Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 6

Archived requests

Bloc Party

Bloc Party (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This proposal was moved from proposed good articles.

I reckon this is at VGA quality now, and would appreciate insight if it is not (which I don't believe should be necessary, but whatever). Thanks in advance. GARDEN 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is article is listed on the false page. It would be better to list this article here. Regards, Barras (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Er, okay then :) GARDEN 12:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please get some eyes on this? It's been here for almost four days and nothing... GARDEN 21:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add some comments to the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks very much, good to see some interest :) GARDEN 20:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A VGA can't have any red links, yet there's one in the section A Weekend in the City, you could remove or create that. Now how's that for my first bit of help on WP:PVGA :D.-- † CM ₁₆ 19:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CM16, check out my review from a while ago. There are two red links, Roundhouse and Barfly. While this redlink nonsense is still part of the VGA criteria (and while people are pushing to rid this Wikipedia of short stubs), you, Garden, will be obliged to do something constructive about any such red links should you wish for this article to attain VGA status. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I'll just remove those two, probably not notable enough for a quick stub, I feel. GARDEN 20:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. F R^{Sign Here} 21:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say this will need to go down there in about twelve hours. GARDEN 09:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci

Leonardo da Vinci (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I had a first look, and the article looks pretty good. There are a few red-links left to fill, but thats all I think that needs to be done to get this to VGA status. --Eptalon (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the lead, briefly, and left comments on the talk page. If the rest of the article follows the same pattern, there's a heap of work to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your concerns are fixed now. Just have a look at it. Barras (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think there are a number of complex terms which need either linking to wiktionary or articles here on SE. Would you like me to review the rest of the article in this level of detail? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just do it. I will do my best to help and improve it. It would be very nice. Barras (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven

Ludwig van Beethoven (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi all! I think Ludwig van Beethoven can become one of our very good articles. I added some refs to the article. I am sure that it need some more work. I hope for help and comments. Barras (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad - red links need to be sorted under our current criteria. I would also encourage a WP:MOS check - citations after punctuation, correct use of full stops in incomplete sentences, use of hyphens vs en-dashes etc. Some articles should be written specifically about his famous symphonies. I won't run the "readability tool" (because I think it's useless) but upon reading, it seems like there are several complex sentences, some overlong sentences, both issues will need to be fixed for VGA. Date linking (a huge issue on en.wiki) should be considered here - i.e. is it useful to link 6 October? Language in the References is extremely complex, needs work. Ref 6 is in German. Formatting of Books section needs to be consistent - some odd bolding going on. Move sisterlinks template up to the books section to prevent massive whitespace at the end of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. I will (with some others) work on it the next time. And by the way, the readability isn't very bad. Best Barras (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinks are created by Yotcmdr (Thank you very much!). Citations after punctuation are done. I can't handle the full stop problem. (Sorry I am not a native one) en-dashs are done. O shorted some long sentences. Dates are unlinked. The refernces are also a problem for me. Ref 6 is done. Books are done. Sisterlinks are moved. I would be happy if a native speaker could help with the rest of the issues. Thanks Barras (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited it a bit. We'll need someone else to double over it to be sure though. Synergy 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Göring

Hermann Göring (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

OK! I will try it. We need more VGAs. I think this article can become one of our very good articles. Göring has a lot of refs and some websites, which can be used as further readings. I think there is some work to do on the article. I hope for some comments and probably some help. Regards, Barras (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why but I like this article. It's nicely illustrated and has some decent templates and shows promise. I think it could be expanded (in every section) - I haven't checked to see if it's big enough to meet our "criteria" yet. The references need to be correctly formatted - I'll be happy to help out with that. Couple of overly complex terms (e.g. "exam", "ministry") and some formatting issues ("Germany .[11] " - remove the space after Germany). It stands a chance. Let's hope we get some additional comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the lenght before I posted it here. It meet our criteria. The space is removed. Thanks Barras (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article overall. I'll happily support once it's moved to voting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linux

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

Anybody think Linux ought be featured?Jourdy288 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the bare references need to be formatted properly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Way too many red links. Reduce the number of redlinks. Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ismael

