Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 8

Archived requests

Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Only including one source but a strong one. GA ready in my opinion in one second to not being it the next. Thats why i am nominating it to get more input.Sinbad (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say it only has one reference at the moment, and regardless of how strong it is I feel it needs more to allow it to become GA status. Gob lin 16:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

I think it needs more references. The article is quite fine other than that. Nifky^{^} 05:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more lead prose as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I do not recall there being any question of Nixon actually asking the burglers to do the job; the question was whether he covered it up when he did know about it. That seems to underline the need for key statements to be backed by more/better refs. 2. Some basic text-editing needed, eg delinking dates, and putting dates in the now standard order. 3. If claims are made about closeness of elections, the standard stats are states won and overall votes. The election vs Kennedy was close enough to make these statistics really essential. I feel more could be said about his political career to the benefit of the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i see. atleast recieved some suggestions.--Sinbad (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: This article has been here for 3 weeks and I see hardly any effort to improve it. Thus, this is not promoted. Fix the issues and bring this article here again. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left a PGA review on the talk page. In general poor quality article, needs to improve in many respects. --Eptalon (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article on one of the worlds most influential politicans. In my opinion GA ready. But please give me your opinions and suggestions.Sinbad (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left some short words on the article's talk page. --Barras ^talk 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it's too short and too many red links to be a GA.--  † CR ₉₀ 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: - Size and redlinks are irrelevant at GA quality articles. Gob lin 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
With all due respect I don't care, GA are supposed some of our best and an article this short with this little information does not strike me as such.--  † CR ₉₀ 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this. I have seen (heck, written) articles that are of better quality than this and aren't GAs. I would say 10-15 more references would do it good, a few more links, a few less redlinks, and slight prose cleanup. The length is OK, though Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say Biden is any better or worse, but apart from that, you've hit the nail on the head Purple. The length is fine, the article isn't. Talking of Purple, when will we see it back here? Gob lin 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

Couple days Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article too complex. — μ 10:48, Tuesday January 12 2010 (UTC)

OK i see.--Sinbad (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Same as below; no effort to fix this. Please review the GA criteria, address the issues and come here again. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day

Green Day (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Looks almost there. Well referenced, informative, inline cites and very few red links. Thoughts? ···Katerenka (討論) 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add one or two more citations in the American Idiot section, and I'll support it Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added four references to the section you mentioned in regards to their awards. ···Katerenka (討論) 10:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more could be said about "21st Century Breakdown"? It's been almost as successful as American Idiot, certainly over here in the UK at least... (And I went to their gig twice, but that's besides the point ^-^) Gob lin 15:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

So successful that I've never heard of it? (Also, you went to their gig? Ew, it's just noise) — μ 10:49, Tuesday January 12 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that section could do with some of their charting songs from that album. Overall, the article's great. Nifky^{^} 05:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I, shhhh *support* this being made into a GA. I'll wait for a bit and if there's no objections I might make it one tommorow :D FSM ^Noodly? 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, wut? You won't make it one tomorrow, because there's no consensus formed here for a promotion of said article. PGA is a community-based process, not one user coming along and just deciding that he likes an article. If it's promoted, i'll be quick to un-promote. Gob lin 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

(unindent) Three users said they thought it was good enough, most of the the problems that have been pointed out are fixed. Isnt that what you do when your promote, decide you think its good enough and then promote? Why can't I? I fail to be bothered to participate in this process any-more, and I fail to want to try and fix it. It seems like you've appointed yourself leader of PGA/VGA because you are the only one doing clerical work on it. I won't be contributing to this area of the project anymore. FSM ^Noodly? 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs another lead image; the current one is nominated for deletion. — μ 10:53, Tuesday January 12 2010 (UTC)

Closed as promoted: At the end of three weeks, I see more or less clear consensus to promote this to GA. No issues have been raised, and after a quick check, I found the article to be good overall. Thus, this is promoted to GA status. Congratulations, Lauryn. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden

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

Twice-failed, but most or all of review concerns fixed; has also been several months and a few tweaks in GA criteria since last nom Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im in support of this article getting GA status.--Sinbad (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and good for PBP89 for persevering. I think the article is decent and doesn't need much to get my support for GA. I hate, hate the mix of non-human-readable and human-readable dates in the references, and I'd rather see some merging of the many short paragraphs so the prose reads nicely with some flow to it, but it's not far off. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates:

Fixed, I think. I also fiddled around a little with the personal life section, which has the short paragraphs that are now fused, but you may want to tweak the flow. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of minor changes, but I'm now satisfied this is a good article with just one caveat - "stimulus bill" isn't simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you that the actual stimulus bill isn't simple...it makes the OED look like Cat in the Hat. I can't think of a good word for that. Maybe I'll just create an article to describe it. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, linking stimulus bill to this should clear everything up Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. The article looks much better than it was when you proposed it the first time. No concerns from me. -Barras ^talk 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, well referenced, and no red links. I have no problem with this article becoming a GA. Megan|^talk_changes 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed with Megan.--Sinbad (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Here is a clear consensus for promoting this article to GA status. The concerns are fixed and the article has been improved. Good work! -Barras ^talk 21:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping Forecast

Shipping Forecast (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Because Microchip08 is too lazy/scared to list himself; it's ready. Gob lin 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Looks reasonably good, but would cut the introductory clause in the nom Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom? I don't see a nomination in the article to cut from. Please rephrase your comment; I have no idea what you are talking about. "Reasonably" good? OK, so I haven't worked hard enough -- could you list some improvements so I can make it better? Thanks, — μ 23:47, Thursday January 7 2010 (UTC)

Nom=The nomination of this as a GA, i.e. where Gob takes a shot at you above. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Could we focus on the article itself, please? I've worked hard on it, and struggled to find sources. I'd like to know what made you feel the need to qualify your "looks good" statement. — μ 23:55, Thursday January 7 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking shots at anyone fyi. Chippy was refraining from nominating his article as he didn't think it met criteria - despite multiple assurances it did - so I nominated on his behalf. Regards, Gob lin 23:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

It definetely has enough links and references, I'm just a little worried that the lead is too me and some of the sections are too small Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too me? What does that mean (sorry for being dumb)? Which sections? Any suggestions on how to expand them? — μ 00:09, Friday January 8 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Length of article/sections is not a requirement of GA. Gob lin 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

For some reason, it didn't look right before, but now it does. Let's make this a GA

Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm positive about this one; some comments on talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still have some comprehensiveness issues listed on the talk page. Once those are done, I can support promotion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to find any any 'making of' sources to add to the article; and I have no idea as to how it is actually made. Could you give me some advice as to what to do? — μ 22:01, Thursday January 14 2010 (UTC)

Im supporting GA status for this article. Its about time.--Sinbad (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has made process and there are people agreeing with this becoming a GA. Length isn't a matter at all. I close this as promoted as it seems to meet our criteria. -Barras ^talk 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

