Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 5

Archived requests

St. Peter's Basilica

St. Peter's Basilica (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article is generally in a good state, a few red-links remain to be fixed, a task that should be doable in the time provided. Readability scores are available as well. --Eptalon (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Red links There are lots, and they all require properly researched articles. Brunelleschi, Bramante, Maderna, Pantheon, etc etc. The present article on Michelangelo is a farce. Amandajm (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please format the web references with the {{cite web}} template. A lot of website refs are missing important information (publisher, access dates). More to follow. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Bullet points in the lead should be converted into prose.
• All quotes should be sourced (even bible quotes).
• Too many unsourced claims. For example: "St. Peter's Basilica, as it stand today, was begun in 1506. The first basilica, which is now called "Old St. Peter's Basilica" was begun by the Emperor Constantine between 326 and 333 AD." That is to pick one. Every claim that isn't general knowledge should be sourced. I can go through and pick everything that needs to be sourced later, but I'm assuming you can work out where this needs to be done.
• There are a number of bullet-pointed statements in the article. These should be converted into prose, for example, under "Dome of St. Peter's".
• Section header "The change of plan" can just be "Change of plan".
• The gallery at the bottom is too huge. I'd suggest picking the most relevant images on one, maybe two lines, and leave the rest to the Commons link.

Popping out for 10 minutes, but I'll continue. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Romania

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

This article has been worked on tirelessly by me, Synergy, and Peterdownunder, and to tell you the truth, I believe that this article meets more than half of the requirements for VGAs. There are still some things that needs to be worked on, but overall, I think that this article is well on its' way towards becoming a VGA. What do you all think? Cheers, Razorflame 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I have a number of concerns about this before you should take it to a vote. Please see the new section on the talk page I´m about to add, so as not to clutter up this space. Cheers. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - Like Rambling Man, I, too have some concerns about the article. For the most part, it is well written. However, I fear that there may be many grammatical errors. I will look at the article and give it a thorough copyedit (proofread). obentomusubi 09:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  Support – After giving the article a thorough copyedit, I can finally say I support it. The introduction suffices the article, and there are many attributions. The grammar has now been fixed and tweaked. Good luck! obentomusubi 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral - I may support it if all the redlinks are cleared out. Other than that, good job. :) --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 05:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I respect your feedback, and I will follow through with your suggestion, but how are the links indicative of the quality of the article? Red links simply mean that the article linked has not yet been created. obentomusubi 05:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The GA criteria normally does not allow redlinks, and the VGA criteria states that "All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left". Hopes this answers your question. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification. obentomusubi 02:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

( if I were voting now I'd Oppose) - per this needs simplifyingYotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 09:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the article is not at the voting stage yet. This is just discussion about the article, how it can be improved so that it does meet the criteria. No votes yet please. :) Kennedy ^(talk) 10:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, slight change. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Still, to have it ready for even 11-15 year old children is still quite a drop from what it used to be (average reading age was in the 20s :)). While I do believe that there is still some simplification that can happen; I believe that the bulk of the simplification has already been completed. Cheers, Razorflame 03:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Premier League

Scottish Premier League (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is currently a good article, but I think it meets the criteria for VGA. No red links. Good size. Different editors have edited. In the proper categories. Images related and properly captioned. No other tags. Plenty of references. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything (much) wrong with the content, it however needs a lot of simplifying (look here) Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 09:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Yotcmdr, the article is neatly written, although some simplifying might help promote the article. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the references are broken somehow. Not sure how to fix that, but it needs to be taken care of. –Juliancolton (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed that. I haven't changed how the references are displayed. I will try to fix it. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Kennedy ^(talk) 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Barry (2007)

Tropical Storm Barry (2007) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Recently promoted to GA, and it meets the VGA criteria, as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is way too complicated for VGA, let alone GA in my opinion. The reading level is well at high school-level which in most cases means it is not easy to read in simple english. See here. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Several other editors have approved of its simplicity. –Juliancolton (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. If an article is supposed to be a VGA here, it needs to be written in simple english, not the english adults use. Simple english is something that can be thoroughly understood by someone who is learning english or a 4th grade student. Words such as squalls, sustained, and minimal are NOT simple english, nor were they linked or explained as you said. Just because your judgement says it is simple, does not mean it is real simple english. Please reconsider about this. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 08:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But those words are explained or linked. Please don't rely entirely on the readability checker, as it doesn't take into account links to wiktionary or clarifications. –Juliancolton (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Looks good to me. But there's that one red link though. Fafas (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Filled in the redlink. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Chopstick