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

Been at GA for awhile. Kinda short, but I think it satisfies the criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, just needs the red links doing. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, but I can't seem to find any redlinks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Yot's referring to the infobox at the bottom. fr33kman ^talk 22:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Alma and Hurricane Iwa. Exert (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Will get on that tonight. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ismael was a weak hurricane that formed during the 1995 Pacific hurricane season. vs. It was the deadliest hurricane in the 1995 season. This is a bit odd. It was a weak one and also the deadliest? That's an oxymoron. Barras (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try "Hurricane Ishmael was a weak hurricane that formed during the 1995 Pacific hurricane season. Even though it was weak, it was the deadliest during the season." Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And more on the talk page of the article. Barras (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to withdraw this for now. Too busy on other projects to worry about a couple redlinks at the moment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

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

Recently failed PGA, I'd like to do some work and get this to VGA. Barras has been helping add some reference, and I'd really appreciate a review. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References need fixing. Further review coming up. Pmlin editor 17:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is not yet ready to become a VGA. I think we should propose Germany on WP:PGA. Barras (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

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

Is a GA with several sources. I feel it can be taken to VGA with some work. Pmlin editor 13:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is reviewed. I left some comments on its talk pge. Barras (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria line

Victoria line (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Still some bits and bobs to deal with on the talk page which I am sorting out, but I largely think this is ready and so am bringing it to PVGA. Probably needs some further simplification, and I know there are some refs and redlinks to sort out. Please come and review and/or help :). Regards, Gob lin 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Redlinks? ;) Shappy ^talk 19:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read boy?!?! I said that :P (It would be so ironic if you randomly appeared in my sig now...) Gob lin 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I think that the article look a bit disorganized. The main thing that I notice is that the Opening section could be made into a subsection of History (or merged in), as it overlaps a lot. hmwith τ 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of words or expressions which I wouldn't use in a Simple English article, for example "non-descript", "recesses", "full-scale" or "unsightly fenced-off sections". -- Mercy (☎|✍) 18:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a review on the talkpage. fr33kman ^talk 01:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's in a good state. There are a number of longish sentences (e.g. "These humps allow trains to store gravitational potential energy as they slow down whilst going up the hill into the station, and release it when they leave a station and go down the hill. " could hardly be considered simple at 34 words!) and some unexplained complex terms (e.g. concept, proposed....) "Legend has it..." needs some kind of citation! But otherwise it's not a bad start. If required, I can do a para-by-para review, send me an email. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template needs simplifying too. —MC8 (b · t) 16:57, Tuesday July 21 2009 (UTC) (I ♥ Kennedy)

Victoria line

Victoria line (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Per last time, only this time i'm not on holiday ;). A review would be great :). Regards, Gob lin 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

Support I like the article. It looks great. :) —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 06:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vote now. Pmlineditor Talk 08:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it needs a lot of simplification. Words such as "articulated," "redevelopment," "extension," "campaigned," "expensive," "enabling," "overcrowding," and "frequently" cannot be easily understood by simple English speakers (note that these are only a few of the words that need to be simplified--there are many more). Also, there are several red links that need to be filled out. Lastly, more references are needed in my opinion. Malinaccier (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Red links created and complicated words either simplified or linked. Refs is being done by BG. Pmlineditor Talk 10:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to create few articles. Thanks for the review. :D Pmlineditor Talk 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done references I think. If any more are needed just shout! I think this is just about there now. Regards, Gob lin 16:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

Hermann Göring

Hermann Göring (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi all! I wan to propose Hermann Göring for a very good article. I got a private review and fixed now all concerns. If there are any more issues, I'm willing to fix them. Comments are very welcome. Barras || talk 15:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's informative, simple, and well sourced. Everything a VGA should be. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Griffinofwales. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 21:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a great VGA. hmwith τ 14:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastide

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

Hello! I think Bastide is a nice article and with the red links doing and a few minor issues on the talk page fixing, it could be a VGA. Please feel free to review the article yourself. Comments are welcomed. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets or exceeds 9 out of 10 of the requirements for a VGA. The only thing it fails is the redlinks; hopefully they can be eliminated by the time this goes for voting. ;)
I see major potential here. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 07:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I given a second thought on this, I think that having only 3 refs is very weak for a VGA. I suggest this article gets copyediting. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complex words in article. Full of redlinks. Poor referencing. Extensive work is needed for this. Pmlineditor Talk 11:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A review would be nice!!! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed. Pmlineditor Talk 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a nice article. Please summarize the Charta section, as it's presently complex. I also don't understand why it's collapsed, either. Secondly, the article needs inline citations to the books so it is easier to verify the contents. The sources too shouldn't be collapsed. Maxim_(talk) 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize? It's collapsed because it takes up space. It can be taken out of the collapsible box if necessary. The sources were collaspsed for the same reason, they take up a lot of space. Can be changed though. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with taking up space? :/ As for summarize, résume la section. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for the space. However, why summarize it? It's best to have the whole thing. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Simple (you even have a few French words), and it's disproportionately long compared to rest of the article. Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are some french words. Some words can't be translated. And it's not my fault if it's long. We translated it from french with eptalon. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Charta section is needed at all. Some explanatory notes as to what the Charta was, and what it meant to people, along with a suitable link out to the Charta should suffice. The copy-and-paste of the charta into this article is incredibly over-the-top for Simple English Wikipedia. At the very least, the charta could be summarised into genuine Simple English. Also, the article has a few MOS problems (e.g. inconsistent capitalisation of the word bastide itself), most of the sections are just bullet lists where prose would be far preferable, 11 red-links, and just three references, at least two of which are French at a guess? Just not enough, nowhere near enough for me. And linking? Just take the opening sentence. Is "fortified" really so Simple that it doesn't need a link? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean have the charta in a seperate article? And what do you mean 'the copy and paste of the Charta'?. The red links aren't a problem, easy to fix. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fix them. And as for the charta, as I said, it's way over the top for this article. Please summarise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived voting

Bloc Party

Bloc Party (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Vote ends at 18:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - looks good to me. Well referenced, no redlinks and the concerns are fixed. Good work. --Barras (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yup. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes per the readability! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please be consistent with publishers of your references, either Bloc Party or blocparty.com...! By the way, with our current crazy system of out-and-out voting, you can vote for your own article so should this continue to have only five supports by the time it gets to nearly seven days, I suggest you vote for your own work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can? What the? Oh, and I'll fix that if you like. GARDEN 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good work people! иιƒкч ? 09:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a job well done with the article. This VGA shall take off like a "Helicopter". ;-) — RyanCross (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: 7 votes and 100% suppot --Barras (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Barry (2007)

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

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vote ends: 23 May, 19:36

Support as nominator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on talkpage. Very close. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my concerns addressed quickly and professionally, and the fact we now have a very good article here. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me. TRM's concerns are fixed. Well done. Barras (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Per the poor readability. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really hate that tool... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do to make it better. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, did you even look at the article? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. (I'd prefer to abstain, but as we need the votes, I'll have my oppose stand) Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And would you care to provide specific examples of complexity? Thanks –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the toll's reading, I think that says it all. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the tool is completely useless, because it doesn't take into account links or parenthesized explanations. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken my oppose away, though I warned you, I only left it because I don't want the article not to pass because it doesn't have enough votes. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The tool has serious shortcomings and should never be used in isolation to provide an oppose. Unless one is prepared to provide specific examples of overcomplex language or overlong sentences, the oppose is most unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for those interested (1) the tool and its purely statistical analysis are not part of the VGA criteria and (2) the tool does some very odd things. For more information, see this discussion I had with User:Peterdownunder regarding the recent Bobby Robson PVGA. Makes for interesting reading. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks OK to me. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very good to me! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did a copyedit of the page, things look pretty good, however my linking created a redlink, and when I switched the wiktionary links to simple english wiktionary links, I believe it created a few dead ends. I made the switch because those links are not helpful if they link to a complex definition. I hope that someone will work on creating those entries. I will be more than happy to help out with formatting on se:wikt, I'm very active there. · Ty grrr... 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work. иιƒкч ? 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed: Promoted, 100% Support, 6/0. Good work! Gob lin 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven

Ludwig van Beethoven (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: June 14, 2009; 10:50

Support - as my own nomination. Barras (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - five of your six on-line references are in German. This is Simple English Wikipedia so it's highly likely that virtually none of our readers will be able to use these. I'm also not convinced those references are reliable sources. It should be quite simple to find reliable English references for Beethoven. I also feel it could use more in-line references (English ones) - last four VGAs have 26, 75, 51 and 29 references. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks fine to me. No problems with it at all. Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Way too less references. 9 references of which several are in other languages is practically not good enough for VGA. Perhaps you can try GA. Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: 50% support, 4 votes (minimum number not reached). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 09:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hermann Göring