For the exact same reasons as the Haiti nomination. Sinbad (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 5 references? More please. —§ stay (sic)! 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it somewhat.--Sinbad (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References not formatted. Please use {{cite web}}. Pmlineditor ∞ 14:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sinbad (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA ready now.--Sinbad (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. The lead is too short, it needs to be expanded. Try at least 2 paragraphs. —§ stay (sic)! 12:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sinbad (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted Exempt of the proposers yes to there article, I don't see more input. Also, just by scrolling down the article I can find one issue that the proposer should be able to fix ithout any comment as it is the standard, namely the date links in the prose. Not GA ready yet. -Barras ^talk 13:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Haiti

Geography of Haiti (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well referenced, informative, balanced article. GA ready. Sinbad (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not well referenced. — μ 19:23, Monday January 18 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it somewhat.--Sinbad (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the criteria and relist it later, this is clearly not ready to be a good article. Regards, — μ 16:09, Thursday January 21 2010 (UTC)

I disagreeing with you on this issue but thats the good thing about this being a proposed good article and not yet an good article.--Sinbad (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready. Lead is about as long as the rest of the article. Not enough information, references need to be formatted correctly, let me know when it's all done, or if you want a line-by-line review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted There are still the issues pointed out by TRM. References are not fixed and so on. Not a GA. -Barras ^talk 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti

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

Informative, one of the best nation articles on Simple English Wikipedia. Sinbad (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not now. Big earthquake, current event topic, captial city destroyed, maybe after all the media attention is gone. —§ stay (sic)! 18:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article doesnt even mentioning the earthquake and their is no current event status on the article i dont see any reason for that.--Sinbad (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an isolated incident so to say.--Sinbad (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The earthquake is very strong per the magnitude scale. Also with the catastrophic aftermath, something about it should be mentioned in its recent history. —§ stay (sic)!

(<-) Making a decent article about the earthquake can give us visibility. I have not looked at the article about the country, but I have to agree with Not Now. What we have seen is possibly the biggest (as most deadly) earthquake to hit the region in the last century. In addition, it has hit a country that struggles with many other things as well (IIRC, more than half of thep opulation lives on less that 1 USD parity a day). Keeping the focus on what the article should be about (the country, not the earthquake) will be very difficult until the media coverage regarding the earthquake fades away. While we are at it, making 2010 Haiti earthquake might be an option. Note however, the article is nowhere near meeting any crieria though; ie. a lot of work. --Eptalon (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse it should be mentioned in the article. But i dont think it should be any problem to evaluate the Haiti article now as it will only mention the earthquake incident, i mean the earthquake itself has its own article and it should be to mutch info about it on the Haiti article. if it now is sutch a big event then why hasnt anybody already added a mention about it on the Haiti article by the way?--Sinbad (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously no longer comprehensive. — μ 19:24, Monday January 18 2010 (UTC)

Updated. The earthquake has its own article where it is updated. End of that issue.--Sinbad (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to evaluate the article on Haiti not the earthquake in Haiti. Haiti is a nation and has had a long history before this earthquake.--Sinbad (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many red-links for me, even for GA, references need to be correctly formatted, Holidays section is as long as the History section which rings serious alarm bells for me. I know it's only GA, but we need to get close to comprehensive coverage, even at a top level. Not ready yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent earthquake is now a major point in Haiti's history. Why? Its very notable, its captial city and government was destroyed, thousands of lives were tragically lost, and affected Haiti significantly after the earthquake(s). The country rarely had an earthquake of that magnitude so strong compared to the one two weeks ago. Its best to keep the article updated and not to promote now. —§ stay (sic)! 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many red links in the economy section. Overall, the article is too unbalanced for me. The economy section, for example, has five, six paragraphs worth of information, but the demographics section has three sentences. The list of holidays adds nothing to the article as far as I can tell. Overall, going on here for a GA article right now. Either way (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some things said. If there is an article about the earthquake itself, then that's fine, but at least link that article to Haiti. ~~Also, the dated years should be linked.~~ This article is just not ready yet. I-on talk sign! 14:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the dated years shouldn't be linked at all. There is no real use for it. Most people agreed on this and all our current (V)GAs have the dates unlinked (exempt of biogrpahies in the lead, the birth/death in brackets). -Barras ^talk 14:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry. I didn't know. Ignore that comment. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 18:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted There are still issues on this article. Not all references are properly formatted. The Demographics section is very short for an own section. Only by scrolling down, I can see this issues that are not fixed yet. -Barras ^talk 12:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Grace (1991)

Hurricane Grace (1991) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This one's been around a few months and nothing major was brought up. Think it's good enough for GA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~This article is an obvious and almost identical copy of the en version. Also most of it is not simple. —§ stay (sic)! 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- In this case: The copy is allowed. That the article is not simple (didn't read it) is an other thing. -Barras ^talk 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's obviously a continuation of his grudge against me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problems in the article. Good enough for GA, imo. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support GA status for this article to.--Sinbad (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Dab'ed on en but no need here - perhaps create a redirect at Hurricane Grace for this, as no-one is going to type (1991) in the search box, are they? Or, create the dab and link out to this article. Can't believe you don't link perfect storm in the lead, several "big" words, like "intensity" and "remnants" need to be linked/simplified. That's a couple of things in two seconds (sorry I'm otherwise engaged), if you want a full review, email me. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English is still too complex [1] needs work to get it into simple English. --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Too complex for GA. —§ stay (sic)! 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An argument based on a tool doesn't help that much. It would be better if you read the article and help to make it easier or at least drop a few lines on the talk page that others know what needs to be done. Thanks -Barras ^talk 19:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRM: Thanks, I'll work on it over the next couple days. Peter: perhaps, but I agree with Barras in that an automated tool isn't the best way to determine that. Snake: feel free to help out, of course! This is a wiki after all. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any major problems with simplifying here. Looks just fine to me. Megan|^talk_changes 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a bit of an effort to simplify the remaining complexity. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few comments on the talk page. -Barras ^talk 12:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now. The wikt link is created. Seems to be good enough for GA. Well done. -Barras ^talk 15:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: As there are no other objections, it think it's time to give the article a GA status. --Mercy (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

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

Interesting reading, good sourcing, informative. Sinbad (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article in my opinion.--Sinbad (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA ready, for sure.--Sinbad (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me. But doesn't the country's government hold a reputation for being corrupt, or at least in the past? —§ stay (sic)! 12:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great length, plenty of blue links (good to see), and a fair amount of refs. There are loads of sections which can be simplified. If some things can't be any more simplified then they are but are still complex, remember to place the {{complex}} template on the complex sections. A small support for me. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who did most of the additions to this article, and it was a VGA before I decided to add the Government section, so I definitely think that this article is a definite Good article, at the very least. Razor flame 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The legislative branch of the Romanian government is known as the Parliament. It contains two chambers – the Senate, containing 140 members, and the Chamber of Deputies, which has 346 members.[81] The members of both chambers are elected every four years through party-list proportional representation.[81] The judicial branch of the Romanian government is separate from the other branches. It is made up of a system of courts.