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

Also a good article, and I think it meets the criteria for VGA. Fafas (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the references need to be formatted properly. –Juliancolton (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: - Looks good to me... Great article! :) --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: – I would recommend that you expand the introduction to about three paragraphs of good old simple English. obentomusubi 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: I would add more sources to the types of chopsticks section before allowing it to become a VGA. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the references are not formatted correctly. This needs to be fixed. –Juliancolton (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coffee

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

Hi there all. Coffee is one of our Good Articles that I think meets more than half of the current criteria for VGA status, however, it does not meet all of them. There are parts that could use a copyediting, and there are parts that could use more references, however, this could definitely become a VGA within the 2 week proposal period. Razorflame 02:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article is well-sourced. If you could add some more references, I would probably be able to support it more confidently. obentomusubi 07:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs doZens more refs. Many MOS breaches and some POV which need to be fixed. Also needs to be more prose and less bullet point lists. A way to go before VGA. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Crich Tramway Village

Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I present to the community Crich Tramway Village for consideration as a Very Good Article. I believe that it meets most of the criteria, and that it is pretty much as good as it can get. I admit there are still a few things that need doing, including red link creation, further simplification and copy-editing, but this will be completed during this discussion time as will any other issues that are raised. I would like to thank DefenseSupportParty, Yotcmdr, The Rambling Man, Barras and anyone else who has helped me with simplifying the article and doing other jobs. Cheers, Goblin 19:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to update everyone, all of the red links are now gone, image order has been jiggled about and various other changes made, including a copy-edit and line-by-line peer review. More comments welcome please :) Goblin 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see some more inline citations. If most of the information gathered was from the external links, consider converting most of the external links to a Works Consulted or a general citation subheader. Cheers, obentomusubi 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold up... is this being proposed as a good article or as a very good article? obentomusubi 19:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

e/c I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean - could you clarify?

The main problem with references is that most stuff is only available in once place, where i've cited it, or else in documents that can never actually be verified because they are either private & confidential or in the archives. A lot of what is at the museum has an unknown history, especially things from the early days, and more things again only have themselves to cite themselves, if that makes sense. Regards, Goblin 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is being proposed for VGA. Goblin 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense. I apologize if my comments were too vague. I asked if it was proposed for GA or VGA because you wrote above that you want it to be a "Good Article", and, considering it hasn't been a good article yet, I thought it might have been a mistake. I apologize! obentomusubi 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the confused bit related to your original posting, thus the "e/c". My second comment related to your second one ;) Goblin 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. I just meant that if you cannot cite some of the information directly by using ref tags, you could just make a general section that has a list of books or websites consulted. Cheers, obentomusubi 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to ref everything with tags that I though warranted it - is there anything else that you think should be referenced? I could always reference photographs... ;) Cheers, Goblin 20:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the article and made some minor copyedits and simplifications, but otherwise, this looks to be a great candidate for VGA status. Cheers, Razorflame 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much there I think. Would be good to move to voting so we can really focus the minds of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't move it yet...at least give it a week to give as many people a chance to give their opinions on the matter :). Cheers, Razorflame 17:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're doubtless right. I think because I've been helping with this one for a couple of weeks, I thought it had been listed as long. Silly old me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments guys :) I've tried really hard along with others to ensure that it is top quality and I think that we are just about there! I agree about holding over voting for a little while longer - perhaps until the end of the week - but I tried to get most things done before nominating it for this very reason! Cheers, Goblin 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus

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

I know this is probably a controversial subject, and the article may still have a few issues to deal with. Nevertheless I am bold and list it here.--Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have separated the notes from the references. There are not many references as it stands. More references would be nice, although they were attributed nicely. Also, please take care of the numerous red links. Cheers, obentomusubi 22:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see attribution to the birth and death date of Jesus. Thanks, obentomusubi 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I too think it is vital that (at the least) his birth year is explained. I know what many people think of the MOS, but the lead has a few too many paragraphs, and some date formatting issues. Also there seems to be significant information in the lead which is neither discussed nor expanded upon in the main body of the article, a bit of a no-no for Wikipedia. I would like to see a lot more liking in sections such as "Christian beliefs about Jesus and his teaching", "God in human form" etc, obviously the red links need fixing, and the references need to be formatted correctly, preferably using something like the {{cite web}} template. I reckon it's one heck of a challenge to get this all the way to VGA right now, I'd be tempted to revert to GA for it to stand a chance of getting a promotion within the next three weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C.

Ipswich Town F.C. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Something other than Eastern European tennis players, I've spent a few hours today taking the article from 3Kb to 15Kb, added plenty of references, some images and a heap more text. Rest assured all concerns will be dealt with as quickly as humanly possible. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is very good and good understandable. But I think two sentences need a cite:

• When these two teams play, the game is called the "East Anglian derby". (intro) and
• One of Ipswich Town's nicknames is The Blues. (colours and crest).

At all: Good work, TRM. Barras (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll get onto it as soon as I can. Thanks for your attention Barras! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cited those now, thanks Barras. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is it possible for the lead to be expanded a bit? This isn't a huge deal, but it just seems a bit short at the moment. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it is long enough. Barras (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was expanded. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I'll have a read through this in ~30 mins. Majorly ^talk 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In the history section, it says a lot of things happened (such as being elected to join the football league, becoming a professional club) but it lacks detail as to how and why these things happened. I think a very good article should include the necessary detail here.
    • Fair. Even the en.wiki (featured) article doesn't say "why" they became professional and joined the league, it was just a natural progression for such teams. I think finding something which could cite such would be very difficult, but I will try. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Two poor seasons followed, including a 9–0 defeat by Manchester United, still the biggest defeat in Premier League history." Such a statement should be cited.
    • Agreed. Will get onto it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm confused with the last bit - does Division one not follow Division two? If so, did they skip straight to the premier league or what? Either it's out of chronological order, or I'm missing something.
    • Ha, fair point. That season, the "Second Division" was renamed "The Championship" and the "Third Division" became "League One", the "Fourth Division" "League Two". Ipswich went from Division Two to the Premiership that season as a consequence of the renamings. Only one league jump but a big confusion in nomenclature, and typical of Ipswich to do something which makes writing about them awkward... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "One of Ipswich Town's nicknames is The Blues." Are there any other nicknames? Majorly ^talk 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, in the infobox. That one is specified there because it relates to the colour of the kit. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Awesome, thanks for your time and comments Majorly. If you get a moment, fancy checking out Joss Whedon too? Looks ripe for demotion right now as far as I'm concerned... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Robson

Bobby Robson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Done quite a bit to expand this. Just finishing his later club years off and I'll create the red links when I've done that, in the next couple of days. Anyone see anything that would need improving beyond that? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work: One issue for now: "He also played for the England football team, scoring four goals in 20 games." - which team? Regards, --Barras (talk)

The England one. I suppose it could be English national team... Kennedy (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll link it to remove ambiguity. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

sigh... an understanding mistake. I don't know what I read. Of course England. Barras (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so now I'm done. Club history finished and red links complete. Anything anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It reads OK to me.Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mosque

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

I spent al ot of time working on this article, also importing certain parts from other wikipedias, and simplifying them. In my opinion, we can make this article a very good one. The things that are lacking at the moment are mainly:

• There is a relatively high number of red links. Some of these exist already, but they need to be found, and referenced.
• Certain sections should read a little more fluently. In other words, they should probably be copyedited and simplified.

