Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 10

< Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

Archived proposals

change

Horatio Alger, Jr.

change
Horatio Alger, Jr. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been nurtured along for some time. This article is comprehensive and appropriate for this wiki. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you decide to review! Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a scroll-down, there are red links. -Barras talk 11:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a single redlink: moralism. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Oregonian2012 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the text, including part of the "Legacy" section is too complex. "Other writers slightly reworked the Alger moral and ethical outlook to suit more materialistic times", for example. "The quality of his literary allusions however makes his prose distinctive". I don't think this is Simple English. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has defects which should have been corrected long ago:
    No red links at all are allowed for VGA;   Done {{Related pages must be properly related (this one is not);   Done Dates of birth and death should not be linked, in fact years should not be linked at all unless very significant.
    The general simplicity of the language is borderline.
    The article makes little of his pederasty. There is a tendency for biographies to view the dark side of their subjects with leniency, or to omit it entirely (see our article on Frank Sinatra). We should do what we can to make sure that criminal and quasi-criminal activity by a subject is given due prominence.
    Overall, a fairly reasonable candidate for VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: I'm closing this as it's been ongoing for nearly 6 months now, which is, frankly, a bit ridiculous. If the article was ready it would have support for a promotion, and there are outstanding concerns both listed above and from a quick glance through the article myself. My suggestion would be to address any outstanding concerns, seek some informal reviews and then return. Goblin 23:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

Commodore Nutt

change
Commodore Nutt (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article recently passed GA. I think it can go on to pass VGA. It is as comprehensive as possible in my estimation. There are not volumes of information on this man and about everything published on him has been entered here. My "head" is still into this subject at the moment. It will be easier to respond to your concerns. I look forward to your comments, and will respond at once. Oregonian2012 (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can support this going to VGA. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, StevenJ81! Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're really too scrupulous with PGAs. It has repeatedly been identified as a problem and is something that we need to correct. There's not much I can really find that needs addressing, and I also don't want to see it get revised so much that it becomes unrecognisable from the version recently promoted. The few things I can say are pretty minor:
  • The hatnote at the top of the article needs to go, since there's WP:NOARTICLE.
  • Only bold the title of the article once. Technically, you're supposed to include it as part of the opening sentence. "aka..." looks wierd, though; it might be better if you wrote "better known as..." and remove the link to stage name since it appears later in the same paragraph.
Osiris (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Osiris. I've made some changes in the first sentences of the lead. Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great. You could bold "George Washington Morrison Nutt" if you want, but I don't think it's a big deal either way. I support promotion now. Osiris (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Osiris! Your help on bringing an article to VGA is always appreciated! Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Taking a punt and closing this early per WP:SNOW. All the comments suggest that the article was pretty much ready after the GA nomination, and I found very little that needs changing (all now done) on a pass through. We've passed things with less than 5 supports in the past, and taking this through another week would be pointless, imo. Congratulations. Goblin 15:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]

Thanks to everyone for your generous support and comments! Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbo

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

Jumbo's story will be enjoyed by our young and old readers alike. I wrote this article from scratch. Please don't compare it to enwiki. We don't agree. Enwiki has Jumbo born in western Africa while my sources have him born in eastern Africa. Thanks. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put some notes on the talk page a while ago and Oregonian was in the process of addressing them. Unless anyone else wants to step in and take over, I think this is going to be heading for an unsuccessful close. Osiris (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not promoted. Since Oregonian was blocked indefinitely. Osiris (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selena