This stuff is so unnecessarily complicated! Why talk about the "legislative branch" which then requires the editor to create an article to explain it, when you can simply say "Parliament" and link that? Likewise, why write about the "judicial branch" when you can just say "Law courts" or "Legal system"?

KISS!

Amandajm (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)08:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted There are concerns above referring to the complexity to of the article. A non fixed issue. Please try again later when it is fixed. Not all references are properly formatted (accessdate/publisher is missing). -Barras ^talk 12:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Tina Watson

Death of Tina Watson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article that I created, was first here on Simple Wikipedia before it became an article on English Wikipdia which is nice that we were first:). It is thoroughly detailed, very long, has many references, and is quite simple and easy to read. --Sinbad (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sinbad, this is probably the best, most balanced article about on the Watson case. The contributors have kept it current and objective without descending into the emotional hash of other accounts. Facts are handled sensibly. The link back to the Tom and Eileen Lonergan case is now properly described and documented, as is case influence and the spectre recently raised of a death penalty and double jeopardy for Mr Watson. Now included are some relevant legal policies and practice of the Australian Commonwealth.

Thanks. Agreeing with you. it really covers both the case and other things surrounding the legal aspects of the crime.--Sinbad (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reading figures on this article show that is still has a long way to go be in simple English [2]. The Flesch Reading ease score is 54% - a figure around 70% should be a target to aim for. I'll have a look at it soon. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
still 54% is better than let say 30 or 40% which isnt unusual here on simple wikipedia. So its just about some simplyfication.--Sinbad (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles at 30 to 40% should not be here at all! But yes, some simplifying - have done a bit tonight, and increased figure to 60%, will do some more tomorrow. Apart from that, it is a good article and worth working on. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we know, that tool isn't exactly the best indicator. Actually reading the article and providing examples of complexity is by far the best way of resolving this perceived issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter.:)--Sinbad (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To that can be added that I have seen article with about 60% which has becomed GA articles. Even some with 55% i have searched on. But if you can get the % up some more please do.--Sinbad (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many issues in this article. The article contains too much in terms of speculation, personal analysis, and unencyclopedic information. I'm working on some clean up right now, but there's a lot going on here. The "Investigation" section, for example, is way out of sorts. It starts out in Jan. 2008 as being "still under investigation" yet it never tells us why an investigation had begun. It then talks about 2007. A few sentences later it's about March 2005, then back to 2008 to talk about his new wife which has absolutely no connection to the investigation and is just tabloid gossip that she looks like the deceased. The article also mentions people such as "Justice Muir" or "Sergeant Flinn" but we have no clue who these people are. A lot of clean up needed here. Either way (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for doing those clean-ups even though I dont agree with you on all of them I think you have made the article mutch better.--Sinbad (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its definitly ready for GA now. Thanks to all who contribute.--Sinbad (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? This isn't even close to GA material yet. None of my concerns about the order have been addressed at all. Either way (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats your humble opinion. You yourself have addressed all or most of the issues in your drastic edits. And other people are of other opinions.--Sinbad (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way this is a GA review not a VGA review. Your standards are extremely high and not the view shared by me (for example). I also dont agree with many of your edits on the article.--Sinbad (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say that i dont respect your opinion. But i just dont agree with you at all on this issue. Hopefully Razorflame will make edits that will satisfy ous all and make it in everyones opinion GA ready.--Sinbad (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel my standards are too high. However, I think logical order are to be expected in articles regardless of GA or VGA status. If I knew nothing of the case (which I didn't until yesterday), I would be extremely confused by this article (especially in the state it was in before some of the major rewrites of the last day). Either way (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you now when you have fully replied what was the issues.. but as i said i think Razorflames copyedits and changes will satisfy you my friend to. Cheers.--Sinbad (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an orphan and is tagged as such. Because of that, it fails the guidelines for GAs. Either way (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a minor issue and has no value in the overall status of a article/ its not a problem for the article itself and you know that too Either Way. --Sinbad (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The orphan tag has been removed by an established user, which came to the conclusion that it was not an orphan.--Sinbad (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the tag needs to be replaced. The article is most certainly an orphan. Links coming from user talk pages and this page do not count. The only other inbound link is the Tina Watson redirect page and that does not count either. Therefore, it has no inbound links to the article. fr33k man 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are people of other opinions on that subject. Please comment on the orphan discussion on the articles talk page before adding any sutch tag back.--Sinbad (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And anyhow that doesnt make this article any less worthy og GA status. Orphan tags doesnt reflect the overlal quality of an article. So that discussion can be closed as of now.--Sinbad (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually SInbad, it does. Articles with tags on them are not allowed to be promoted; see the PGA rules. fr33k man 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could discuss this to the end of the world. I still question why the orphan tag was placed there and i still question its status as i dont think the article should have an oprhan tag of any kind. Still i wont get into any heavy discussions about that and ask people to look at this article for what it is. Wont be able to beon simple wikipedia for a couple of weeks as i am going abroad so i dont really have any interest in keeping this discussion afloat.--Sinbad (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a GA worthy article. Thats it.--Sinbad (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking it personally! Don't, just fix it instead. With the tag there it won't be promoted, full-stop. What an {{orphan}} is is not debatable, it has been decided years and years ago. fr33k man 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well just as you did when i removed the orphan tag i guess so we are even.. :). I have made some edits in favour of what you proposed.--Sinbad (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some improvements atleast my friend.--Sinbad (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No per above. GAs shouldn't be orphaned. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a questionable one which has led to a debate.--Sinbad (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway,majority decides.--Sinbad (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted Has many issues and concerns that have been raised above. Please try again when they are fixed. Razor flame 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lichen

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

Seems to tick most boxes; comments welcomed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember this was delisted...or did it just fail before? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the history; Eptalon was the initial contributor. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Left a very small review on the talk page; waiting for others.. --Eptalon (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments were left by μ on the article talk page. Changes to the article have been made to meet these points. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like this article. good that someone proposed it for good.--Sinbad (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be promoted.--Sinbad (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Ref 2 is highly problematic for a start, we can't ref out to (a) another wiki and (b) especially one without a reference there either. Classification is unreferenced, neither is Mutual benefits or Reproduction. Bare URLs in references aren't good either. And the Map lichen caption is way complex. And that's just in a two-minute glimpse. If you'd like a full review, ping me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 refs added, with page #s. Text adjusted in places. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very wonderful article. I agree that you should make it a good article! Long, sweet, and many various references all delight my eyes. If only I had proposed it, too.... No red links, either!! Very well chosen, Macdonald-ross! I hope it will become one.... Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support it stll with changes. Promote.--Sinbad (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed some typos but over all everything else seems good. Megan|^talk_changes 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to extend this for a week to fix concerns. Bare websites is a big no-no. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. MOS issues (en dash, bare URLs), captions appear to be written in pidgin English not Simple English, some confusion over whether the plural of lichen is lichen or lichens, I can't believe we use the word "thing" in any article here, the references are a mixture of footnotes and references, "Their life habit" is a very confusing heading, what does it mean? The English is pretty weak, "Their success is as a pair (or trio). " for instance - one or the other? Why do we have single leaf in italics? Is "discernible" simple? And "litmus"? Too many issues at a first glance for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you could fix the references then I think It would pass. I will see what I can do to help.--Guerillero (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted - There wasn't an attempt (at least not lately) to fix the issues. Not a GA yet. Please try againn later once these issues are fixed. -Barras ^talk 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Renaissance

Medical Renaissance (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article is quite nice, even though nobody may think me worthy enough to propose this... But it's very nicely written, and the pictures are quite good, too. No red links, either... Anybody can object, of course, because I'm very bad at proposing these sort of things and I probably proposed it badly. Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..."The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.