As to the edit log, I was one of only a few editors to edit the article. I would really appreciate if other people could help. Note: I am not a Muslim, but I think that an article like mosque is sufficiently important to have. So do not shy away on the pretext that this is not your religion; it is not mine either. There are several mosques that were churches before, and some churches were mosques before. Note also, that I may be listing this a little early, there is quite a bit of work left to be done. --Eptalon (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to remove a few of the images, right now it's a complete visual mess. Many redlinks remain, is it worth considering reducing them by simply removing them, as a number of them are extremely detailed and intricate, not necessarily required here on SEWP? I know that you don't like the idea of making it singly British or US English, once you're done editing, I'll be happy to ensure it's one or the other. Not sure about "notable mosques" section either. We've had no end of issues on enwiki with these kind of POV lists - what makes these more notable than any other mosques? Even if you select some criteria, why are your criteria any more valid than anyone else's? It's a minefield. As for early listing, not to worry. Let's keep working on it, and as long as there's progress, I see no reason to push to voting until we're reasonably happy. But, progress has to be made. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For the Red links, you don't have to worry, I am making them. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw that Yot, but I just wonder whether time could be spent better tidying up the prose, simplifying and maybe cutting back on a few bits and pieces. Either way, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I am better at making red link than simplifying and tydying up, so I think I'll stick to red links ;). Kind regards, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All good Yot. Stick with it! Perhaps Eptalon and I can do the dusting and hoovering... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done - No more Red links, we can start simplifying. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose While the article contains sentences like "This limited the opportunities" and "declined in popularity" and the term "hypostyle" is used without an understanding of its meaning, then nowhere near enough work has been done on the article for it to be put up as a Simple Wiki VGA. I started to simplify it. Perhaps the editor could take a look at my changes and continue them. Do some research. Find out exactly what is meant by "hypostyle" and either explain the word clearly or else drop the (probably superfluous) architectural terminology in favour of a simple description. Amandajm (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think a pic of an old commercial building which is serving as a mosque (probably until the local Muslims get a building permit or raise the funds to build) is not necessary in the article. Muslims would not choose to worship in a building of that type if a purpose-built mosque was available. The tin shed in the Australian outback, on the other hand, may be a purpose-built mosque, made specifically for worship, out of the only materials available to the Afghan Camel drivers. Amandajm (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not voting. There is no need for the Oppose template. This is for discussion on how to improve the article so it does meet the VGA criteria. Kennedy (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I have explained the word, and I also found a mosque picture to go with it. If you are referring to the more plain mosques, here are some images:

• 
  A mosque in a village in India
• 
  A wooden mosque, in Poland; I have seen very similar ones in Siberia. Probably serves the community pretty well; on another note: Stick a Christian Cross on top, and use it as a Chapel.
• 
  Al-Azar mosque in Cairo, used to explain hypostyle. That particular mosque is 1000 years old...

Also note that I said that I listed the article early, because there was a lot of work left (and that I did not want to do it all by myself). --Eptalon (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The section Mosque#Social conflict has several "cookies". I'm too tired to figure out how to reword them. I'll do it later if no one else does. EhJJ^TALK 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures I think that either of the two pics above is preferable to a non-purpose built building ie an old commercial building, probably serving a temporary function.

As for the wooden mosque. Yes Eastern Christian churches often have a dome which is onion-shaped. As a mosque or a chapel, the dome designates a place of prayer. That is a quite different matter to an old commercial building which is obviously not purpose-built, and might only be termed as "mosque" in current use. I don't mind the inclusion of the pic, but it is being given undue priority in a world full of mosques which are interesting, or beautiful. Why give it such pride of place? Amandajm (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for preempting the vote. I didn't realise it was going to come up with a button thing. Amandajm (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Some more pictures of mosques

• 
  A small mosque in London (East Ham)
• 
  Looks like the main mosque in East London
• 
  A small mosque in Dehli, probably in a Bazaar
• 
  One in Wisconsin, the overall architecture reminds me of a (Lutheran) church.

Just so we get the full selction; do not be afraid to replace a picture by a different one you think fits better. --Eptalon (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Archived voting

Tropical Storm Barry (2007)

Tropical Storm Barry (2007) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ends on 7 March 2009

It has been roughly two weeks since this article was proposed for VGA status. I am therefore moving it into voting. Cheers, Razorflame 05:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not written in simple english. This issue that I mentioned before has been ignored, nor has been attempted to be fixed. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)}