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

The article failed its last nomination, it has since then gone through several copy-edits. If there are any more issues please let me know. Thanks, .jonatalk 02:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be considered, but not at this time. If I remember correctly the closing suggestion was to go through the article informally to get it up to scratch before bringing it here, possibly going via GA first. Enough of the drive-by noms. Goblin 09:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Macdonald-ross![reply]
If you guys believe its not VGA-ready, I don't mind moving it to PGA. Best, .jonatalk 00:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you whether you put it up for VGA or GA, but my comments stand either way: get an informal review before nominating, and ensure that the article already meets all the criteria. Note any article that is not up to scratch technically automatically fails as we have a requirement that articles are stable and not about to undergo multiple changes, although we're being a bit slack on that at the moment. Either way, my point about drive-by nominations stands. Goblin 21:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
I think the article is great for a VGA status and perfect for a GA status. It's greatly references, has supported information, a descent amount of images, and it's simple. I enjoyed reading the article :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluegoblin7: Yes, I want to go through the PVGA process. The article has gone through several revisions and copy-edits by other editors during its run at PVGA last year, so I don't see how the article needs to be heavily edited this time around. @TDKR Chicago 101: Thanks for your support and glad you enjoyed it. Best, .jonatalk 01:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a quick glance I noticed Selena#CITEREFL1995 which is terribly formatted. That is an article. Not a book. Yet it is listed like it's a book. Additionally, what is this author's first and last name? Only (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Done are there any more issues? Best, .jonatalk 00:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why Early Success is a level 1 heading and Later success is a subheading under Early success? Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: No edits to article in three weeks, and no comments here in over a month. Stale nomination. Goblin 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]


The Lightning Thief

change
The Lightning Thief (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This was promoted to GA couple of years back and almost no work has been done on it since then, so it's probably not close to VGA standard yet. However, I'd like to work on this article, so I'm submitting this for VGA review. Thanks for the comments / reviews. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Note that half the references on the page are to pages that are currently offline. I'll try to replace them asap. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I have no doubts that any comments made on this VGA will be enacted swiftly and thoroughly - unlike other recent noms - I do have to comment that we've recently closed other noms based on them clearly not being ready and still to undergo major edits. This particularly articles strikes me as one of those cases, and I think it might be more appropriate to get the changes and comments made not as part of PVGA, but informally, and then bring the article back when it is at - or nearly at - promotion stage. That said, I'll try and give the article a look over in the next couple of days, and this is purely my personal opinion rather than any "decision" either way. Goblin 09:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
  • I've looked at the comments so far and have addressed most of them. I'll finish making the changes in a couple of days. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extend for two weeks: Progress is being made here, which is excellent. As the wiki seems particularly quiet at the moment, let's let this run for another couple of weeks in the hope that activity picks up a little! Goblin 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]
Anything else I need to fix? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is looking very good.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking a look, and doing some simplifying. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I have promoted the article; please adapt the pages I possibly forgot... --Eptalon (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert the promotion, but the presence of maintenance categories (dated October 2014) precludes this article from promotion according to the criteria. It's certainly in good shape but I also don't think we have a consensus for promotion here, especially as the last comment was w/r/t "taking a look" rather than supporting promotion. Goblin 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]
Thanks for mentioning the maintenance category; it was from a dead link I'd forgotten to replace, but I've fixed that now. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous, I had little doubt that it would be promptly attended to. ;-) Goblin 14:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

Hurricane Grace (1991)