Hermann Göring (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting closes 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Support my own work. Barras (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason not to. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is just not enough information, for example there is nothing in the article about what Goring was doing between 1941 and 1945, which is reasonably important for a major figure in the Third Reich. If this is to a very good article then it needs to be that just that "very good". --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too short, does not fall within the VGA criteria. Pmlinediter ^Talk 10:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but too short is a bad reason to oppose, because the article is long enough per our current criteria. --Barras (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, the article misses several bits of information such as (as Peterdownuner points out), it completely skips what he was doing between 1941 to 1945. It is good, but in no means very good. Regards, Pmlinediter ^Talk 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    - Your comment reads like: Not enough blabla about anything. You didn't mentioned this point. You said only too short. Barras (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comprehensiveness is a legitimate concern, but indeed, "too short" is generally a weak argument at PVGA/PGA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Peterdownunder is right, it lacks a comprehensive section on his activities during the later part of the war. Since he was a major figure during WWII, this must be addresses. I'm willing to expand this section, but since the final few edits to a PVGA should all be marked "minor" it'd be beyond the current criteria; does anybody care about ignoring it being a major edit whilst it is being voted on? fr33kman ^talk 00:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it!--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he said - I'm sure we can overlook one rule if we get a very good article out of it :) Gob lin 11:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Why not? Pmlinediter ^Talk 11:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy if I get some help with the article. Please go on :) Barras (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that edits need to be marked minor for a VGA to succeed is laughable. As far as I'm concerned, no criteria state "The last edits should be marked as minor." - the poorly phrased criterion in question ("The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).") is an attempt at stating that the article should be in a stable condition so that people who have already voted on it aren't suddenly voting on a very different article. Improvements should be sought, and if they are major ones then the proposing editor should be honest enough to withdraw the nomination to make the required change and renominate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this objection, I feel I should wait until this voting is resolved. I am ready to expand the article as soon as that is done. fr33kman ^talk 01:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by the requester of the promotion. Barras (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