• You've mentioned no issues. This article just passed GA, with supports from some of Wikipedia's most respected editors. Until you can provide examples of complexity, I will ignore your oppose. –Juliancolton (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - I´m not overly keen on the bullet point lists of flood watches, I´d prefer to see it as prose, but it´s no killer blow for the article. I can see a few complexity issues, predominantly in the use of non-simple verbs, such as "created" (could use "made" or similar?), "reported" (just "had"), "minor" (a "little" or similar?) but otherwise it´s a good article, very nicely referenced, well and importantly, relevantly illustrated. This is a very complex issue to discuss so I think you´ve done a good job in general. Consider copyediting just once more for the more complicated words but otherwise I think it´s very close indeed. Oh, and could you reconfirm the references work? June 2007 seems a long time ago and I can´t easily find the link checker right now... just to be sure! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support per TRMOT. Article is on the bubble between meeting the current criteria for VGAs and not meeting the critera. I am going to AGF and give the benefit of the doubt as the article is very well sourced, and is very well formatting both grammar and simplicity wise. I think that this article should be a VGA. Cheers, Razorflame 19:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. Does not meet the requirements for a successful VGA !vote. 2/1 with 66% support is not enough. Minimum 6 named voters required. Razorflame 06:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Chopstick

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

Ends on 7 March 2009

It has been roughly two weeks since this article was proposed for VGA status. I am therefore moving it into voting. Cheers, Razorflame 05:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Manual of style issues (e.g. "don't", hyphens instead of endash for numerical ranges), unlinked or unexplained complexities (e.g. Minnan, grammatically poor sentences (and headings, e.g. "Where the word for Chopstick is from"), unreferenced sentences (e.g. most of the "Where the word for Chopstick is from" section), unexplained text (e.g. san1 chang2 liang2 duan3), inadequately formatted references. Another flaw in this system. This should NOT have been brought to voting, it is clearly not ready, it has had two weeks to be improved after which it is still in a poor state. I'm not even sure this should be a good article. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - I am going to try to be optimistic on this and give it some moral support, despite some of the issues with the article Rambling Man brought up. However, one issue that kinda concerns me is the incorrectly formatted references. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per TRMOT. Too many issues to have it become a VGA at this point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose – This isn't the type of work that I would put up on the Main Page for everyone to see and consider "our best work". Problems need to be resolved first as pointed out by The Rambling Man before this can become a VGA. — RyanCross (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted, 1 support, 3 opposes. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Premier League

Scottish Premier League (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ends on 4 March 2009

It has been roughly two weeks since this article was proposed for VGA status. I am therefore moving it to voting. Cheers, Razorflame 00:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Meets the criteria's expectations. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 13:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Per my first comment: It needs simplifying. Give me a shout if you need any help. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you provide examples of the complexities which are causing you to oppose this promotion please? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Passed for voting a little earlier than I'd expected, but I support it as I believe it does meet the criteria. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support per everyone. Meets the criteria that is set and I believe that it is a VGA. Cheers, Razorflame 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as it does not meet the criteria - Terry Butcher is currently red-linked. Also, you need to ensure the {{cite web}} is correctly filled in for each citation - there are a large number of accessdate fields missing. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, the accessdate option broke references, I had to remove them. I don't know why they were broken, but removing that field fixed it. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess the template will need to be fixed then as I would still expect to see accessdates as a minimum in the references. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Works for me. –Juliancolton (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • So please ensure all references use the cite web template and include, as a minimum, publisher, title and accessdate. Cheers. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - redlink. Barras (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Now Support - redlink is blue. Barras (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Terry Butcher has now been created. People cannot use redlinks as an excuse to not have this article become a VGA anymore. Razorflame 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And because of that I changed my vote. Barras (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not "an excuse" Razorflame, it is a criterion that no red links exist. The citations need to be fixed as well, but since most reviewers don't bother going there, I'm sure it won't stand in the way of its promotion. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
      • TRMOT: I know it isn't an excuse...it was a manner of speech; an idiom, if you will. I didn't mean that people were using it as an excuse to vote oppose, I was saying that people can't say that it has redlinks....Don't take everything so seriously...Try to have a little fun :). Razorflame 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
        • This process is flawed enough as it is without people trying to have fun by mixing up excuses with criteria. Your comments could easily be taken as hostility. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Also RF, since you seem to be more involved in the PVGA and PGA process you may wish to re-read the instructions on this very page which state "This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is voting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away." The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 4 supports, 2 opposes, not promoted. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Romania

