Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles


Very good articles are the highest status of articles at Simple English Wikipedia. In order to become a very good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles.

This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the VGA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pvgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed very good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{pvgood}} tag replaced with {{vgood}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Very good articles and are placed in Category:Very good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{vgood}} tag removed.

Articles that are below the very good article criteria can be nominated to be a good article at Wikipedia:Proposed good articles.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for very good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comment. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

In order to make sure the article you are proposing meets the required size, use this tool. Please notice that the text size is important, not the wikitext size.


Proposals for very good articlesEdit

To propose an article for very good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a VGA. ~~~~

SpaceX StarshipEdit

SpaceX Starship (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Plaid speed!!! - Spaceballs, probably

This article has met criterion 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 in VGA in my opinion. This article has been improved by a lot, because I have a lot of free time :) Also, I'm the GA nominator of the article's version in enwiki, so probably that helps me a bit when simplifying it. Anyways, please give very harsh comments. The harsher the comments are, the better the article will be. The self-closed GA proposal is here: Special:Permalink/7844503#SpaceX_Starship CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify why I want harshness. Here's the list of reasons:
  1. The article would degrade less over time
  2. The article would be improved
  3. When the standard of a very good article goes up, the article won't get instantly demoted
  4. I would have a lot more experience on making articles better
What I want here is that the article would be a very good article for an extremely long time. I want the reviewers to see to the future and think: "Is this still a very good article after 5, 10 or even 15 years?" So, I am not joking when I say please be harsh, it is what I really, really want. Here's what I don't want. Here's what I really want. You can refer to enwiki's [1] for some ideas to be extremely harsh.
  • I don't think this article is all that complex, some things can be improved here and there, but I couldn't really come across any big enough issue to oppose promotion. I think I am in favor of promoting this article. Compared to EN it's much simpler and not much information is lost in the process of simplification. Thanks -BRP ever 10:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not yet. Looks like re-work is in progress.-BRP ever 10:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • For transparency, here's some of the minor issues that he listed on w:WP:DISCORD:
    • There are few words that are a bit complex e.g. turbopumps
      • Done, explain it more throughly
    • Fourth sentence in introduction that looks like original research
      • Done, added sources
    • Noise pollution should be written more
      • Done
    • What's EIS?
      • Removed and use a more generic term
    All issues are solved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Bare in mind that to be a VGA all 10 requirements must be met. -Djsasso (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot about it :) Here's the list of criterias and my thoughts:
  1. The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia.   Agree, pretty obvious that it is.
  2. The article must be comprehensive.   Agree. I'm not 100% sure that the article is complete, because I am the writer and translator of the enwiki and simplewiki version. So, I may miss some smaller details about Starship. Need someone else to check to be sure. Just checked by myself. Pretty comprehensive and NPOV.
  3. The article should be several kilobytes long, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories.   Agree by a stretch, the article have 17kb as prose.
  4. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors.   Disagree, since the prose is wayyyy tooo clunky. I need a lot of help on this part.
  5. The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.   Agree, obvious that it is.
  6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).   Agree, I am still formatting the article and even add/remove IPAs. A few more minor edits should be ok. Most of the fixes are addressing grammar issues. These are under minor fixes.
  7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left.   Agree. All specialized terms are explained directly in the article with flow.
  8. If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled.   Agree, with alt text abd captions.
  9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement.   Agree, obvious.
  10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of publications.   Agree since I want other review to spot check the sources. I currently have found none. I spot checked more, and I fixed source placement. Should be ok for me.
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The prose is clunky and the proposal is rushed. As is, there is no chance it would survive long. It's got "rushed" invisibly stamped all over it. Would it pass GA? It ought not to. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    Can you tell me what and how is it rushed? How can I make the prose better? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Macdonald-ross send to notify CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Macdonald-ross I have make the prose a bit more fluent. Is it still clunky? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    Huh, no feedback... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposers cannot expect editors who are doing plenty to drop everything and do this work. IMO this is not a strong candidate for VGA, and is only marginal as a GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's more FA, actually. Very good written and well sourced + many illustrations. Frontfrog (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Frontfrog Doubt. I am current nominating the main article for FA, then improve the article here more. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose-Not ready This is not even close to complete. See the empty section headings. Unsourced judgments which are simple to debunk (E.g., People have made many plans to send humans to Mars since at least the 1940s. However, none of these plans have been seriously thought about. Really?) --Gotanda (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this just about says it all. Not amongst our better pages, and to list it here is just egotism. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The EnWp article is a good article; it is a lot longer and more complete that the version we have. To make this short, and concise: There are three sections in our article that are "empty", as long as this is the case, the chances of the article getting GA or VGA status are practically zero. So: fill in those sections, and aim for Good article status. The GA criteria are a subset of the VGA criteria, and they are easier to meet. The article is already a bit on the short side. Once the sections have at least some contect (which can be a summary, mind you), we can discuss again. But honestly: we should discuss it meeting GA criteria first..--Eptalon (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Eptalon, Gotanda, Macdonald-ross: The page was originally quite complete when the nomination was made but CactiStaccingCrane seems to be reworking the article entirely, hence it's much more empty. --Ferien (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    One of the criteria says the last few edits should be minor stuff (that is: the article is basically ready, but minor things are fixed to address concerns). As long as there is major editing going on, it will neither fit GA nor VGA criteria..
    What about closing this (it is clearly not VGA-ready) and re-nominating as a GA once the major editing is done? Eptalon (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with closing it as not done for now.-BRP ever 11:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I will renominate the article at a later time, when the enwiki version is more complete. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombingsEdit

7 July 2005 London bombings (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

These attacks were a big part of British history, and I've been working on this page for months to show that. I think it's close/is deserving of a VGA status. Reviewing the requirements for VGA, I believe the article fits them. I'd be welcoming any feedback on how to improve it. Fixing26 (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Still very complex in places. See my recent changes as a few small examples. If you follow the guidelines for how to write simple sentences it will be better. Too many sentences with multiple clauses / phrases. The desired sentence structure is subject-verb-object. --Gotanda (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll get to work on looking and working on improving the simplicity of some sentences. Fixing26 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Should be about good now. Fixing26 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was a lot of work. I will need some time later to look again, but those changes look like they have really simplified the language. Thank you. Now however, I have one more question / suggestion that. See the Talk page, please. --Gotanda (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I've responded and done what I can. Fixing26 (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm now copy-editing the page, and have completed the first half. I was horrified to see the extent of cruft and unevenness on this single article. VGAs should be permanently protected from IP cruft, and changes to GAs and VGAs only allowed if clearly better (I innocently thought that was our policy...). Far from being promoted, the shape the page was in would have deserved demotion.
In terminology, I use terms which are used by the public in London, and British English. The topic is quite personal to people who lived in London on that day. Terminology used by railway engineers in the text are not going to do anything but jolt the reader, though we could have a glossary if we wanted to. In fact I'm in favour of that, we kind of have our cake and eat it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I've started reading over the article again, and I think in regards to train terminology (at least from looking at the area about the Underground attacks) is either link to pages about the design of the tunnels or remove unnecessary detail (some details weren't widely reported on in reliable sources and may not be as relevant to the article). Fixing26 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
My general view is that this is nowhere near VGA. The edits I made were enough to save it as GA. It's strange for it to be thought VGA. Just read the changes I made, and which had been ignored previously. There's too much pushing going on here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. They should solve these issues before nominate the article for VGA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose because although the language is more simplified, the article need to get rid of unnecessary information. The article has also not being updated for over a month, so @Fixing26, proposer, must address the issues addressed on top. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy OnassisEdit

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Simple English has been needing some VGA recently and I feel that it is appropriate to include more women-related articles to that list. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's article has been expanded to detail her life as the tragic yet one of the most influential First Ladies of the United States. I feel that this article is in a good spot to be nominated. As always, I am looking forward towards your feedback so that this article can be displayed on the main page soon! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  • As for me, very interesting article about great woman of US. I fully support.- Frontfrog (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Left some comments on the article talk page; in general, I see a very high standard of writing (and only very few minor issues) might need looking at. --Eptalon (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Left some comments on the talk page. While this isn't a bad article, it needs a lot of work in its simplicity before I could support it. ~Junedude433talk 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • One at a time, please. Guidelines for VGA noms allow one at a time per editor for good reasons. GA VGA noms take a lot of attention. TDKR Chicago has two GAs and two VGAs open at the moment and is planning a third VGA. I cannot keep up, but these all need extensive work. See my recent changes on just one minor section of this proposal in the history. In that same short section there are still multiple language errors. I have asked the editor directly to just choose one to concentrate on. Oppose until the nominating editor withdraws the multiple noms and just chooses one to ask the editor community here to work on. --Gotanda (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

