Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 3

< Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

Archived requests change

RAID change

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

Hello there, I did a little work on this one, to make it easy to understand; I think there are a few red-links left (less than 5), and I don't know if 10 footnotes are enough for 20k text. Anyway, I think it can be made into a VGA. --Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

Not quite VGA yet...

  • I feel the lead could do with a fair bit more expansion.
  • It needs simplification, I think. I don't consider myself a complete noob with computers, so I'd expect to (mostly) understand a Simple English article on computing. Stuff like "A RAID array fixes two or more hard disks into a logical disk." is somewhat foreign to me; imagine how someone not familiar with computing would react to it. Give it another pass over and see what else you can fix. —Giggy 03:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added quite a bit on physical and logical disks, and done some simplifying in the What RAID can and cannot do section--Eptalon (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The headings need simplification. For example "Putting disks together, the easy way: JBOD, concatenation or spanning" sounds complicated. Beefball Talk 19:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read it all, I liked it, but I did find it pretty hard going... I think it isn't too far from VGA.Yotcmdr Talk

Jupiter change

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

I thought of putting this up for GA first but having looked at it quite a few times I really think it might make VGA first time. I appreaciate most of the writing has been done by me but I think that shouldn't count against it if it's good enough. As far as I can tell it's pretty comprehensive, definetly long enough and has no red links. It's as good as Saturn, an existing VGA. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

  • I'm not sure if this is where to comment, but I think that this article is not yet ready to be a VGA. Although the earlier VGAs were of this standard, the standard has risen. Comparing the length of the article to the EN Article, many details have been left out. This means that the article is not comprehensive enough. Not only is the article lacking details, many sections have been left out. I think you might need to expand the article a bit more first, although you don't have to provide a complete translation of the EN article in Simple English. I have spotted no errors so far, except the wrong category. It should not be put under Solar System, only Planets. I will help change it. Hope this helps. Sorry! Minor or Prime 09:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why the article title isn't at Jupiter. —Giggy 03:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is now. I just moved it a day ago. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 11:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I'm going to put it up for voting tommorow I think. I just hope it generates enough interest.. F S M 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powderfinger change

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

Been working on this one a while (see the page history and the talk page) and I think it's pretty close to VGA standard now. What do you guys think? —Giggy 09:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas:

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical senario: "what does "Live album" or "Best of" stand for? There isn't a link to them, it should be written into the article somewhere!" --Gwib -(talk)- 23:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Giggy 09:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Jessica Alba (the sequel) change

Jessica Alba (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Well, I'm not giving up on the PVGA process. I'm relisting this to get my two weeks worth of good, constructive, positive comments from the community to ensure that when I go to voting, I don't get any major surprises. I've taken on-board the criticisms from the first time I nominated this, and the only thing I couldn't see how to "fix" was expanding the article - Alba is only 27 years old and this article covers her career, childhood and personal life thoroughly. Thanks in advance for your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Personal life section only. —Giggy 07:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm onto 'em Giggmeister. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: - a few films that she starred in were missing, but I've added them in. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but next time you copy and paste an entire section from en-wiki, can you recheck the formatting and links which previously worked. And also you included a film which doesn't exist yet so she can't have starred in it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting was fine on my computer. She's starrING in the film. Word Nerd :). --Gwib -(talk)- 09:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's not the point is it? I had reformatted the table on this wiki. Please be more careful. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I got from the rest of the article; pretty well written overall. —Giggy 02:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Hippo: Re:IMDb, while I think you're generally right, the infobox actually has a link to her profile (and this is taken from en-wiki I presume) so should that be removed wholesale? Either you trust IMDb or you don't? I'll work on the other uses but I'm interested to know if some of IMDb, in your opinion, is more reliable than other parts...? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb have a page "How/where you get your information? How accurate/reliable is it? " which explains where they get their information. The problem is that they don't indicate which information is user-submitted and which comes from more traditional sources that could be seen as reliable. I tend to trust the more technical listings for movies as they just seem to be ripped from the closing credits. I'm least trusting of biographies simply because I've seen so many contradictions in them in the past. I don't have a problem with an IMDb link in the infobox as a courtesy, but I wouldn't use it to back up the content of the article. Hippopotamus (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well as far as I can tell now, I only use the site for her appearances and awards. Is that okay or would you prefer me to find other sources for all of those too? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to track down the awards in other sources relatively easily in newspapers, magazines, or industry publications, so I would at least try to replace IMDb for those. If you can find the appearances elsewhere relatively easily, it would be great, but I'm less concerned. It's a judgement call, really. Hippopotamus (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've ever edited an EnWP film article, so I'm not sure, but I believe the IMDB link in the infobox is per en:WP:EL (links that add useful content that wouldn't appear in an FA). So I think it should stay in the infobox, and you should just be extra careful with what information you use it to cite and who wrote that. (Eg. for appearance you can probably use it as you're just citing a photo.) —Giggy 09:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humph! I just took a look at this article, and, not having read this discussion, fixed the broken IMDb link! However, I agree that IMDb is not the most reliable source in the world. However, there were a number of references to it, and I think it should stay temporarily, with the proviso that a better cittation is forthcoming.
Otherwise, this article seems to fulfil the criteria. Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the link was broken because TRM tried to take out the IMDb refs but accidentally left one in. You also have removed a large chunk about the Playboy magazine cover though. Why? - tholly --Turnip-- 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter, I've replaced all the missing text and removed IMDB links. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I would have done but I was bound to mess things up further. Thanks. - tholly --Turnip-- 15:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Jessica Alba change