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

Ends on 23 February 2009

It has now been more than 2 weeks since this article was proposed for VGA status. It should now be voted on. Razorflame 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Support as it seems necessary edits have been made. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support – I'm proud to say I copyedited this article! obentomusubi 06:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support, again. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I can't see any red links, so I assume they have been created. Looks good at a quick read. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Red links created. Simon^KSK 23:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - redlinks are bluelinks, now. Barras (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose still problems with MOS (e.g. contractions), unlinked and unexplained abbreviations (e.g. IPA), red links (which are disallowed under current VGA criteria) and numerous uncited claims. 201.203.98.30 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Thanks. Razorflame 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The article has 3 redlinks in the text and 3 in the template at the bottom. The criteria says:"All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left." And are links to wikt: allowed? (I will change to support, if the redlinks are blue. Barras (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

To those of you who voted oppose because there were red links in the article, I have fixed this issue. All red links in the article have been created. Cheers, Razorflame 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: Promoted with 6 supports and 0 opposes, 100% support. Razorflame 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Curitiba

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

BG^7even 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Sections are still complex and this article is still in need of a major copyedit/simplification job, as well as the completion of all of the red links in this article will have to happen before I will be able to support it. If you fix these issues, I will change my vote to support. Razorflame 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It´s tagged with a maintenance label which would prevent it becoming even a Good article. Add to that the red links and captions like "How the tube-station works" (which isn´t great because exactly what is the picture showing?), sentences like "...with a lake of 8 meters deep, where have carps.", "This encourages the system bus..." which aren´t correct English, style issues such as periods in captions which are incomplete sentences and you have an article which unfortunately would not even make a Good one yet. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the maintenance tag. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Peter's Basilica

St. Peter's Basilica (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

BG^7even 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Red links on the page prevent me from being able to support this article from becoming a VGA at this time. If the red links were filled in, I would not mind changing this oppose to a support vote. Cheers, Razorflame 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as Razorflame says, far too many redlinks, and I think several Manual of Style issues, such as the use of hyphen instead of en dash for year ranges, spaces before citations and punctuation etc. Plus a number of words and phrases could be linked to help make the article more understandable for non-experts. And a wiki markup error tops it off, check out the bottom of the page. It´s a good article but, as I was often told, try heading for WP:PGA before bringing the article here. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too many redlinks and WP:MOS issues, as well as poorly-formatted references. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Oh, it's moved to voting. Silly me. There are numerous concerns about this article: redlinks, MOS problems, large amounts of unsourced text. Not ready yet, but it's well on its way. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Coffee

Voting ends 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

• Oppose nothing whatsoever appears to have been done to address any of my concerns since nomination. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – I apologize, but there still aren't enough references. And, if what TRM is saying is correct, the concerns must be taken care of first. obentomusubi 17:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose} per above. –Juliancolton (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - A VGA should have more references. per above. Barras (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Closed, not promoted by SNOW. This article should not have been nominated if people were not prepared to do any work to improve it. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Crich Tramway Village

Crich Tramway Village (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting ends 10:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - the main editor has made an excellent job of the article and has worked hard to address any concerns that were raised. This is a good example of how the PVGA process could work if supported properly by reviewers and nominators. Great job. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - A lot of work has been put into this. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 12:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this article is a very good work. Barras (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - "A group of enthusiasts decided to buy an..." maybe you would like to elaborate on who the "enthusiasts" were if possible? No problems with the rest though. Chenzw  Talk  14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good. A lot of work has been done here Kennedy ^(talk) 14:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support – A very good article. obentomusubi 05:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per all. Definitely meets the requirements. I, too, gave it the walkthrough it needed. Cheers, Razorflame 05:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination/all. Goblin 19:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Yep, looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Beautiful article. :] PapercutbiologyM2 (talk)) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - We've put a lot of work into this, and I feel it is definitely deserving of the status. DefenseSupportParty 19:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Shabby.

  Support Oops. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support nice work -- Mercy (☎|✍) 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: Closed early; Promoted with 13 supports and 0 opposes, 100% support. BG7^{THAT'S NUMBERWANG!} 08:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C.

