Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 11

< Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

change
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

:*@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)[reply]

Oppose, per Gotanda's comment and the nominator not following the guidelines. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have shifted the focus to Jackie Kennedy, any thoughts @CactiStaccingCrane:? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Check, please. What does this even mean? "Arabella and Patrick both died due to infancy at birth."? I am trying to fix this up bit by bit but this is both complex and incomprehensible. --Gotanda (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship

change
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @Eptalon, Gotanda, and 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I agree with closing it as not done for now.-BRP ever 11:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator. Griff (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7 July 2005 London bombings

change
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I've responded and done what I can. Fixing26 (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. They should solve these issues before nominate the article for VGA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neptune

change
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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Amazing! I gonna look at the article later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Frontfrog, check message above. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, check [2] for more information. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles/Archive_11&oldid=8107220"