Jessica Alba (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A slightly different type of article this time, a comprehensive biography of one of Hollywood's favourite actresses. I've gone through the article, linked and simplified where possible and checked the whole thing off against the criteria (which, as usual, I've added on the talk page) - I believe the article meets all of them already, it just needs some fresh eyes to ensure it's not too complex. Thanks very much for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kournikova change

Anna Kournikova (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've expanded this stub significantly and it now meets all CA criteria. I am aware this is third of its type but that should not affect the voting - if it meets the criteria then there shouldn't be a problem. I won't be opening the voting on this article yet though because I'd like some feedback on the structure and content of the article. For ease of reference, the current criteria for VGA are listed on the talk page of the article and I'm more than happy to receive comments etc there, here or on my talk page. Thanks for spending some time reading this and, hopefully, pushing for another Very Good Article on Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 11 change

American Airlines Flight 11 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

So, at last, not an Eastern European tennis player... I've worked hard to expand this from a tiny stub to something worthy of the subject. It's an extremely sensitive topic which I've hopefully dealt with with consideration and accuracy. I believe it already meets all of the current VGA criteria, I've left an overview of my opinion on the talk page. I also think it would be a highly appropriate subject to have as our main page in September. I respectfully submit the article to the community. Thank you for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Hantuchová change

Daniela Hantuchová (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Again, another project I've done on my own but hopefully that won't mean it isn't any good! Yet again you now have an article which is more comprehensively referenced than English Wikipedia. She's a highly notable tennis player who has been as high as number five in the world in recent times. I've checked the article against the requirements for VGA (as can be found on the talk page. I'd be delighted to receive comments and criticism and, even more so, support in making this one of Simple English Wikipedia's Very Good Articles. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) change