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

This is currently a good article here and a featured article on enwiki. I'd appreciate it if you would leave your feedback below. Eurodyne (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It needs simplifying. Not only wording, but a lot of the sentences are compound and there are complex words. It would also be nice if the links to Wiktionary were replaced with either article links, simpler words, or explanations -- it's nicer for the readers if they don't have to go elsewhere to understand something. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Simplified most of it. May need some help of other editors. Auntof6, I left a message on your talk page. Eurodyne (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. I'll be checking the article another time right now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more simplifying. My only comment now is that I think there's too much detail about the "perfect storm" that Grace formed part of. This article should focus more on Grace. We have an article for the other storm; let's put that detail there if it's not there already. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6, I see that it only talks about the 'perfect storm' in the introduction of the article. Which section are you referring to? Eurodyne (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It talks about it in the next-to-last paragraph under "Preparations and impact". Everything except the first sentence there is about the other storm. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that part. Anything else I can do? Eurodyne (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks good. There might be some more terms that could be linked. I'll check for that when I get a chance. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked a few more terms. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say this is not really a good article to my eyes, so it follows that it is not a very good article. The language is too clumsy. Sentences end abruply, and their connection with the next sentence is often unclear. Even inside sentences the wording is not good. "The storm had a small effect on the island of Bermuda when it passed to the south" is written instead of "The storm had little effect on Bermuda as it passed to the south" is both more direct and uses prepositions and other prose elements more correctly. Again, later "The beginning of Grace was" intead of "Grace began as"... Again, later, what on earth is that sentence doing in brackets (first para "Metereological history"). What that tells me is that the writer knew the paragraph had something wrong with it, but could not bear to re-write it.
    Often, too often, the wrong words are chosen. "larger" instead of "more" is exactly the kind of thing which should not happen in a good article. "A yacht, a type of boat" - what?? We may not have a page "yacht", but wikt does, and it's the job of a writer to find this out.
    Finally, we're not told the full story about the name 'Grace' not being retired. What should we make of it? Is it not the writer's job to anticipate and answer questions which might arise in the reader's mind? What occurs to me is that Grace was not a real hurricane after all. I could be wrong, but the article leaves me guessing. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have some good points, but I'd like to see us not be too quick to include links to Wiktionary, especially for things that could have an article some day. I think we have too many such links. Once we link to Wiktionary, we almost never replace those links when an article does get created. It's also not the best thing to make people go to a different project to find something out. It's much better to explain a word/phrase, or simplify it where possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all of the wikt links and have added them with simpler words. I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. Eurodyne (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After more than a month of this request, is there any more feedback I could get?
  • Just to repeat myself: it is not suitable for promotion, and is only just about a good article. It does use simple words and short sentences, but does not read well, and lacks flow (see comments above). Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Airbourne

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

Have a lot of information. --Cristianho19 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Burns

change
Oyster Burns (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Currently a GA both here and on enwiki. Pretty decent article, meets criteria. I'm willing to make changes, just let me know. eurodyne (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me on initial inspection. My only question, mainly for @Auntof6, who's pretty good at this, is whether sentence structure is occasionally too complex. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say there room for simplifying the sentence structure. I'll take a crack at it right now. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: updates? eurodyne (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did the simplifying I said I'd do. What other updates are you looking for from me? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine, except for the word "demote". But I can't really think of a good, simple synonym that captures the essence of the word. So sometime today (US EDT) I'll create a definition for "demote" in wikt. In the meanwhile, I support promotion. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Much of the article is boring statistics, yet when something real happens there is just no discussion. A colleague stabs him!?! And there is no discussion or explanation?? He severs a tendon, but plays only two weeks later? How does he do that? You have to run between bases, you know! The references are not much help here, as you can see. Biographies are about people, and readers rightly expect the human peculiarities to be given full weight. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: As you have mentioned, the references don't really do a good job of explaining that. Do you think this article could still pass as a VGA if I took certain part(s) out? eurodyne (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the stabbing &c., then I think this: it obviously was an extraordinary incident, and because it was by colleague it has to be explained and discussed (it was not a random street event). Without it, the biog lacks an important element. Biographies are about people, not just sports statistics. The obvious way to go is to the published biographies of him. The way to get those is through the public library system. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Burns was the person who did the stabbing, not the person who was stabbed (and severed his tendon). I think there was some mix-up in the comments above. Of course, I agree that there should have been a bit more discussion of that particular incident. You don't exactly stab someone who is sleeping and get away with it. Chenzw  Talk  14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just glancing at it (literally) the imbalance of sections is glaring. We shouldn't have sections that are two lines at most. Balance it better. And agree with others...needs to be a more comprehensive biography. Only (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just came by. As the original author, I have no problem with this nomination. I will say, however, that, on a cursory search of a service to which I subscribed on enWP, I found several articles of interest that aren't included in the current article; to name two, Tom Burns, Noted Player of the '90s, Dies at Age of 64: Was Member of Brooklyn Pennant Winners of 1890. Read his own Obituary. and An Idyl of a Diamond Hero: True Story of how a Hotel Fire Cemented a Friendship that Continued Thirty Years Although One Handed the Other his Obituary to Read. There's definitely more out there. Seattle (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to close this now. It's been over a month since the last edit to the article, and the two article I mentioned a week ago haven't been examined to find incorporative material. Renominate after you've incorporated all material you could find. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan

change
Ronald Reagan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is my first GA nominee to become a GA and frankly seeing at the current VGA I feel this article is at a very high and well structured article for VGA. I've worked hard on it and the article is in tip top shape. Of course I believe there is adjustments to be done be make this a VGA, but seeing I have more time on my hands, I'm more than happy to tackle those suggestions to make this article a VGA. The article has been simplified during GA review, is well sourced, well formatted, has many sources and content and is a GA. I do believe this article has potential to be a VGA which is why I am nominating it for VGA status. Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the article is generally a good candidate; I have only had a quick glance. What bothers me a little is that there are many rather short sections, especially in the presidency part. We might consider regrouping these, for example add a section health, where we mention the different health issues: the hearing aid, the differnt forms of cancer, and perhaps Alzheimer's (not sure). I don't know, but I think to a certain extent it is normal that hearing gets worse with age. Most US presidents assumed their office at age 50+, or even 60+ (with the exception of Obama, and JFK, don't know of any others). Somewhat reminds me of glasses: Almost all people with a higher education wear glasses. In that context is it worth mentioning that XY wears glasses? - I leave it up to others to discuss. But as I said, I only had a quick glance, and did no in-deph analysis. --Eptalon (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the section on marriages shouldn't go under his acting career. Maybe a separate personal life section? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The section on marriages should be moved down after the main details of his life. Some comments about the honors section:
  • The first item, about getting a Marine recruitment letter, doesn't seem like an honor, so I removed it.
  • I did some simplifying.
  • The term "unveil" isn't simple, but I'm not sure what to replace it with.
--Auntof6 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Auntof6:: I simplified the honors section although I do not know where to place the marriage section. I thought before his political sections began because it would be in chronological order. Where would you exactly recommend putting it? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created a health section down where his Alzheimer diagnosis is described. Section as is is still a little short (doesn't really solve the issue raised, but improves on the previous state). I moved the old health section there. Is there anything else that can be said about his health? --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon: I've expanded the health section. Is it good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the section looks better now. --Eptalon (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I often find that I am repeating myself. At GA level I commented:
"I think all the ways of representing pronunciation (such as IPA) are useless, and get in the way of the intro sentence, which affects readability. Do you see them in newspaper of magazine articles? You do not, and with good reason. If pronunciation of a name is really a problem, it could be addressed in the text. In Reagan's case there is no problem. What I mean is, a name like 'Featherstonehaugh', which is pronounced "Fanshaw", needs explaining. Reagan's does not. Intro sentences and paras are absolutely critical".
I still think so. Now something more general. I was living in Palo Alto for a period period when he was Governor of California. He was vigorously opposed by the lefties (nothing new there!), but amazed everyone at how well he did the job. Something rather similar happened with his presidency. It was strongly opposed by the liberal elite, but he ended up, as you say, a most popular president. One of the explanations was that he had picked very good people in his governments, and let them get on with it. This dynamic of moving from being perceived as someone without the background of political experience to a widespread acknowledgement that he had something special is perhaps something which deserves more prominence in the article. I see one or two books in the En page "Bibliography of Ronald Reagan" which look promising as possible sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper or magazine article, IPA is very important for us. Especially for us at simple where the readers might be ESL readers. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Macdonald-ross:: So add content in regards to his bipartisanship during his presidency despite Reagan not being liked by Liberals? I'm on it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with the "short sections": We still have the issue that some sections are rather short. Is it reasonable to expect that no matter what, we do not have any sections/subsections shorter than, say 5-6 lines of text? - The ones I see as problematic are (amongst others) "President of the Screen Actors Guild","Secret FBI Agent", "Failed Presidential Campaigns", "First term, 1981-85".What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eptalon: I've expanded the SAG section, FBI section and added more info about his 1976 and 1980 campaigns. In regards to the first terms and all the sub section, basically everything after First term, 1981-85 until Second term, 1985-89 are in regards to his first term and the events are sorted out. Of course some sections are going to be smaller because that's how it is, but they still belong within that first term. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, Kansas