:*@Gotanda: A few months back, an editor nominated multiple articles and I recalled that it was said there was no limit on how much nomination an editor can make. I saw the amount of multiple VGA and GA articles were demoted with even two separate broken links appeared on the main page. I thought it was good to have a variety of nominations so please view my nominations in very good faith. In the case of withdrawing for VGA, I would prefer to withdraw Carter's VGA nomination as that one is more complex than Jackie O (plus I think its good to see some VGA articles about influential women) and in terms of withdrawing GA noms, I would withdraw Ardern's GA nomination as there are "multiple issues" whereas I feel the Willis Tower has more chances with little complications. In withdrawing these noms, I hope you can withdraw you opposition to Jackie O's nom and start fresh. I've already received feedback from Junedude for this nomination which is good as there is more activity/feedback which always proves beneficial. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC) I'd still like to work on both nominations. I have time on my hands and I don't think having two noms should be a reason to oppose any nominations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, per Gotanda's comment and the nominator not following the guidelines. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Now that I have shifted the focus to Jackie Kennedy, any thoughts @CactiStaccingCrane:? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, let's run down on VGA criteria:
  1. The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia.   Agree, pretty obvious that it is.
  2. The article must be comprehensive.   Agree, until proven otherwise
  3. The article should be several kilobytes long, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories.   Disagree, the article have 61kb as prose. However, I afraid that this can be extremely long for any article, so I suggest you to make the prose smaller. You can simplify sentences or remove non-crucial details.
  4. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors.   Agree.
  5. The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.   Agree, obvious that it is.
  6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).   Disagree, major fixes are still needed.
  7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left.   Weak oppose. There are some redlinks, but this can be solved.   Agree, fixed!
  8. If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled.   Agree. I advise you to add some alt text and remove two or three images to prevent sandwiching.
  9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement.   Agree, obvious.
  10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of publications.   Abstain, need spot checking. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: Thank you! I've removed some info that is not that relevant to the article to reduce its size and there are no more red links! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Nice! I fixed the criteria checklist. I think that the article still need more trimming as well, so I gonna edit it directly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm having a hard time reducing the article's length as I feel that the info there is important/relates to Jackie. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
No change in almost two months, so the issues have been addressed. In other words: promoted to VGA - congrats everyone. --Eptalon (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I had stopped looking at this and did not reply as it seemed to have stalled, so I was caught a bit by surprise at the promotion. There are still multiple errors. Many sentences are still complex. The article often does not follow the basic sentence writing guidelines, "'Change to active voice. Example: change from "The bird was eaten by the cat." (passive voice) to "The cat ate the bird.'". -- Gotanda (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposals closed recentlyEdit


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

I'm making a strange decision - nominate this article to VGA. I know that this article is far away from VGA for today (and most likely it will not pass at this stage again) but I really want to know what I can do to improve. I did a new talk section and would like to receive more comments with argumentation. Frontfrog (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Support I'm thinking its much too thicc not to be. Its even thiccer than Jupiter and Saturn! Its well sourced as well. (wow puns) Elytrian - Talk 12:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I added a new section about orbit and rotation but I think it's not so need because I added only 3 sentences. Maybe relocate it to observation section? Frontfrog (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Really, the best you can do is to leave this alone for a while. It's bordering on obsessive to put it up immediately after it was confirmed as GA. We've had to demote VGAs constantly because they were originally pushed and pushed by pushy editors! What we can do best is to create more GAs. That we can do with the small number of good editors which we have. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OK. I agree that it's really GA for now. But I'll still come back later and will try to bring it to VGA. We have the small number of VGA too, I think. Frontfrog (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that there are a lot of formatting issues that need to be solved. I gonna list it here:
  • In some zoom levels and aspect ratio, the vertical chunk of images can make a ton of blank lines. Consider using {{Multiple images}} for that.
  • There is no explaination on "(96 × 60 × 52)" stats in the article. Please clarify.
  • Why does "Orbit and rotation" section only has 1 sentence?
I also fixed some stuff here and there, and I can see a lot of issues as well. I think this article need very proactive improvement by the nominator to even have a chance of getting VGA status. I'm not saying that the article is bad, what I mean is that the article needs lots of improvement. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Don't understand about 2 issue. Orbit and rotation section had 2 sentences (not one) but it is not needed actually - I replaced it to Observation section again. Frontfrog (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Amazing! I gonna look at the article later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose until either this, Sentō or Coldplay's nomination is closed. Having multiple nominations are not allowed here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Frontfrog, check message above. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn, check [2] for more information. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy CarterEdit