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I am giving the featured article since "Template:FA" was missing. Timothy Mok (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a message to you regarding Good and Very good articles.
  1. The article must be about a subject which belongs in Wikipedia. There is no use improving articles that do not belong here, and better fit another wiki, like Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wiktionary, etc.   Done
  2. The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is not missing any major facts and details. (This is not a GA criteria, it is only for VGA)
  3. The article must have a certain length. A minimum is 5 kilobytes, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. There is no use in denoting very short articles as very good. (GA require 3.5kb; your article is currently 2.9kb all included; this means it is much too short)
  4. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.   Done
  5. The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.   Done
  6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).
  7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left. Red links point to articles that do not exist yet. Usually the important word or phrase is only linked the first time it occurs. (This is a criterion for VGA only; it is not in GA)
  8. If there are any illustrations, they must be pertinent to the article. They must also be properly labelled.
  9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. These templates include {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them.
  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. For articles that have references or external links on the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one in the Simple English article as well.--Eptalon (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a ton of red links, actual prose is fairly sparse – no information on how much it cost to build, controversy around it (surely any big project encounters some kind of opposition), any problems with it, why it was expanded (nobody just throws money at it), etc. Cassandra 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really needs much, much more prose with references. I think you need maybe a paragraph on history, one or two on infrastructure and trains, and maybe one on ticketing and one or two on safety and security. Keep the table with the network, but expand the lists into sentences with extra information. Hippopotamus (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, try adding references and a "history" section and then go for a GA. The redlinks need to be made blue too. You can do this by creating [stub] articles for where they link too; that is better than just taking them out but requires more time/effort. - tholly --Turnip-- 09:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is most definitely a No. Timothy Mok, who has proposed this, is a very new contributor and perhaps not very aware of the standards required. Even under those circumstances, I am surprised at its nomination.
This isn't just a matter of the article needing more material. The article is written in very poor English. This is probably partly due to the writer not being a native speaker of English, but it is also due to simple carelessness. No article of this length should be so badly editted that it has the word "the" where it should say "to" in the very first paragraph.
The writer then describes in a simplistic way (using inaccurate English) that people get onto the train with other people, go to their destination and get off. (!) That is the sort of info required (perhaps) in an article that tells what a railway train is, at the most basic level. If this is an article about a particular network, then we don't need to know that people get on and off the train. We need particular information about that network. Amandajm (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we archive this section now to avoid confusion, as it appears there is general agreement that this isn't going make the criteria in time. Hippopotamus (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. - tholly --Turnip-- 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Giggy 10:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived voting change

Powderfinger change

Powderfinger (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Nominated 17 August, vote ends 24 August.
Result: Unanimous pass. Vote ended 23 August due to WP:SNOW. 6 support 0 oppose F S M 22:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more comments up there, so I'm putting it up for a vote in the hope of getting another VGA on a musician/band. Cheers! —Giggy 05:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support change

  1.   Support - I've reviewed and commented on the article a couple of times but this is definitely decent enough for VGA now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for your help with this article :-) —Giggy 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support So far as I can tell, meets the criteria. Swatjester (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Same as SwatJester. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support - Looks just fine to me. Well referenced, all simple, meets pretty much all of VGA criteria, so I'll be happy to support. :-) Regards, RyanCross (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Weak support, it's probably not phenomenal, but I'll support. Could you do a little reference-cleanup? Good enough. — AE (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything in particular that needs work? I've tried to ensure all the references are formatted correctly and that everything is cited. —Giggy 01:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of them don't have access dates. But it's not huge, just seems off. — AE (talk)
    Thanks for replying. All the online references have access dates; the rest are magazine articles. Since the purpose of the access date is to ensure that the item being cited existed at some point (because websites can go down at any time), it is inappropriate to put an access date to something on print (since magazines can't disappear off the face of the Earth like websites!). I just checked again and I believe all the Internet sources have access dates. Thanks. —Giggy 02:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - No serious problems. Chenzw  Talk  12:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change

  1. Weak   Oppose - Unfortunately, the article is missing the Philanthropy section. This is quite an important part. If it is added, then I will gladly support. Chenzw  Talk  12:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't consider this a necessary aspect as per the criteria. However, as you do, I'll go ahead and add something relating to that to the article, hopefully it's written simply enough. —Giggy 13:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment change

  • Using the English wiktionary (instead of Simple) to clear a redlink and define a term should not be done if your goal is to be using SE (which it has to be for articles here). This would be the same as just linking to the English wikipedia for an article to clear a red-link. Looking over the opening, there are a couple words/links of questionable Simple-icity. "unsucessful" - Did not sell very well, was not popular.. Breakthrough - wikt:en: is bad.
  • "Odyssey Number Five was Powderfinger's shortest album yet, and, like Internationalist, talked about political and social issues." (for example)
    • "Odyssey Number Five was Powderfinger's shortest album yet. Similar to Internationalist, it talked about political and social issues."
    • "Like" is a tricky word. It should used as the emotion but not as "similar to" or "for example".
    • "... sentence ..." , and "... sentence (with the same subject implied) ..." should be two senctences, not one. "And" can be evil / anti-Simple when used with sentence fragments.