change
Lawrence, Kansas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article for Lawrence certainly fulfilled the GA criteria, and I think it goes well beyond that. The article is very well sourced, formatted, has loads of content, (many of the pages it links to also aren't stubs). I think that it has potential to become a VGA. I think this should become the goal for any big city that would have a lot of content, instead of the usual articles we see that are barely a few paragraphs. I think some people may just need a bit of a guide on what a VGA for a city would look like on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I think this will help. ~Junedude433talk 22:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good! You did a lot of good work to get it to this state. I can see a couple of things I would improve. One is that I see at least one word, sector, that could be simplified (preferably not linked to Wiktionary). Another thing is that there are some more terms that could be linked, including temperance, the architectural styles that aren't already linked, urban development, household, the names of people and businesses in the 20th century section... There could be more, I can check better when I get my laptop back from the shop.
By the way, good and very good articles can be flagged in Wikidata so that they're highlighted in the languages list on other Wikipedias. I just took care of that for this page's good article status. We should be sure to update that if/when the article is promoted. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and linked to some of the pages you mentioned. However, I couldn't find the word "sector" used anywhere in the article. Could you please specify where you found this?
I also want to push back a bit on the 20th century section about the people and businesses. Many of those people and businesses are not relevant or important enough for their own articles. They were all local companies that never really expanded and didn't last very long. The people that did something more than just open a business or something are already linked. I put in as much information about them in the Lawrence article because I didn't have enough info (and didn't feel they were relevant enough) to justify making their own articles. The standard English Wikipedia also doesn't have articles on them presumably for the same reason. I may go back and create articles for some of the people mentioned during the 19th century though, but the 20th century didn't have many long-lasting, major events - just small snippets. ~Junedude433talk 20:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you think they aren't important enough to link, just leave them. I do wonder, if they aren't important enough to link, are they important enough to mention? But I'll leave that to you.
I don't see "sector" now, either. I don't know where I got that. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are important enough to mention as a brief paragraph in a general article, but I don't think they are important enough on their own to justify an entire article about them. They made enough of an impact on a specific city that it's worth mentioning about in that city's article, just not enough on their own. This is especially true if they aren't even around any more.
On a somewhat related note, I am having a non-native English speaker friend of mine look through the article for anything that they didn't easily understand, so expect a few more simplification edits. ~Junedude433talk 22:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL comments

change
Before I start, I should just admit upfront to being a radical purist. I'd literally never include the word "scientist" in an article because it doesn't meet BE 850. Obviously I am not going to hold this article to such strict standards, but I am mentioning this because I will looking for high standards in meeting WP:COMPLEX. Also, since I have never participated in this process on enwiki, this is technically the first FA I've ever reviewed (well it's called VGA here, but you feel me). For future reference, these comments are direct at this version of the article.
  • While contractions are informal, they are not necessarily simpler. Please change these.
    • The word didn't appears 4 times.
    • couldn't and wasn't are both used twice.
  • Sometimes you use a big word when a shorter one could easily do:
  • On September 20, they made a constitution for Lawrence. You can say wrote.
  • Words you are free to delink (though you don't have to): women, children, law, disgusted, swimming
  • You should possibly consider linking: gazebo and charter.
  • Finally, the external link to The Replay Lounge's website needs to be removed.
Other concerns:
  • The lead is fine, but it wouldn't hurt to be expanded. Just skip this though if it seems like I've thrown too much at you. Like I said, it's fine at the moment. :)
  • The "Notable people" section is completely empty. However, you have to two options when dealing with this:
    • Summarize the main list article with people that generally always get mentioned from the town.
    • Delete the section header and move the links to the "See also" section (this is just what I would do).
    • Either way, the hatnote for List of University of Kansas people should be a {{Further}} rather than {{Main}} since you can't have two main articles like (I think).
That was obvious all pretty much the negative stuff. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the stuff you did right here. This is probably one of the best articles on simplewiki I have ever read here. You could not have found a better candidate for reviving this process with! It's prose is incredibly well-formatted and structured in the true simple-wiki style while not sacrificing anything in terms of quality.
Further, and this is important, it is comprehensive in its information. I seriously learned a lot about Lawrence, Kansas by reading this. I'm not left wanting (and even if I was, I'm giving the immediate location of further resources). This was a great effort so far, and the passion and dedication certainly shows throughout the article! Please keep making more like this (I'll collaborate on doing Hartford, Connecticut with you!!!!)
@Junedude433: Please address any of the above points at your pleasure! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: First of all, a very big thank you for leaving such detailed feedback! I had always hoped I could get a second pair of eyes on the article for simplification. This was basically the first real attempt of mine to do simple English, so I was just guessing for some of this.
I followed some of your advice for changes. I simplified boulder, cancelled, and changed "made" to "wrote" (don't know how that one never came to mind). I also delinked The Replay Lounge, and got rid of the contractions. The only thing I may push back on would be "discrimination." This type of discrimination isn't necessarily just simple "hatred against" but instead discrimination as used in a legal sense, that is denying someone a job, housing, etc. The law said nothing about making simple hatred (or hurtful comments or anything) illegal, just involving things like employment. I feel like "hatred against" isn't quite the right way to describe it. Considering this, what do you think?
I can't guarantee I can put as much passion into Hartford's article as I can with Lawrence's, I can make some improvements. My goal with this is to make a standard what a good city article should look like. This is so that if anyone else wants to make a city's article really good, they have a template to follow. I would be more interested in doing the same for a state. The two articles I have set my sights on are Kansas and History of Kansas. ~Junedude433talk 20:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Junedude433: I would say that I was in the wrong on the discrimination word replacement count. That's a well articulated reason!!
It is more than fair for you to move on to other Kansas topics. Connecticut is all me then lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article indeed. I made some minor copyedit, but there is one awkward sentence (double the) I'll leave to you:

In 2005 the The New York Times said Lawrence had one of the best music cultures in any city between Chicago and Denver. ...Aurora... (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~Junedude433talk 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, Kansas

change
Lawrence, Kansas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The previous time I nominated this article to be featured never reached a conclusion, even though all responses were supportive of it. Therefore, I am resubmitting my nomination for this article to be featured. It is among the longest articles on this wiki, everything is properly sourced, linked, and written, it is comprehensive, and the layout is exactly what an article should look like. Seemingly, the only reason it did not get promoted was simply because not enough users had reviewed it, not because of any negative responses. In fact, there was not a single negative response from any of the reviewers. I think that this should not only be a featured article, but could become the gold standard of what city articles should look like. I will gladly accept any and all criticism to make this article the best it can be, if there is anything left to improve. ~Junedude433talk 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been some time since I wanted to do a thorough review of this article. I had done some copyedits at the time it was promoted to Good Article. However, I see it has been improved even more since that time. It is an excellent page, and frankly much more complete than many of our existing Very Good Articles. When reading the criteria at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles, I believe it meets all of them. Many of our existing Very Good Articles are out of date, having been promoted many years ago. Now they need work to get back up to date. This one would represent the wiki better, I think. I agree with promoting. After a review, I have no further edits to it at this time. I didn't even find formatting to fix. Desertborn (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reference: Past discussion was here and included thoughts from Auntof6, MJL, and Aurora. It appears issues were addressed and consense was leaning to promote. Just not enough participation, so it got archived. Desertborn (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peterdownunder on possible improvements are listed on the talk page of the article. Desertborn (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: Not sure if this is the place to comment/valid comment but:The template at the bottom of the article has a lot of redlinks, also there seem to be some redlinked categories saying that the article is containing some cs1 errors --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the cs1 issue was resolved by Hiàn, but the template Is still my question --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: I would argue the red links there are not necessary to fill in since they themselves are not part of the article. We currently have five good articles that have a navigation box template with red links in them: City of Manchester Stadium (Template:Premier League venues), Ronald Reagan (Template:Governors of California), Bobby Robson (Template:England Squad 1958 World Cup, Template:England Squad 1962 World Cup, Template:England Squad 1986 World Cup, and Template:England Squad 1990 World Cup), Portman Road (Template:Premier League venues), and Yellow (Template:Coldplay). I included the navigation boxes there because categorically they make sense, and they follow the format of other city articles. It helps facilitate the linking of pages together quite well. However, I do not consider any of the links in the navigation boxes inherently important or intimately related to the article itself. Would imposing this requirement on any other type of article make sense either? If an article about an American vice president were to be nominated, but say we did not have some articles of some of the vice presidents already created (and appeared in a navigation box), should that inherently stop that article from being promoted? I don't think so, and the criteria listed don't explicitly say anything about navigation boxes. I think your concern would make more sense if there was a Lawrence navigation box that had red links in them since they would all be directly related to the article, but that's not the case here. ~Junedude433talk 03:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that red links in the nav box don't need to be taken care of. They are external to the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I yearn for the day that I can make a point as succinctly as you can, @Auntof6:. ~Junedude433talk 16:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to make a judgement one way or the other, but in the past we have required any links not be red. Navbox or not because this page will show on the front page. The way it was often fixed if a person did not want to take the time to fix the red links was to either edit the navbox to remove those links or to remove the navbox itself. -Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its too long, has some sources that need dates and proper formatting, and uses complex words. Its almost as if the article on the Simple English wiki is longer than the one on the English wiki. Also the first sentence needs some sentence fluency fixing. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources is a valid matter and is easy to clean up. The article being long does not mean it is complex. IWI (chat) 03:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthewishere0: Being too long is not a problem for any article here, as long as the language is simple. Indeed, one of the criteria for very good articles is that they be comprehensive, and that can require an article to be longer than our average. Just because we have many short articles here doesn't mean that we want articles to be short. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has lots of complex words though, I don't know if I can give examples, but I think they should be easy to spot and could be simplified down. Also, sources play a big part of the article. If sources are dead links and aren't well formatted, then there is nothing available to back up the information in the article. Thats why it shouldn't be a VGA until all sources are fixed. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthewishere0: First of all, I appreciate the concerns you are laying out. I'm glad that there are more eyes on it, and I welcome the critique. That being said, I disagree that length is an issue. Perhaps if the article rambled on about things that weren't seriously related to it, I would agree; not everything is worth putting in the main article. However, I think all sections and subsections of the article is deeply related to it, and it is worth putting there. If there are any parts you think should be shortened, please specify them. Furthermore, the standard English Wikipedia's article is actually substantially longer than the Simple English Wikipedia's article. Some sentences might appear fleshed out, but this is because standard English benefits from being able to use more complex words that can specify an idea better and more concisely. If we must use simple grammar and direct, active voice, it's inevitable that there will be many more simple sentences that may seem to flesh out the length of the article.
On the subject of simplification, I am aware that not every word is inherently simple. There are many proper nouns and some technical terms, for sure. The way around this is to have a link to another article for a more complex term. That way, if someone were confused, they could simply view the article for that word and see a simple explanation of what it is. If we didn't have this workaround, articles would be unnecessarily long due to the sheer amount of short explanations needed, and that would also hurt the flow of the article. Instead of saying "I think they should be easy to spot," perhaps you could point these out? I would be particularly concerned if it were in a section in which it would be subject to copying and pasting to other articles (i.e. the People section about the census data). I want this to become the standard for city articles, so I want to make sure it is as easy to read and use as a template as possible.
As for sources, I fail to see where there are any issues. I have personally reviewed many of the sources, and I cannot remember any that were dead that were not already archived, and they are all formatted properly. I understand some of them don't have the publisher nor the author, but that was because that information did not appear in the source (e.g. no author was cited in a newspaper article, there isn't an author for the profile of a state legislator on the legislature's official roster, etc.). Since you noticed this issue, can you point out any specific sources that are problematic? I would love to fix them, but I don't see any problems, so I need another pair of eyes on it to specify them. Also, in the interest of not crowding this page, perhaps it would be a good idea to include any specific criticisms in the talk page of the article. Ping me so I know you posted. ~Junedude433talk 18:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is my view on this page (I should note that I talked about this with the nominator off-wiki, but all opinions are mine). I personally think it passes all ten of the VGA criteria. Criterion number 7 should be satisfied because the navboxes are not included within the article itself. Otherwise, it's easy to read when compared with BE 1500. The only non-BE words I can see in this article are proper names or extremely specialized terms. Sources are well formatted, images are properly captioned and relevant, and the article is comprehensive with many revisions. Epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support promotion. Uses simple English, everything is cited, and it meets the criteria for VGA. The article is very good. I see no reason looking through the article to not promote it. I haven't had chance to read through it in full but I will do later. If there are any issues, I will highlight them. IWI (chat) 17:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost there - I think the article is in good shape. I have posted a review on the article's talk page with a number of issues I would like to see addressed before this article is promoted. Once this has been done, I am happy for us to promote. --Yottie =talk= 21:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues I pointed out have been fixed. I can now