Ipswich Town F.C. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ends 18:21 (UTC) on 19 April, 2009

• Support as my own nomination and per this funny "voting" thing... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - great work. I've no concerns. Barras (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Well done; fully deserving of VGA status. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support no issues for me.  Mm40(talk | contribs)  16:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Amandajm (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Supportиιƒкч? 12:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Poor choice of team (:) ) but a nice article. Congrats. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Majorly talk 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• support - Great work! Simon^KSK 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: Closed as promoted; 100% support (10 votes). --Barras (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Robson

Bobby Robson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ends: 28 April, 2008, 06:24 UTC

• Support.  GARDEN  09:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Kennedy (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - a great work. Barras (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yes. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reading scores on this article show that it is not simple English [1] with a Flesch score of 47.6, a Fry score showing grade level of 12. This might be skewed by the tables and charts, so I will try to recalculate a score. I know scores aren't everything, but a VGA article on the Simple English Wikipedia has to be in sinple english.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The right link to the redability: here. The other was to the english article. Barras (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Thanks Barras, I think I might be losing the plot! The simple english version scores are still a problem for me 52.5 Flesch and Fry Grade level 11 - it is only marginally better than the enwiki version.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • While I hesitate to disregard the results of an automated tool to provide me with a view on how simple an article is, I understand that some editors consider the results important. However, in order to fix the perceived problem, I'd appreciate it if you could identify actual problems with simplicity rather than point me to a Flesch/Fry score. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, it appears that the Fry scale seems mostly concerned with "long words" - are there any "long words" in this text which are of particular concern? I have endeavoured to use engaging prose and link all complex terms to either Wiktionary or this Wikipedia. I'm afraid after a couple of scans through, I can't see a better way of expressing this biography. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • For the sake of interest, I've run that readability checker over all our current VGAs, this PVGA and Mosque, also a current PVGA. The results can be seen in my sandbox. Makes for interesting reading. If we are currently opposing articles using these scales then I suggest we consider delisting other, similarly scored articles. Hanami, for instance, has a Flesch score of 44.4 and a Fry grade level of 13+. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, for this oppose to be actionable, I need you Peter to list on the talk page all the complex words and over-long sentences which concern you. Currently these automated indices are not part of the VGA criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Further detailed study has shown the toolserver scores can be quite misleading when an article has a number of tables and charts. The article does meet my standards for simple English. Thanks to those who got involved in exploring this issue. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support my own work, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: closed as promoted. 100% support. --Barras (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mosque

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

Ends: 30 April, 2008, 11:30 UTC

•  Comment: - please fix the redlink. Thanks, Barras (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed the redlink: community services -> services to their community. Problem there, we probably don't mean services in an economic sense (as in goods and services)... --Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: per Peterdownunder's oppose to Bobby Robson, this article currently has a Flesch score of 56.4 and a Fry grade level of 10. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  As per below, and per the stats you saw yourself - Can you point to specific things to improve? --Eptalon (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  No, not really. I'm just reporting the statistics to prepare you for an oppose based on them. Perhaps Peterdownunder will be able to provide you with more information. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  If you look at the ranking of Mosque compared to other VGAs, it comes as item 7 or 13 (from the top, of the currently 25). This means unless we want to do away with half of our VGAs, for readability reasons, I do not see any reason to act. --Eptalon (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm just allowing you time to prepare for an oppose based on the statistics alone. I don't necessarily agree with it either, and voting against PVGAs based on a criterion that isn't currently one of the VGA criteria seems a little unjust, but yes, with Peter's new approach, we will need to demote half our VGAs and about a third of our GAs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - great work. I don't look for statistics. If I understand the text, so it is ok. Barras (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment: I have checked the online references and five (dating from 2006) are no longer online (No.9, 22, 31, 35, and part of 37). Do these need to be updated? Weblinks often vanish so what is our policy here? --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Updating them would be nice...--Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have updated/replaced all web-links (except number 35, about the King Hassan Mosque being only one of two open to non-muslim visitors). --Eptalon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed as Not Promoted: No consensus, just one !vote. Goblin 10:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)