...The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link."
There's only been a few editors editing this article, it's fairly new so I understand. It also needs information on where it happened (we're told when, why, what and how however). For the last point it needs an interwiki link (hopefully the bots are able to do this automatically). Other than that it's fairly fine and could do with more references (other good articles have a bit more text and ~20 references). Nifky^{^} 09:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Very well; thankyou so much, Nifky?. But you edited it, no doubt, and very nicely and wonderfully, too! As long as you or Classical Esther had part in any article, it would be a very good article - but perhaps you are right. I hope more people will edit it... Oh dear! I am so clumsy and blind. Luckily Pnlimeditor helps me very much, but still... Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Belinda does know how to flatter: Classical Esther should never be named, my dear, with an editor like Nifky in the same sentence - I am yet too inferior to him! It is too great a gratification. Thank you for helping me with my article anyway: whether it becomes a good article or not, I am sure it will become much better in the process of discussing it, and I am glad. And by the bye, you spelled Pmlineditor's name wrong. ^_^ Classical Esther 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as long as the article does not have a counterpart in the English or other wikipedias, this cannot be a GA. :( Pmlineditor ∞ 10:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here it is ([3]). It's not under the name Renaissance medicine, but Medical Renaissance, though. :D Thanks for pointing that out. Classical Esther 10:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to appropriate title. I'll try to help with this. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 10:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be vexed at me because I am so bad at these things. The article is very good, I am sure, but it is just that I proposed it all wrong - I missed some words, I think - said it so uncomfortably and innaturally - and therefore made everybody angry at me and disgraced myself. Oh! How miserable! Please help. And thank you so much, Wikipedian "father" :p Pmlineditor! You are so kind and helpful sometimes! Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I just try to be helpful, though I don't know how much I succeed. ;) There was nothing wrong with your nominations; after all, if a great article is nominated with a poor statement, it doesn't mean it won't become GA. No article is perfect, and they need work to become (V)GAs. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Left a few (comments of a general nature on the article talk page. Will help extend. --Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eptalon, for adding so many good refs. Classical Esther 11:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the section about the microscope, linked Hooke, Leeuwenhoek, and a few others and added a section on Houmorism. Rearranged/added imgs. --Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in support of GA status here to.--Sinbad (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sinbad. Your unfailing optimism is very encouraging here! Classical Esther 05:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to have an opened mind and a positive one... :) thats just me:)--Sinbad (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't think the enWP version is a good article (it's a "Start" article), it does have much that should have been copied here. If you take the individual topics in enWP and compare with our version, you'll see what's missing. Instead, our article is full of snippets from weak sources which don't add up to much. A professional area of study produces a literature which needs to be understood and respected in any popular version. This we have not done. A series of anecdotes without a framework is not an article. For me, this is a definite NO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is definitely not a good article yet. It doesn't have to be long, but it does need to be well organised and accurate. It should not be misleading in anyway.

Problems include the statement that leeches were dangerous. The application of leeches in medicine, when used appropriately, is not dangerous. It is certain that many doctors used leeches appropriately, as well as it is certain that some doctors used them inappropriately. (The modern over-application of very useful medicininals is also inappropriate and dangerous but we would not state that medicinals are something dangerous that modern doctors use).
There is a statement about medicine in the 1600s that is immediately followed by an example of foolish things that were believed to work. Where does the example come from? The 1200s! That is the Middle Ages, not the Medical Renaissance!
To improve this article, keep it simple! Start out by defining your dates. Your beginning point is probably 1400 (when the artistic Renaissance began). Start at that date, and then list the important developments and discoveries. We are talking about history here, so dates are important. Who did what when?
Be aware that every discipline has its own time frame and they do not all run exactly parallel. For example, Renaissance architecture in France started much later than Renaissance architecture in Italy. Romantic Poetry happened at an earlier date than Romantic Music. So the dates of the Medical Renaissance might not match those of the artistic Renaissance.
You need a clear cut-off point. When does medicine become "modern medicine" and not Renaissance medicine? When including information in the general article on the Renaissance, I wouldn't include anything later than the early 1600, because then we get into the artistic Baroque period, and the "Age of Enlightenment". However, if this article is specifically about changes in medicine, you could push the date later, since the term "Renaissance" can be used in a number of ways. However, you need to be clear of the cut-off point.

Amandajm (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted Sorry, but the risen concerns aren't fixed yet. The article can become a GA one day, but still needs some work. Please re-list the article here once the concerns are fixed. Kind regards -Barras ^talk 19:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Barras. To tell the truth frankly, I didn't really think it was a good article yet, either. History and medicine are not some of my best subjects, and I lacked the adequate skill to adapt the article to the requirements. I'm glad it could be improved by the various helpful efforts put in by the community though! Classical Esther 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

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

I know, probably a complex subject; article has many red links, and parts of it are probably written in complex language. Nevertheless, I think the article should be listed here. So there you go. Happy picking. (Note: there are a few fact templates; I'll look these up in the process). --Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, seems very well written for such a complicated subject. Better than Medical Renaissance, at least..^_^ With a little more simplifying, rearranging, and referencing, I think it would be okay. Classical Esther 12:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! So well written, and the pictures are good, too. Besides, Eptalon is a very superior editor. I'd better take him seriously. He's very good with articles, and so neutral and kind even though he's an Evolutionist... :) I think the article is good, but it has too much red links. Still, it's very nice. Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAs can have redlinks, though I admit that in the case of this article, it is a bit too much. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The red links takes like 5 minutes for someone to fix. If that is done i GA status.--Sinbad (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of Eptalon's best. Still work to do on language taken over from enwp, for example, in Rationale section. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still issues. The Origins of the word section is a bit short compared to the others. I'll post a more detailed review tomorrow. -Barras ^talk 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments are now on its talk page. -Barras ^talk 16:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will again remove the tag, and archive this discussion. More intensive work has shown that the article is too far away from anything I would consider a legitimate candidate. I have also been the only one to do larger changes/rewrites. While I would very much like to continue, I currently lack the time for the "in-depth" research needed. The area (philosophy) is also not what I was trained to do. Thanks to everyone for supporting me. Unfortunately, the article is not there yet. This is not a work of a few days, but more. Sorry folks. --Eptalon (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kelly