-- Creol(talk) 08:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments, Creol! I've fixed up all the wikt:en: stuff, either by creating new pages at SimpleWikt, or by rewording here. I've also fixed the sentence you suggested here and will have another look at the article to see if I can find any more of those issues. I'm still getting the hang of writing simply so your suggestions really help. :-) Cheers. —Giggy 10:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just made and linked all the band members today. Thought I would help out. F S M 22:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xena: Warrior Princess change

Vote Started: August 2, 2008, Vote ends: August 9, 2008

Note; added by Lawless Fan (please sign your posts!). —Giggy 03:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support change

Oppose change

  1. There are numerous instances of complex language, such as "composed" "developed" "confidental" "leases" (needs to be explained) "predate" "pampered" "inverosimilitud" (I don't even know what that is) "inconsistencies" "pretensions" "consolidated" "preference" "transformation" "precipitous" "argumentative" Cassandra 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose - complex (I think inverosimilitud means impossible in that context, but the word itself doesn't exist), basically a long list rather than an article and some references don't work. Needs wikifying badly, and was it even in the 'Proposed' section? --Gwib -(talk)- 00:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

I will not vote on this one yet, I will just give an example:

The show freely borrows names and themes from various mythologies around the world, primarily the Greek, anachronistically adapting them to suit the demands of the storyline. Historical figures and events from a number of different historical eras and myths make numerous appearances, and the main characters are often credited with resolving important historical situations. These include an encounter with Homer, before he was famous, in which Gabrielle encourages his storytelling aspirations[39]; the fall of Troy[40]; and the capture of Caesar by pirates, with Xena cast as the pirate leader[41]. This quirky mix of timelines and the amalgamation of historical and mythological elements fueled the rise of the show to cult status during the 1990s and early 2000s. It was one of the first shows to tap into its internet following, allowing for fans from all over the world to discuss and suggest things related to the show. The fandom continues to this day.

I think this article still needs a lot of work, making sections such as this ones simpler (anacronistically and amalgamation are hardly simple), also whether something is cult or not should usually be pointed at with an external reference. (I added the reflist template), there seems to be a porblem with some references; in general, I would propose to first go for good article; and only list the article here if it really meets half (ie. 5) of the criteria. --Eptalon (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

The warrior princess riding alone His past the covers of shame Against the forces of evil Fight for the sake, not for fame.

The horns announce their arrival, they sing his name "Let step to the warrior! Anime!" The drums Rug That the villains are caring The Warrior Princes already is here!

  • This translation was headed with the words "English Letter". Is that supposed to mean "English translation"?
  • The translation is obviously faulty. eg
"The warrior princess... He..." If it refers to Xena, it must be "She..."
Needs a comma or semi-colon after "alone", needs a full-stop after "shame", an exclamation mark after "name".
"The drums Rug that the villians are caring." What on earth is meant! Does it mean the drum "roll"? What is meant by "the villians are caring". It is not a good translation. It might be better translated "fearing".
"Princes" should be "princess", I suppose.

Definitely has a lot of work to do. I don't understand why articles are proposed before they are anywhere near ready. Amandajm (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Alba (vote 2) change

Vote started: August 1, 2008, Vote ends: August 8, 2008

Result: Passed: 9-0

Support change

  1.   Support - tholly --Turnip-- 08:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support per above comments. —Giggy 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Synergy 13:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support - Much better. --American Eagle (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support - --Gwib -(talk)- 09:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - Looks much better to me now; some things need their time --Eptalon (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support 99.224.35.207 (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very kind but I think you need to be a "named user" to register a valid vote. Thanks though! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not notice, but you have seven supports already, so my vote does not matter anyhow. 99.224.35.207 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jolly decent of you in any case! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Well written and well referenced. Majorly talk 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support per Majorly --.snoopy. (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change