Jimmy Carter (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

With Simple English needing some more VGA, I originally wanted to nominate this article for GA but felt that the article is a good contender for VGA. The article of a former President has been enriched with his life and I feel would be an excellent addition to the VGA family. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly a good start; didn't have an in-depth look yet. Visually: there are many small sections ("EPA Love Canal Superfund", "Carter Center", for example); we might want to expand or regroup these a little. I don't know how much the average reader is annoyed finding a new section every 3-4 sentences. Other than that: havent had an in-depth look yet. Article looks promising. --Eptalon (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the sectioning definitely looks better now. I will give a more thorough review when I have more time to look at it; likely on the weekend...--Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Eptalon: Any other issues? I've merged the early life section with his navy career to expand the early life section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: it is well-written (pretty simple language for me) and good sourced. Frontfrog (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This still needs work. I've started with a comment on the article talk page where discussions should go. It is worthy of being a VGA but not there yet. Also, is this still active? Jackie O nomination is newer. I though editors did VGA noms one at a time so that we concentrate attention and work, not spread it out. We are already spread pretty thin around here. --Gotanda (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gotanda: I fixed the Jackie O quote thing you brought up. Also I really want Carter to pass VGA and I consider this nom active as I'll actively comment and fix the article per current suggestions. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • THe more I examine this, the more issues I find. Other editors, please see the article Talk page. This has a long way to go and will require careful checking considering the errors I have found so far just checking a couple of statements in the article. I would suggest following the guidelines and sticking with one nomination at a time as they take so much work and attention from you and from other editors. --Gotanda (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I will not be able to attend to the much over the next week. I would encourage other editors to have a look at the talk page. I oppose any promotion of this article in anything close to it's current form. Just checking one sentence revealed multiple errors. I have tried to work with the nominating editor. See the talk page. If just one sentence has this many problems which cannot be fixed quickly, then the article is nowhere near ready.--Gotanda (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The source author's wikilink should be dewikilinked. Also, you should use iabot to archive the sources as well. I will review the article more throughly later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @CactiStaccingCrane: Thank you for this feedback, I'll work right on it! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @CactiStaccingCrane: I've fixed the article per your suggestions. Your feedback was great, perhaps you can also give my Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis VGA nom a look? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      Thanks! I will review more later. I need to focus on my current nominations first. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      Of course! Any feedback is appreciated since its been awhile. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      You might want to comment on my article as well. I'm finding it very hard to make the text fluid and coherent. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      Oppose, since the nominator have multiple proposals. Not only this is breaking the guidelines, it also stresses the system. We cannot let him get away with this, since it would be unfair for other nominators. Feel free to contact me once all but one proposal is removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      @CactiStaccingCrane: I'll withdraw one nomination (the article that has more complications for VGA). I'm a bit at a tossup, I'm leaning towards Jackie Kennedy since it'd be nice to have an article about an influential woman to be promoted to VGA. Thoughts? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      I think you should choose one which has the best shot on getting GA or VGA. You can always nominate those later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      @CactiStaccingCrane: I think Jackie Kennedy is a best bet for VGA and Willis Tower for GA. I don't think having one nom under each promotion (VGA & GA) should be seen negatively let alone tank a nomination. I really appreciated your feedback (Carter & Kennedy) Nice to get the ball rolling finally! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      @TDKR Chicago 101 I agree, although it breaks the rule a bit (WP:Ignore all rules). I would try to comment a lot more on all proposals as well, but like you said it can be really overwhelming. I also have a VGA proposal at the very top, and I also want comments as well! Looks like we are in the same boat here :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      Yeah, I don't want either noms to go stale or have the attention span go down. I'm sure you'd understand we've demoted some GAs in the past year so you can see why I wanted to have some more GAs going. I'll comment on your nom and hopefully my feedback will help! I guarantee before Sunday I'll have a look. I think Jimmy's nom should be archived and have all focus shift on Jackie Kennedy's nom. Looking at GA's guidelines it looks like having one nom under VGA and GA at the same time is good and not breaking the rules TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I will archive this article for you, so feel free to put your thought at Jackie's proposal :)

I would like to give some feedback before archiving though. I think that simplifing the prose is key here. The key thing here is to use less words to describe the same thing. Here's one example: When going to the inauguration of Donald Trump in 2017, he became the oldest former president to go to one.Carter became the oldest former president to go to the inauguration of Donald Trump in 2017. or Carter became the oldest former president to go to any inauguration. (a bit vague here)

Another thing that you can do is to change quotes to own words. You can say In May 2007, Carter say Bush Jr. was the worst in dealing with other countries instead of In May 2007, Carter stated the Bush administration "has been the worst in history" in terms of its impact in foreign affairs. I gonna identify problematic sentences here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal archived per proposer's request [3] CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha I'll keep this in mind when I nominate Carter for VGA in the future! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane EtaEdit