Dan Kelly (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Informative, ok length, no red links. Interesting reading. Sinbad (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... I think it's very good, but I don't like the subject. Why should an article about criminals be proposed as a good article, I wonder? Oh, well, anyway, the article's what's important, anyway, and Sinbad is good at proposing these kind of things, so it's quite good, and so is Ned Kelly. Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's nicely and neatly written, and yes, quite interesting. However, it could do with some more simplifying, I think? Classical Esther 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter id the proposed good article is about a criminal or a tower in Thailand.. its all about article quality. Anyhow like your review of the article anyway. thanks.--Sinbad (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flesch reading score 77% which means that it scores very well for being in simple English. ~~Ready for GA status~~. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lead needs work. It's not supposed to be just the first section, it's supposed to be a summary of the whole article. The "score" may indicate it's simple enough, but unless people read the words and look at the structure, we're not reviewing the article correctly. There are also MOS issues (ref placement, linked dates, en-dash), the article is still (apparently) a "stub", the sources for the references don't appear to be reliable (for instance, what makes denheldid.com reliable?) Not at all ready for GA status. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been improved. Stub removed as it is no longer a stub. Sources are reliable, all are from people well known in Australia for their research into the Kelly Gang, in fact most of the references are from the standard research book on the subject, sorry they may not be household names in other countries. I have added more detail on the story of the burial. The article is lacking with information about Dan's role in the Kelly gang's activities. This needs to be worked on before the article is complete. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I just removed this addition to the intro "which many people believe was to be the start of revolution to create a republic in north east Victoria". The reason is that it reads as if Dan Kelly's death started a serious revolution to set up a republic. This was not the case. It was earlier, when the friends of the Kelly's were being hounded and denied land that a republic was proposed. (ie "started"). Perhaps it was Kelly's intention to drive that plan forward, with the 30 or so people that were held hostage at Glenrowan (among them women and children). If so, then he had Buckley's, so it seems rather improbable.

Either way, tagging the information about the proposed republic onto the sentence about Dan Kelly's death doesn't seem a good move. The expression "Many people believe...." is fuzzy and inaccurate. If this is really about opinion (people believing) rather than known fact use "(Name of specific author) said in (Book) that Ned Kelly was hoping to start a revolution etc etc at the hotel at Glenrowan. (if this is indeed the case).

Amandajm (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's most famous Kelly historian, Ian Jones, is the source of the republic theory. To quote from John McQuilton's book, "The Kelly Outbreak 1878—1880" (1979) page 168, Jones said of Glenrowan "...It was to be the start of a guerilla campaign, and the establishment of a republic...Glenrowan was to be the opening blow in a war..."

I agree Amandajm that he probably had Buckley's too (a lovely Oz expression which means he had no chance at all of succeeding). Peterdownunder (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the "republic" was more likely Ned's idea I think it would be best to keep it to the Ned Kelly page, rather than here.Peterdownunder (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further issues:

Prove that "bailup.com" is a reliable source.

This site was chosen as it had a large number of photos which would be of value to some one wanting more information. What sought of evidence is needed to "prove" it is a reliable source? Peterdownunder (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to refer to the en.wiki's advice on reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Bailup.com replaced with another source, McMenomy's book.

Same with "thekellytrail.com"

I can not see a problem with this site - I am inclined to ask "prove that it is not a reliable" source. It is one of many that provide evidence that the house where Dan was born is still standing, and used because it is in reasonably simple English and has a lot of photos which are not in the public domain. This would make it an excellent reference for our readers. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the onus is on you to prove to me that the source is reliable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Replaced with Victorian government website, thekellytrail listed under other web pages as it has a valuable collection of photo resources.Peterdownunder (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs need spaced en-dashes.

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For more details" note needs to be moved to the top of the section.

Done Peterdownunder (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The literary source appears to be called "Ned Kelly, the Authentic Illustrated Story" not "Ned Kelly, the authentic illustrated story."

The National Library of Australia cataloguing-in-publication data on the verso of the title page is "Ned Kelly - the authentic illustrated story" - Words in a title should not be in capitals unless they are proper nouns (standard library cataloguing rules) Peterdownunder (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done to match National Library info Peterdownunder (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link £.

Done Peterdownunder (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put refs after punctuation per MOS.

Done Peterdownunder (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is undertaker simple?

Any suggestions, perhaps "the man that put the bodies in coffins and took them to the cemetery". It might be better to create a page on undertakers and link to it- Peterdownunder (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article would be much better than that reprhasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneUndertaker linked to new Funeral director page Peterdownunder (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That took two minutes. Please get it properly reviewed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled out Dan Kelly's role within the gang. I think the article is ready now for GA status, no red links. Any further suggestions for improvement? Peterdownunder (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - still nowhere near ready...

We don't link dates per MOS.

Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria and NSW need links in the lead.

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between "frightened" and "scared"?

Done removed scared Peterdownunder (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"to fool the police " do you mean "evade" them? fool isn't exactly quite right as far as I can see.

Done changed sentence Peterdownunder (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" in 1861 at Beveridge, Victoria " since when do you get born "at" somewhere?

Done born in Beveridge --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"John "Red" Kelly. [2][3]" remove space between punc and refs.

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"1850.[5]. " remove full stop after ref.

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(1863).[5][1]" refs in numerical order please.

((done}} --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the family moved north to a farm at Avenel, Victoria. His father " whose father? His? Doesn't lead on logically.

Done rewritten to make sense --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"His mother's family" same again, whose?

Done rewritten to make sense --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"been doing some work for " why not just "been working for"?

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Riverina area and on the Monaro High Plains" could use links.

Done linked, new pages to be made --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a common work pattern" is this Simple?

Done sentence rewritten, now simple --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This was a common work pattern for young men in the area. His group of friends were a wild group of young men, known as "the Greta mob". They were well known for their visits to nearby towns such as Wangaratta, Beechworth and Benalla." unreferenced.

Done referenced

" Dan had been arrested for stealing" why not just "Dan was arrested"?

Done rewritten to make sense --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You use reference 1 19 times but every time say it came from page 9? Really?

Being done - actually page 9 has a long overview, however have started using the Rp template to give accuracy. --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"weren't able" don't use contractions.

Done Peterdownunder (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gaol is overlinked.

Done Peterdownunder (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dan Kelly for stealing horses. Dan Kelly had been" doesn't seem a need to repeat Dan Kelly here.

Done Peterdownunder (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"" Fitzpatrick incident" and is covered in detail in the pages on Dan's brother, " remove the space, and we don't link to other articles by saying "is covered in detail in the pages" at all, that's what wikilinks are for, or templates like {{seealso}}.

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

isn't the Bush usually referred to with a capital B?