Comments change

--Gwib -(talk)- 21:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word suffer ("and suffered from panic attacks") is a red link. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Word suffer removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: - shouldn't the article be under "Jessica Warren"? She got married, after all. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: - are you kidding?! When women get married, they don't always change their surname and almost invariably don't when they've become famous under another name. Plus, while we may not have WP:COMMONNAME, English Wikipedia certainly does. If you really must, create a redirect at Jessica Warren that points back to Alba. But first, find a source that actually calls her that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap; hence Jessica Warren is up. (Not that it means her name is Jessica Warren, but there's no harm in making if someone considered that title.) —Giggy 09:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're cheap, sure, but there has to be a good reason for them, which I don't see here. I wonder how many pages of Google you'd have to go through to hit Jessica Warren and get Jessica Alba. Also, there's a potentially notable Warren in existence, so I think the current redirect is more misleading than it is useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: - no need to take it so personally, it was a mere observation. That's why I didn't move the article immediately, instead I commented. If you think it's confusing to have two articles on a Jessica Warren (we don't have two yet, but may), then just create a disambig page. It's exactly what they're for. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: - not taking it personally, I just couldn't believe you thought that the article should be called "Jessica Warren" - and the only reason you did think that is because you read the article and discovered she married someone called Warren. I don't really care if the redirect stays or not (personally I think it falls easily under "unlikely redirect" and should be deleted) but I'd say its existence justifies the creation of Angelina Pitt, Kate Mendes etc. Unless her legal name is Jessica Warren, the redirect is simply incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Is the book in footnote 2 (Rivera) the same as the one listed in further reading? - If so, I think it would be enough to cite it once only (with cite book?) --Eptalon (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well Gwib put it there so perhaps you could ask him. I'm happy to remove it from further reading because I assume it is the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better.. :) --Eptalon (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Jessica Alba change

Vote started: July 16, 2008, Vote ends: July 23, 2008

Support change

Oppose change

  •   Strongly oppose - gramatical errors, ambiguity, poor word choices, MoS issues .. Most of them do not scream out, but the constant barrage of little issues adds up like a thousand paper cuts. I could not see supporting this as a GA, let alone a VGA. Choosing what is likely the least flattering picture of her in Commons for the infobox (and our infoboxes realy should have an other awards section.. I need to look into that.) doesn't help -- Creol(talk) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point out examples of this behavior (i.e. quotes)?68.96.213.118 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have already cleared the first I got to, "born in Pomona in California". In the next sentence we have the MoS issue of linking a term its first use (television is used but the first link to it is in television series several lines later. Appearance is also not Simple English and ambiguous (did she appeared or is it about how she appears -looks). Film is ambiguous, movie or motion picture is not but this was changed later. Originally movie was used, but not linked. "She became famous with the television series Dark Angel which was on from 2000 to 2002" - with the television series? and what was the series on. Why was a lawsuit following a cover around? ("appeared on the cover of Playboy, which was followed by a lawsuit") The next sentence should be split in half and the word "them" as a personal pronoun probably should not be used to reference an impersonal (inanimate) thing. "Her mother is called Catherine and has Danish and.." If she is called Catherine, what is her name. (I work with a guy called Remy but he is named Richard.. why use called if that is her name). This sentence is made to look worse when the next one about her father is done cleaner ("Her father, Mark, is Mexican American"). I am not certain the phrase "Air Force family" is easy to understand (and likely should be reworded to explain), but the next sentence definitely needs separated. The word travel also tends to indicate more a vacation/world exploring feel than the "had to move" feel it is meant to give. "She was in hospital for much of the time". In hospitals? "She has also says she had.." Has says?? Neither "Graduated" nor "High school" are SE and neither are linked the first time used. Also the sentence they are in needs to be split. All of this is in the first 4 paragraphs. Other things include her awards for work done as part of her career are partially listed under public image, and her no-nudity rule is under personal (although it entirely deals with her acting and not her personal life). Oh, and did anyone notice the first IW link shown? en:wikt:apology.. and "she got a personal from Playboy owner Hugh Hefner". None of it is deal ending, but so much of this should have been caught (I do have to wonder how three people voted on this and missed all of this.) TRM's work is usually much better than this and I can only assume he was rushed when it came to this one as there are so many little things that slipped through that normally wouldn't have. Edits done by others added some errors while correcting others after the voting had started. This also brings up problems with the article meeting criteria 6. Much of nine edits during the voting period are beyond simple spelling checks and link fixing. -- Creol(talk) 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