Hurricane Eta (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

With over 130 sources, and quite a bit put in from Wikiproject tropical cyclones, I think it finally deserves a spot in VGA. The only issue I see is that very few people have edited this article and the user Shift64 put in the majority of the work. And yes, I know tropical cyclones are hogging the VGA spots, but the articles are well constructed. Elytrian - Talk 09:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I think I'm not in favour of this. It's almost a direct copy of En in places, there's whole sections which are almost identical. More important to me is that overall it is poorly simplified. Very long sentences are not the way to go! To be perfectly frank, the level of written language might not be acceptable in a GA. Withdraw, and work on it, please. Our title says "Simple English"!! The first objective should be to meet the requirement for GA, for it is borderline even at that level IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of a weighty comment of Macdonald-ross. Frontfrog (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. The article is still rather complex and lengthy, and multiple parts have not been edited. -Shift674-🌀 00:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This article needs a lot of work, and I wouldn't call it ready for VGA: 1) Many small sections that need mergin/reworking (For example in *Readying"; whats the point of having a section, if there's just 1-2 sentences, with references?), woludn't we want that rewritten into one section, and if need be use paragraphs? 2)Visually, the intro/lede and "storm history" almost have the same length. So: either lede shorter (cut by about a trhird), or make the"Storm history" section longer". 3) Readying and effects section look like they need to be looked at. Look at articles such as Tropical Storm Gabrielle (2007), Hurricane Vince or Tropical Depression Ten (2005) to see examples (yes, all three are VGAs). I also feel like most of the comments would have been fixed, if we'd gone for GA, first. --Eptalon (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Closed as not promoted right now: Comparing it with other articles about tropical storms, this article needs a lot of work, to meet even basic GA requirements. For this reason (and the comments above) I suggest we close this nomination. If proposed again, first go for Good Article.--Eptalon (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Good day! Please, let's try to do this article very good or just good. The article needs attention. Red links were removed, images were added. Frontfrog (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  • It certainly has potential, but I would propose it for good article first. Certainly it needs some work for GA. Quite far from VGA at this time. --IWI (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah it looks good does need work but I wouldn't remove the redlinks, instead create articles from them that way we can grow the wiki with more well done articles and help this one in the process. --Hellothere4 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll get all the red links back in just a few minutes. I will greatly appreciate further help! (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Added missing sources and addressed all the redlinks. I hope that this article will be soon VGA after GA nomination. Maybe need to simplify the intro and the body of text. Frontfrog (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as GA The article is well sourced and the content is good for a Good Article! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Why not go for GA first? - VGA has extra requirement; as an example, there are still red-linksin the article, and we haven't looked at "fairly complete coverage yet". I propose we first go for GA, which makes VGA application less work.--Eptalon (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I added this article to proposed GA already. But I don't see where the red-links? The information window does not count. Frontfrog (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I see redlinks in the table under atmosphere; also I found a few links to the English Wikipedia. Those will need to be removed and pointed to a simple Wikipedia page. PotsdamLamb (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I'm blind? I don't see any links to the English Wiki. All of them refer to Simple English articles. Or I just don't understand. Frontfrog (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s the link to special characters I saw it at. PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone close the nomination so as not to mislead? And @TDKR Chicago 101:, please, leave your voice in proposed GA. Frontfrog (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Result: not promoted to VGA at the moment. There's also a proposal to promote to Ga, let's handle that first.--Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nikolai KapustinEdit

Nikolai Kapustin (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I recently added a lot to this page, that is, a biography part. But why Kapustin? Well, he is a very talented Ukrainian composer, probably the most famous Ukrainian composer of all time in history. He was also very important in making classical music history because he was a classical music composer (the word composer is usually used for classical music) but he mixed jazz things into his classical works. This was very interesting, not many composers do something like that, and gave him a special type of style (Kapustin style?) For years, he was widely held to be one of the greatest living composers, until, sadly, he died recently. It's almost a year since he past away last spring, and many classical music people have respects to him. Its kyiv not kiev (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I am very sorry, but is it me "Its kyiv not kiev" writing this, because there was a network error?

Hello and welcome to our Wikipedia.Very good articles are the very best articles we can produce; there are criteria to follow. In general, Very good articles also have a certin size, and they are fairly complete. The article you menttion is quite short, still. I propose you first try going for the status of Good article. Look at Ludwig van Beethoven, to have an example (good article). Also look at the requiremenrs for very good and for good articles.--Eptalon (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I took one look at the article. It's an immediate no. This doesn't follow the layout of any article, it is not particularly long, has no images, has no infobox, and it doesn't even have much information on the person. This wouldn't even come close to being a Good Article. ~Junedude433talk 15:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is very far from VGA status, or even GA status. --IWI (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

not promoted - Very far from the VGA criteria. When retried, should at least meet most of the criteria; likely try GA first...--Eptalon (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a clear fail as GA as well. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Related pagesEdit