Not done; the bush is never referred to with a capital B in Australia. --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should move our own article on it then... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lead and the first section reviewed... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't peer review, I'd recommend removing this nomination and working on the remainder of the article before resubmitting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted Sorry folks, but the article is not ready yet. As TRM stated one line above, this isn't peer review. Please ensure that you propose articles that are more close to GA status. This makes people willing to review it properly and makes it easy to fix a few issues and gives us the chance to promote the article. Barras ^talk 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Kelly

Ned Kelly (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well referenced, interesting reading.--Sinbad (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess that the same for Dan Kelly goes for Ned Kelly to.. almost identical article.--Sinbad (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on the layout, plus a few tweaks. I think that the writing is at a v.good level. Amandajm (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work:

Lead is too short - it should adequately summarise the whole article and one short para doesn't cut it.
We don't link dates any more, per MOS.

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many (explanatory notes in parentheses) in the lead alone. This is a modern linking Wiki, we don't need "gaol (jail)", that defeats the entire purpose of wikilinks.
Refs should go after punctuation, per MOS.
Decide on whether you wish to use 'this' or "this" method of describing alternative names.
"Red Kelly had been a convict" no need to repeat his surname so quickly.
Link Victoria properly the first time round.
"wasn't " - avoid contractions.

These are things in just the first 10% of the article. Please get a decent copyedit and a check against MOS before nomination in the future, this is a waste of a lot of people's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted Not all issues are fixed yet. There are still date links and MoS issues. Not yet ready for GA status. Barras ^talk 15:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muse (band)

Muse (band) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Good referencing, albeit short. Looks like it is ready, but all comments welcome. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit to many read links for my taste. But overall good article.--Sinbad (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As earlier stated by other user to me red links are a huge issue so just pointing it out. I dont think the length is an issue here, because the article is really informative.--Sinbad (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length doesn't matter, also I've fixed the redlinks. Nifky^{^} 07:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of suggested improvements on talk page ---Peterdownunder (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Peter. @Sinbad: It'll not take much time to do the redlinks. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Though a little more simplifying and expanding would do good, I think this qualifies as a good article. Classical Esther 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought adding a section of the band members would help, such as their names and the instruments they play. —§ stay (sic)! 12:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit short. But it has great information. Only 2 red links, a fair amount of refs, and some good photos. It has my support. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't jam an image of any sort directly under a long box without it causing formatting problems. On my screen, the text is divided from its heading (orphaned) by about 6 inches. If you have a wide screen, then is probably does this on yours as well. Even on an almost square screen, it is causing a problem.

Everyone needs to use the "Show Preview" button, and if the layout doesn't work, learn how to fix this boxish problem that happens all the time. If you happen to have a squarish screen, then you need to know that long boxes cause this problem on wide screens and simply avoid putting any other pic under them by several inches.
If you can't see the problem, get back to me.

Amandajm (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which picture you are referring to since the picture works fine in my monitor (Which isn't a widescreen, btw). Pmlineditor ∞ 08:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, fixed. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left some comments on its talk. -Barras ^talk 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will fix; in the meantime please extend this PGA. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This PGA is on hold so that Pmlineditor gets the chance to fix my concerns as my review came very late. -Barras ^talk 19:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

"They formed..." could be simplified.

Done formed -> began. Classical Esther 10:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption doesn't need a full stop/period.
"most western countries of the world.[2]" I'd be more specific, a Simple reader isn't going to get this.
Lead, once again, is just a single para, can't we at least stretch to two? One about the history of the band, the members, style of music, and one about their music, achievements etc?
"When they were 13 years old" there was a window of only 5 days when this was the case... are you sure this is true?
"they broke their instruments, but still won." deliberate or accidental? worth a note...
"The Resistance" section is a terrible list of "on x month 2009, .." prose which reads really badly, and shouldn't be considered the best we can do. Please look at writing it out as prose.
Refs - link all dates, or none, preferably none.
Make sure they all have accessdates, publishers and titles as a minimum.
Ref 32 - make sure they're formatted correctly.

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pmlineditor asked me to close it as he will not have the time to fix the issues the next days. Please try again later. Barras ^talk 12:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci

Leonardo da Vinci (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi people! I can remember that this article was up to VGA when I came here last year. I just re-read the article I think that it is well written enough to be a good article. I'm pretty sure that there are still some things that needs to be done. I apologise for having not that much time the next weeks and thus I'm probably not able to fix the issues quickly. -Barras ^talk 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick glance i noticed a couple of red-links that need to be fixed.--Sinbad (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But overall a good article.--Sinbad (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few redlinks are ok as this is only Ga and not VGA. -Barras ^talk 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but still it is a plus if there is no red-links.--Sinbad (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, pictures that are exquisitely selected and arranged, and not overly complex, considering its fine length. The red links are easy to change.. Classical Esther 05:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good length, a fair number of references, but to many red links. There are 11 of them. In my opinion, that is way to many red links to be a good article. Five being the maximum. I-on talk sign! 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The red links are not that big of a problem. Since this is for GA, it should be acceptable. —§ stay (sic)! 12:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to get rid of two red links (one link to wiktionary and the other one I piped) Hope this will help some. Megan|^talk_changes 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down to five redlinks. -Barras ^talk 15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With fewer redlinks, it looks much better. I suggest promote if anyone wants to. —§ stay (sic)! 23:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It now has no red links. Amandajm (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No ready yet. Comments on talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on the talk page seem to have been reviewed. Classical Esther 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn for now. The reference issue needs to be done, and I'm currently too busy with other things (called real life...) to take care of it that it is really and has some standards. But I'll re-propose it this summer. Barras ^talk 12:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lawless

Lucy Lawless (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Has many references, and is thoroughly detailed, good length. Sinbad (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of the sources seem self-published or user-created. Perhaps more reliable links could be added? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt seem to be more than a minor issue.--Sinbad (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, reliable sourcing is vital, not a "minor issue". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could discuss this to the end of our days:), but there is a difference between vital sourcing and self-published or user-created sourcing in my opinion. and easily fixed if so. cheers.--Sinbad (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) A quick glance revealed the following (unrelated to referencing):

Article a little short (for my liking), if you do not count the two tables
Fix spelling errors (Carrer)
One idea per sentence, violated in a few places.
Numbers in flow text as word, not number (20 -> twenty); esp. for the simpler cases.

Will provide a more in-depth look, once these issues are fixed.--Eptalon (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few grammar/spelling issues that should be fixed. The sources need to be fixed and a few more need to be added. If you want, I can provide a specific list. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Basic encyclopedic content and style needs to be improved.

Lucy was born Ryan, but uses Lawless, the name of her partner (first husband?). This needs to be stated in the intro.
Lawless's life. State the full names of her parents. Her mother is an actor. Is her stage name the same as her married name? What was father's profession? He was presumably only Major for a few years.
She suffered bulimia etc. This is a very bald statement. It reads as if she had bulimia as a baby. If this was during her teen years, then say that.
Further down, it says that she became pregnant and uses only the Christian name of her partner. Use his full name.
It states that they divorced, but I don't think that the reader is told that they were married.

