the earth by geology, astronomy, or biology.
    1.  Y The Article as a whole is simplified, or atleast I think so.
    2.  Y {{cleanup}} None that I can see.
    3.  Y {{stub}} Not a stub.
    4.  Y {{unreferenced}} Every section has a reference.
  8.  Y There is content from books, journals, and other publications.

Thoughts? RiggedMint 15:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did the readability test, and it shows a grade level of 5 or 6 too. RiggedMint 17:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can this article VGA such as Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune.90.154.71.147 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about VGA; I'm keeping it GA for now. RiggedMint 16:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although with a few revisions and such, I think it would be VGA type stuff. RiggedMint 16:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have officially fixed all redlinks from earth. RiggedMint 19:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged a lot of areas where there is a lot of stuff being said with no source. Please fix these issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link the stuff using table of content numbers? RiggedMint 22:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Closed as promoted by Eptalon. Chenzw  Talk  01:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Made You Look

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.
Made You Look (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on this article on the English Wikipedia for multiple years. The version here now hopefully meets the good article criteria. Here is my take on how it fits the criteria:

  1.  Y The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia. (Meets the notability guidelines for songs.)
  2.  Y The article must be fairly complete. (It is built to the same level of comprehensiveness as its version on the English Wikipedia, a featured article.)
  3.  Y The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. (I have had very generous help from QuicoleJR in improving this page and the first few revisions were also from different users.)
  4.  Y The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. (Yes)
  5.  Y The last few revisions should be minor changes. (Last few revisions have been minor simplification edits.)
  6.  Y All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. (Only redlinks currently in the article are automatically produced by singlechart templates and are for notable subjects that should probably have articles anyway.)
  7.  Y If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. (Yes)
  8.  Y There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. (None)
  9.  Y Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. (Yes)

Happy to deal with any disagreements and to continue the good work here!--NØ 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: There are a few things that need explaining; like "comp my vocals" in the Background and release section; "track me", same section; and "She says the name of famous fashion companies like Gucci and Louis Vuitton." is a dead-ended sentence. Other than that, it looks good. fr33kman 22:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles/Archive_22&oldid=9797324"