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

Vote closes 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Support As nom. Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 12:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per my issues on the talk page. Barras (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- More comments left on the talk page. Barras (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barras' comments on the talk page. Once the final ones are fixed, I feel I support it's promotion. fr33kman ^talk 01:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have my own set of concerns, on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of concerns fixed; a handful remain. Should be ready by tomorrow. Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 18:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a {{fact}} template, a red-link, and there are still issues with the references (e.g. ref 2 has no accessdate, no publisher, ref 4, 5 have no publisher, refs 6, 7 have no accessdate, publisher, refs 10, 18, have format problems, ref 27 isn't called "v"....) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed all! Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 17:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still reference problems. All should have, as a minimum, title, accessdate, publisher and references with dates should have date as well. At a quick first glance, you need to look at refs 1, 8, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 24 to 26, 28 to 37. Refs 30 and 31 are the same so should use the same ref name as you have with ref 1. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed Pmlin editor 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"average" should be linked, plus what makes "universetoday.com", "sparknotes.com", "thinkquest.org", reliable sources? They are heaped with adverts and show no sign of being anything other than someone's personal project. And ref 35 does not reference anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"artists impression" probably needs an apostrophe and is definitely not Simple. "Only 13 of these were first seen from Earth because the rest are too small." - where were the others seen from then? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)   Fixed Pmlin editor 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how is "users.zoominternet.net" reliable? It looks like it hosts personal websites with no sign of any verification as to what is put on there. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O_O.   Doing... Pmlin editor 09:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the ref you just added wasn't a NASA site, it was a US geological survey site. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed Pmlin editor 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Earth, a current WP:PGA is using {{Infobox Planet}}, I suggest that it should also be used in this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed Pmlin editor 12:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you copied that from en.wiki (1) attribution is required on the talkpage (2) you need to check how complex the references are - see ref 2 for instance... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yeah, I copied it and will give credit to enWP (after simplification). Fixing the refs. Pmlin editor 12:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check ref 6 too - it uses complex unlinked language. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed Pmlin editor 07:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bar in ref 5 links to the wrong bar, and atmospheric pressure is not simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed Pmlin editor 15:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And some of the date fields are in ISO format when all the other reference formats are in human-readable format - be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed Pmlin editor 15:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done - refs 1, 2 and 3 still have ISO dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Pmlin editor 15:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The composition of the planet - your ref says "81 percent hydrogen and 18 percent helium", your article says "75% hydrogen and 24% helium" and your infobox says "87.8 to 91.8% hydrogen, 8.2 to 12.2% helium" - this is a big problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed Pmlin editor 15:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes your chosen reference more reliable than that used by en.wiki, i.e. this one which supports the values in the en.wiki infobox which you copied over to here? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count NASA a more reliable source than a wiki. Pmlin editor 15:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I suggest you click on the link I provided... (and btw, the en.wiki Jupiter article is featured so think hard and long as to whether your source is better...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)   Fixed Pmlin editor 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More infobox things to deal with on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It seems to look good - All concerns fixed. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Issues are fixed now. Looks very good enough to me now. Barras (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until TRM's concerns are fixed. And it looks like there are more. Barras (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Pmlin editor 15:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that it looks good. Shappy ^talk 14:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After all those fixes, it should be fine. иιƒкч ? 08:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ~~- Not a legal vote. Please log in to voice your opinion. Barras (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)~~ (Fixed)[reply]
Warning: There are only 5 named users participating in the voting process so far (excluding nominator). A PVGA must have at least 6 participants in order to succeed. Chenzw Talk 13:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Warning not required. You do not have to exclude the nominator. Therefore this has at least six participants. It may not have the required level of support, but it has sufficient participation. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has approximately 85% support, above the criteria of 80%. Also fr33ky has not been counted. Pmlineditor 15:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But if I withdraw my oppose without supporting then it will have 100% support but insufficient numbers of participants for promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as not promoted - Despite suggestions that it has the required amount of support, the article is still not in VGA shape imo and cannot be promoted at this stage. There are still outstanding issues, and, as this should not be a vote, i've decided to not promote it. Regards, Gob lin 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

Victoria line

Victoria line (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: 5 August 2009; 21:50 UTC

Weak oppose - A good candidate. Red links need fixing, and I think there are a few other little things on the talk page that need doing. Otherwise, nothing wrong. Will support if concerns fixed. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Redlinks are not what I would like to see in a VGA, although I will easily and gladly support if those are fixed. Shappy ^talk 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Not quite ready for VGA. I would rather promoted the Earth article then this one.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Not enough votes and still some issues. --Barras || talk 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria line

Victoria line (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting ends: 22nd August 2009, 18:03

Support It looks good to me. The concerns seem to have been addressed. hmwith τ 18:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks much better than it did when we first started on it! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nomination. Note if any issues arise i'm more than happy to fix them :). Gob lin 18:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Support, per myself before. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 18:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not bad :) —MC8 (b · t) 22:23, Saturday August 15 2009 (UTC)
Support, looks great. Not exactly 100% but enough for VGA IMO. I would love more inline citations. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the promotion. Well done all concerned. fr33kman ^talk 06:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After all the work we all did. Pmlineditor Talk 08:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed early per this as successful PVGA. 9 supports and 0 opposes. Well done. Barras || talk 12:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Göring

Hermann Göring (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: 2 September 2009; 18:50

Support as nom. Barras || talk 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent job, Barras. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. Shappy ^talk 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. Good work Barras. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any concerns. hmwith τ 14:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I made a few small edits and this article can still be improved, but it looks very good to me. EhJJ^TALK 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: I was of a split mind to SNOW this as an early close and move it back or to promote it, per my BOLD removal of the Voting sections. As it is, i've decided to let it run it's course as doing anything else would not be fair imo, and furthermore unlike GA there will be no overlap of multiple articles at voting - i.e. when this is finished there won't have been any more started. So, whoever closes this, please also remove the Voting section when you are done. Thanks! Gob lin 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
In addition, please ensure that it goes into Archive 6, or the archive ending on September 2nd, and not the new, uncreated archive. Thanks, Gob lin 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Closed early per WP:SNOW as successful PVGA. 6 supports and 0 opposes. Pmlineditor Talk 08:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]