Amandajm (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Concerns not fixed after 3+ weeks. Please fix them and re-nominate this article. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Victorian bushfires

2009 Victorian bushfires (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well sourced, interesting reading, good length for subject.Sinbad (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like it, Sinbad: it is written nicely, the picturs are good, there are references, and it is long; but I wish it was more simplified, don't you? Classical Esther 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite good, but there are too little websites... :) And alot of references, good.Miss Tilney (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need too many external links; so that's okay. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simplyfying sometimes means removing important parts of an article, which i think is the case here. More is better than less in this indivual case.--Sinbad (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If some of the sections are complex but you don't want to remove information, then tag it with {{complex}}. Put it on any section that might be hard to understand. Other then that, it has good length, and a ~~big~~ huge amount of references. I think it could very well be a GA. I-on talk sign! 14:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sinbad (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this article a lot at the time of the fires, but I am not sure if the lnformation has been updated since the Royal Commission into the cause of the fires. Give me a couple of days to look at this. Some of the complexity seems to come from place names, which can't be made simpler, but I will do some more editing to try and get the Flesch score to 70% (currently 61%). It also needs a couple of places linked so a few quick articles needed too. I will do it on the weekend. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, if you could provide actual examples of complexity rather than just some mysterious metric, it would be appreciated by those editors trying to address your specific concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be updated. It stills talks about the fire as if it just happened. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the fires were started by fallen or clashing power lines or were deliberately lit.[14] There was also lightning,[15] cigarette butts,[4] and sparks from a power tool.[16] These two sentences come from the introduction. There are a few problems.

Many fires were started by fallen or clashing powerlines. Is this right? One fire was started by a pole falling in a strong wind, but was it "many"?
"or were deliberately lit" The two causes that are joined here by the words "many" and "or" are nothing like each other. One is a problem caused by a natural force, high wind. The other is a wilful and shameful act, which needs to be given a stand-alone sentence. In human terms, these two things are no way equal. One is a criminal offence and an offence to humanity. You are trivialising the criminal and inhuman aspect of this "cause" by simply linking it as if arson was just another natural event.
To create good sentences, put like things with like things. The two natural causes, lightning and wind bringing down powerlines could be linked. The using a power tool during a total fire ban, and the utter and habititual stupidity of the imbeciles that chuck lighted butts out are both linked to human error/carelessness, and so can be put together in a sentence. But arson is something else again. It needs to be mentioned in a stand-alone sentence. You could include a quotation from one of the many press sources about the nature of arson.

Please rewrite these two sentences in a way that creates meaningful order. Amandajm (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Concerns not attended to after 3+ weeks. Please fix them and renominate. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers Karamazov

The Brothers Karamazov (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I like this article because it's long, with nice references, and good websites. No red links, and very satisfactory. Please delete this proposal if you do not like it... And so sorry for proposing again in one day! Wrte your comments freely! Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Lydia: I am undoubtedly very honored by so kind a notice of an article I made; but...I'm afraid it's still too complex to be a good article yet! And more editors need to refine it. Classical Esther 09:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs more references, probably 10 for now. I've did a minor clean up on the article and it doesn't appear to be too complicated. Nifky^{^} 10:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the plot summary to one-eighth of what it is; for a beginning. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everybody, so much for taking part in such a weary work. Please help improve it for my sake! Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading, but why should the plot be shorter? There is nothing wrong with a detailed article. (Sorry, I haven't read it yet, perhaps there is a reason for cutting it down.) -Barras ^talk 10:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot takes up pretty much 4/5 of the article. Nifky^{^} 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it be better to expand the rest instead of removing parts? -Barras ^talk 11:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barras, the plot should never be the most significant part of the article. I know we aren't enwp - but a guideline there mentions that plot summaries should be 400 words at the most. Even if the book has 5k pages, a plot summary of 5k words isn't okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmlinediter (talk • contribs)

(<-)By the way the page is already 32 kb long. Nifky^{^} 11:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the English Wikipedia, though, they divided the plot similarly to this, though the contents are different. And thank you for your kind remarks, everybody! Classical Esther 11:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the problem with having a GA with 32 kb? Lengths isn't that important, but I'm not in favour of removing parts. And a guideline on enwiki isn't policy. -Barras ^talk 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "summary", not the entire book. If I get time, I'll shorten it... anyway, if the plot summary is 30k, the rest of the article should be much longer. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what needs to be done: #1) Add 40 refs; #2) Consider making subarticles. Won't support until those are done Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, okay. Thank you for your remark, Purplebackpack89. Classical Esther 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm still working on the references...I'll make at least two subarticles, also, as soon as I can. Please help with the references! Classical Esther 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Purplebackpack, is it necessary for articles about books to have forty references?

Classical Esther 08:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for refs in the plot. Other sections need sources. I want a Reception section for this article. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sort of put most of the "reception" part in the "influence" section. I'll see what I can do..please help! Classical Esther 10:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very long plot, but nonetheless an interesting article. Should this be promoted? —§ stay (sic)! 12:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the Brother's Karamazov is a very good article, long and stretchy...and cheesy, just good for a mousse like me! No, no, it's just that I like it, looks nice. Squeak, squeak! (Nibbles on cheese) Mella Mouse (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this plot "summary" is too detailed for the article. It needs to be cut down. Additionally, the sources need to be cleaned up. {{citeweb}} should be used for websites. Sources should also be added to the character sections. Right now they read like someone's personal analysis of the characters. Lines like "He becomes a better and stronger man in the end, and this shows the novel’s hope for humankind" or "His final madness shows the novel’s rejection of his belief" need citations. Either way (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very helpful advice, Either way. I'll see what I can do about it, and everybody is more than welcome to help! By the way, I made a subarticle about Alyosha Karamazov, I hope that answers at least one of Purplebackpack's requirements earlier on. Classical Esther 06:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everyone is working hard on the article, and it looks great. I am thinking it will need more refs but besides that, its ready for promotion. Maybe 6 or 7 more refs? That would seem good. But not 40 as Purplebackpack89 said to do. VGA don't even have that much. I will also try to help if new tasks come up. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 14:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of refs depend on the size of the article... Pmlineditor ∞ 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Pmlineditor and Ian! I'll see if I can find any more refs...added two just a few minutes ago...^^ I'll see also if I can make another subarticle. Classical Esther 06:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made another subarticle just now, The Grand Inquisitor. Not very high quality one ㅜ.ㅜ but I'll expand :-)... Classical Esther 08:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The first sentence of the background section begins "Dostoevsky’s time in prison greatly influenced his book and his life."

Your reader doesn't know that Dostoevsky was in prison, and the Simple Wiki biography of him is short and inadequate. You can't presume theat your reader will have this knowledge. If it is important to the background, then it needs stating in a proper sentence, preferably dated, because that makes a difference to the reader's understanding as well.

The background needs to begin: In (year) the author Dostoevsky was imprisoned for (number of years) for (crime). This was to have a great influence on his later life and on this book.

Then go back to the story and summarise it with the same clarity. eg: "The Brothers Karamazov" is the story of the lives four Russian Brothers who have very different characters.
You tell us near the beginning that the novel was in series. So state the number of books, instead of leaving it to your reader to look to the end of the list to find out.

This all sounds "simplistic" but this is about writing simple English well.