support this nomination for promotion to VGA. --Yottie =talk= 18:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of now, supporters for the promotion are Yottie, IWI, Epicgenius, and Desertborn. If we include the archived post (which was only archived due to lack of discussion, not due to problems with the article), supporters include Auntof6, MJL, and Aurora. This brings the total amount to 7, which is more than the required amount. @Auntof6: does this qualify to be promoted now? ~Junedude433talk 15:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promoted to VGA. The article in its present state represents the culmination of a year's worth of effort and the tireless review work across two nomination attempts. The article will be featured on the main page's daily rotation in 11 days, so please look forward to it. Congratulations. Chenzw  Talk  15:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to comment on the decision, but to say: quantity and length of prose does certainly affect the poorer reader. I know that in reading Spanish I constantly have to check words with the dictionary, and figure out the (for me) complicated Spanish verb tense system. It is slow going, and hence the length of an article does have its effect. This page is over 137,000 bytes. I would not entirely agree with Aunt's comment on length not being a problem. It is certainly not listed as a problem in our criteria for VGA, and so the promotion is quite proper. We are all happy to add to our list of VGAs! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this after a time, I still feel the same way. Overlong articles are contra-indicated with our readership, and if 137,000 bytes is not overlong, then what is? Try it out on kids and find out. I think it's outrageous to have such long pages on a wiki meant not only for young people, but also for ESN readers. The whole procedure of adding more so it looks more complete is a desertion of our basic remit: to write simple pages which can be understood by children and by people whose native language is not English. In this way the whole idea of GAs and VGAs is undermined by their being less readable by virtue of their length. In effect, I am replying to Aunt when she says "length is not a problem here" by saying "that's only because it is not listed here". Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand your point of view. But one of our key tenets here is that we don't remove information to be simple, we just use simple language. That being said there are guidelines for the wiki in general on how big is too big. They say 100k+ of readable prose then the article should be split up into multiple articles. 60k of readable prose and you should start considering a split. That being said readable prose is not the entire page size, it is the size of the page minus templates, tables, references and wiki markup etc. So I haven't run one of the tools that exist to seee how much readable prose there is, but I am guessing its probably around the 60-70k mark. So this article is probably right on the very edge of what we consider the right size to split it up into multiple articles. That being said, we would have to figure out what would be best split if we wanted to do so. I am of the opinion that this isn't an issue for this article since it is split up into sensible sections so the reader doesn't have to read that whole page in one go. -Djsasso (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly understand the notion that articles shouldn't be too long for the sake of length (I can relate with your Spanish challenges, but with Japanese instead for me), some articles I think are justified. I would say an article is too long if it's trying to bite off more than what it can chew, that is to say it is too broad. City articles, especially those who have something unique about them (their size, their history, etc.), are going to be fairly long no matter what since there will have to be numerous sections. In the case of Lawrence's article, the only real section that is particularly long is its history, and its history section is already split off into other articles (e.g. History of Kansas so there isn't too much overlap, Lawrence Massacre and Sacking of Lawrence so the finer details don't bog down the section). All of the other sections are fairly short, all things considered. If the article's scope is limited and remains focused, I don't think length should be considered a problem. ~Junedude433talk 20:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Eta

change
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neptune

change
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think it’s the link to special characters I saw it at. PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nikolai Kapustin

change
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
It's a clear fail as GA as well. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter

change
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • Support: it is well-written (pretty simple language for me) and good sourced. Frontfrog (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 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)[reply]

Proposal archived per proposer's request [1] CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles/Archive_10&oldid=8894993"