It still has some issues with reading fluidity Jessica .. Alba ... . Alba .. Alba... (can you vary a bit, perhaps?) ;) --Eptalon (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kournikova change

Vote started: July 11, 2008, Vote ends: July 18, 2008

Result: Pass (10.5 - 0) -- Creol(talk) 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support change

Oppose change

Comments change

  Comment: - are the Grand Slam Doubles results, the mixed doubles and the WTA titles all incorporated into the article? They seem quite important in her career. --Gwib -(talk)- 11:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


American Airlines Flight 11 change

Vote started: July 8, 2008, Vote ended: July 15, 2008

Result: Passed (10 support, 0 oppose)

Support change

Oppose change

Comments change

A few notes on reading through; some stuff could probably be simplified more, etc.

  • "AA 11 flight path from Boston to New York City" could be simplified... perhaps "The path taken by American Airlines Flight 11..."?
    •   Done
  • "There were 81 people, with the five hijackers and 11 crew members, that died in the crash" - mention the deaths earlier in the sentence, else it's a bit confusing midway through. (Read to the first comma, then stop and look away and you'll see what I mean.)
    •   Done
  • "466 mile per hour" - plural?
  • "The damage to the North Tower made it so that people could not escape from above where the aircraft had crashed" - icky, this could be reworded a bit I think.
    • Reworded. 12:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Redlink; elevator shaft.
  • "exploding on the 77th floor, the 22nd floor, and at street level, on the West Side Lobby." - it exploded 3 times? Confused me a bit... can you reword a bit?

And that's about it. —Giggy 11:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie change

Should there be a section on the movie? --Gwib -(talk)- 12:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can mention it, but if the movie is notable then I guess it should have an article of its own. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you meant United 93, wrong plane dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Daniela Hantuchová change

Vote started: July 1, 2008, Vote ends: July 8, 2008

Result: passed (8 support, 0 Oppose)

Support change

Oppose change

Try to find more info, Gwib told me that also with Charles Spurgeon, now Spurgeon is almost twice as long. You will, as was I, be amazed what you can add if you really dig. Cheers -- America †alk 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“
I know, but more information is always a good thing. Don't see the VG article criteria as deadlines. Rather see them as things to be achieved and then further developed.
 ”

—What I told American Eagle on a section of my talk page

--Gwib -(talk)- 09:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded now. Bear in mind that Hantuchova is only 25 years old! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

Hippopotamus (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Ivanović change

Vote started: June 26, 2008, Vote ended: July 3, 2008

Result - passed (unanimous support)

Support change

  Support. Looks good, satisfies all criterons. A See Also section, prehaps? Microchip 18:18, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc

Oh,   Hold on. Maybe expand the lead? Microchip 18:21, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc
Worked on it - let me know how it looks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And so we must come to...   Support. Yay. Microchip 19:07, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc

Oppose change

Comments change

  • Just a bit of self-promotion, English Wikipedia's article on Ana has 8 citations, Simple English Wikipedia's article has 32, all correctly formatted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm expecting you to go add now... Microchip 18:21, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc
      • Heh, I'm focused on Simple English Wikipedia right now. We should have loads more VGA (and GA) articles than we currently have. The en-wiki article is a complete mess, mostly unreferenced and looks awful. I hope the article I've created is something we can be proud of. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I must comment. The English version of Charles Spurgeon has NO real references or citations. The Simple version of it has 35 (used 54 times). And I, though not to boast, found every one of them. So as I see you've done to Ivanović, I know how hard it is to do so much research on the same topic. Cheers -- America †alk 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, you did a great job. I guess here on Simple Wikipedia we're focused on different subjects. Good work to you. I hope find that my research and article preparation meets the criteria for a VGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't meet all ten of the criteria. That is, it does not meet #4, as only three other people have touched it, and TRM has written it entirely himself. Cassandra 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well Gwib edited it, and a bot added the interwiki links, that makes two...! It doesn't seem particularly to exclude the article based on the editorial history, but sure, it's one of the criteria. Fancy making some adjustments Cassandra?! And for me, I'd like everyone to consider whether you'd be happy to see this article on the main page. Is it some of Simple English's best work? I understand the current regulations state it must meet the criteria for VGA prescriptively but just because no-one else has made a major edit on it seems a little harsh! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Give it some time - it says possibly by other editors. And yes, I am going overboard with the voting template, but it does promote discussion by listing lots and lots of possible outcomes. Microchip 19:12, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc
Cool, no worries Microchip. I'm 100% behind review, comment and improvement. I'd be more than happy for other editors to copyedit, adjust and improve the article. The more the merrier! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa there, seems you're...rambling a bit there? ;) There's a reason why I posted a comment, not an oppose. I don't like this criteria any more than you do, as far back as seven weeks ago, but, as Simple is, there has been no discussion about this rule. Not that I've produced anything VGA-worthy to begin wtih, but even if i did I wouldn't submit it because of this rule. Cassandra 19:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But presumably, like en-wiki, "rules" such as that are open for discussion. Anyway, I'm not trying to start a revolution. If this VGA nom fails solely based on the fact that no-one else has edited it significantly besides me, I'll laugh myself silly. If the article is decent quality it should stand on its own. Editorial history (should be) an irrelevance if the community agree it's VGA quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, re-reading criterion 4, we have "The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors" - possibly by different editors being the key. So the article didn't fail criterion 4 after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Some terms might still need linking and explaining; Personally I would have given it a 2 weeks listing without voting periodf, but if peaople think it can improve sufficiently wihin the week that is fine with me. As to the creterion 4, I have pasted the link to the original discussion on the talk page of the article. --Eptalon (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Spurgeon drew no comment at all until the voting started and I felt this article was in a better condition so that's why I went ahead and acting boldly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Spurgeon has been discussed and changed to much since I nominated it, just it wasn't talked about much on this page (see here for what redirects to it). Cheers -- America †alk 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was referring to. No discussion here. And the article contained basic grammar, punctuation and factual errors when it was nominated for voting. All I'm saying is if anyone can make suggestions to improve the article, I'd be more than happy to do it, but otherwise please vote for the article on its merits. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment:. How tall is she? The article says "very tall" but I can't see her actual height anywhere. Hippopotamus (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now added her height. And thanks for the support. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Charles Spurgeon change

Result: promoted (unanimous support)

Support change

Oppose change

Comments change

Working... -- America †alk 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added to it and changed to a second paragraph, but Jimi Hendrix and Pope John Paul II don't have two. I just fixed all over-links and did other work, and I'm about to vote. Cheers -- America †alk 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue for rewritting much of the second paragraph of the intro. That entire section should sum up the key points of the article. Trivial information such as the fact that he read up to six books a week should not be included as a key point. Most of the family information is also not key to describing who he was and what he did. For the most part only his mental state/illnesses and his charity are important points in that second paragraph. Also the preached to 10 million people statement should have a reference. -- Creol(talk) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a few references to the top, removed his family stuff and replaced it with his controversies with the BUGB and his being at the church for 38 years. What else? Cheers -- America †alk 18:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved some stuff around. Is that better? Cheers -- America †alk 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say again, is that better? (expanded lead section) Cheers -- America †alk 03:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. There aren't any problems anymore. I already added my support. Good luck! ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Promoted to VGA; all those who voted were in favor of promotion. Congrats folks.--Eptalon (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay. -- America †alk 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles/Archive_3&oldid=8899283"