Amandajm (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do my best to try to change it...and I'll see if I can add some flesh to the article on Dostoevsky as well. Thanks for your fair comments, Amandajm; would you be so kind as to put them on the article's talk page, too? Classical Esther 08:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have just reviewed the comments on the talk page, thank you Amandajm! Classical Esther 05:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

I've looked into this a little further. Smerdyakov is "rumoured to be" the the son Fyodor. He uses his mother's surname and is therefore not one of the "Brothers Karamazov" who are the title and subject of the book. He is essentially a secondary character, whose actions affect the primary characters. That explanation must read "It is the story of three brothers, otherwise the next part of the sentence is nonsense!
So the corrected sentence is: The Brothers Karamazov is the story of the lives of three Russian brothers who are very different in body, mind, and spirit, and is often thought of to represent three parts of mankind itself.
To look at the parts of the sentence we have ''The Brothers Karamazov is the story of the lives of three Russian brothers who are very different in body, mind, and spirit... This is now clear.
The last part of the sentence states ...and is often thought of to represent three parts of mankind itself. What does this last statement mean exactly? It doesn't make sense because the grammar is not quite right. That word "is" is a singular form of the verb "to be", so when we look backward for its subject we find that the subject of the verb is the word "story".

Put the sentence together and it says ...the story ....is often thought of to represent three parts of mankind itself.

I am certain that this is not what is intended. That word "is" should be the plural verb "are".

Now it reads: The Brothers Karamazov is the story of the lives of three Russian brothers who are very different in body, mind, and spirit, and are often thought of to represent three parts of mankind itself.

Now we leave out the "itself" as redundant, and instead, add a little word that directs us backward to what aspects of mankind are being referred to. The three that are mentioned earlier in the sentence. Improve the grammar with "as representing" not "to represent"

The Brothers Karamazov is the story of the lives of three Russian brothers who are very different in body, mind, and spirit, and are often thought of as representing those three parts of mankind.

This gets more at the gist of the book. Then when you describe the characters, it needs to be clear that one represents the physical, one the mental and one the spiritual. Amandajm (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have reviewed all your helpful comments on talk page. Classical Esther 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing still needs a lot of work. Use referencing templates like {{citeweb}}. There is an author listed named "Joyce Carol" who should be "Joyce Carol Oates" I believe. Be more specific with websites. You did not get all the information from the "front page" of SparkNotes, for example, they came from subpages within that site. Link to those individual subpages instead. Also, please be more mature in naming the references. One of the references used multiple times is named "toast" and another is "giggle." Either way (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. :P Sorry for the silliness in the ref names, anybody is welcome to change them, it doesn't make any difference to me. Could you please help with the citewebs? I'm not very good at citing websites yet, tho' I'll see what I can do to make them better...Classical Esther 05:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Either Way, I have changed both of the silly ref names to better ones, made the websites more specific, and am trying to make the references better with a citeweb template. I have changed a few, and am working on them! I hope this meets your requirements for now. O, by the way, I removed the Joyce Carol Oates website. Classical Esther 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - not ready...

Lead is too short - we need two or three paragraphs to summarise the article.

Done Finished! Classical Esther 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it and tell you when I'm done...^^ Classical Esther 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS flaws - the refs need to go after punctuation, no spaces between ref & punc, no links in headings, no bare URLs in refs, en-dashes for year/page ranges.

Okay, I'll do my best to clean those problems up and tell you when I think I'm done. However, I'm still not very good in doing those kinds of "computer" stuff yet, so please help! Classical Esther 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think... Classical Esther 02:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also is irrelevant as Dostoevsky is linked in the article.

Done Moved wikiquote to "websites" and erased the "see also" section. Classical Esther 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Websites ->websites.

Done Changed it to websites.Classical Esther 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary->summary but there are no references at all here. Not good enough.

Changed it to "summary", but could you please specify what kind of refs a plot should have? For instance, should I cite the translation of The Brothers Karamazov I am referring to? Classical Esther 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Well, I have cited the translation I am using in the plot.

Classical Esther 02:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the biggest problems seemed to be the comparison in length of the other sections compared to the plot, I have expanded the "important themes" section and added a few refs. Classical Esther 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I was asked to close this on my talk page:

Closed as not promoted There are still after nearly one month issues left such as the incomplete references. Bokks miss the ISBN number and pages (not all, but anyway). All things that are marked as a quote should have a reference, example: “I expected to find a wicked soul…But instead I have found a true sister, a treasure, a loving soul…” References are not completely ordered "people.[17][12]". Some odd formatting issues reamain "(job) . . . a civic" spaces in between the dotes. Other parts miss spaces as "no avail(no use)". Reading more-sections without any ISBN number for the books. Not yet ready per MoS. Please fix the remaining issues and try it again! Barras ^talk 12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

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

I've been working really hard on expanding the article and I believe it has great length, has few red links, and as a player of the game myself, I feel it explains how to play very well. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of issues in here. I'd suggest getting a peer review first rather than going through a PGA. There are issues with MOS, referencing issues (proper templates are not always used, the history section is not referenced at all), formatting issues (there are one sentence paragraphs, way too many see alsos), and some of the writing needs to be cleaned up (the notations section seems to have some confusing sentences). Additionally, the introduction should be an overview of the article, but it reads like it's taking the place of another section here. Peer reviewing this would probably be best right now with the issues at hand. Either way (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added refs to the history section and fixed merged some paragraphs. See what think. :) I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 00:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added four references to one sentence. The entire section needs references. There still exists problems with single or double sentence paragraphs or sections. In addition to things I said above, the categories also need to be cleaned up here. Either way (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the cats. It turns out "Chess" is the only cat needed. And I also fixed more paragraphs. Is it looking a bit better? I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 15:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A way to go for GA in my opinion. Some quick bullets:

~~I think a separate section with a picture and description of each playing piece would be good.~~ Done
~~Consistent use of capitalisation of piece names would be useful.~~ Done
You mention moving notation after you already used it in the en passant section.
~~You've got an image of the Scholar's mate, but no description of it anywhere.~~ Done
~~Check where references are supposed to go per MOS (i.e. after punctuation where possible)~~ Done
The other websites are dubious looking to say the least.
In general more references are needed and it could use someone to look at the overall structure. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor question: There are pages with pictures and sections on that piece which I linked. The pages are King (chess), Queen (chess) etc. Don't you think people would look at those pages if they wanted to learn more about the piece and see pics? Just a thought. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they all in capital letters? They should be in lower case as they are not proper names. Either way (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRM thought it would be better that way. I personally agree. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 23:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why though? They are not proper names. Either way (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Either on this. We should probably switch out the Scholar's Mate picture for something else. I also Rambler's concern about references. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I didn't say they would be better in capital letters, I simply seek consistency i.e. all capitalised or none capitalised. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments left on talk page of article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw. There is no way I can fix these problems in time. But please keep the comments and suggestions coming, but post them on the talk page instead. I will get to work right away and hopefully re-propose it soon. Thanks all for the suggestions. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]