Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 8

Archived Proposals

New York State Route 308

New York State Route 308 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Passed PGA with no issues, arguably the best road article on the wiki atm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There are no references in the introduction.
It seems very neatly and well written, but I think it's stil too short.
The word Sepasco probably came from the tribe's word for "little river" or "stream", which is sepuus. After the Civil War, only a few of the Sepasco were left. The last Sepasco Indian died in 1867 in a hut near Lake Sepasco. All three sentences, I think, need references.
The part of the new turnpike east of the Hudson River was sometimes known as the Ulster and Salisbury Turnpike. This, too, I believe, needs a ref.
ancient: Is it possible to simplify?
are now on display: Can this be simplified?

Overall this seems a very sweet, neat, satisfying article, but it still needs some improvements and expanding for VGA. Classical Esther 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the comments. References aren't required for the lead, since all the information is cited, either directly or indirectly, in the body of the page. The sentences you mentioned about the Sepasco are cited to the following reference. As for the complexity, I've simplified those. Best, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful job! Thank you, Classical Esther 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VGA??? First this article is way to short. Add 3 sections. Second, there is only 16 refs. Double it. Fix these problems and I will support the article in promotion. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 02:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the article has nothing to do with its quality, nor is its number of refs (16 is more than most articles, even some GAs) indicative of its credibility. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is two short, way too unreferenced, and I swear I saw a redlink someplace. There are better articles that fail VGA. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two redlinks I see are in the infobox for navigation purposes between Route 306 and Route 309. Either way (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced? What's unreferenced? What's not comprehensive about it? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Colton arguing FOR comprehensiveness and references? Usually he's saying that something's undercomprehensive. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think simplicity is the problem, Purplebackpack89: it is very neat and simple, and well arranged. I just wish it was longer, that's all. VGAs are the best articles on Simple English Wikipedia and I think it needs something better than this, tho' I like it much. More refs, more length, and I will be happy to support. Classical Esther 06:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about simplicity...just comprehensiveness/longer and better references, plus surprised at Julian's stance Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know.... :P calling a highly-respected user in seWP "Colton" isn't exactly nice... What's wrong, Purplebackpack? Was your backpack too heavy? Didja fight with "Colton"? Why are you being grumpy? Just a thought. Please don't get offended! ;P Belle (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belle, it's perfectly acceptable to truncate Juliancolton to Julian or Colton, just as it is perfectly acceptable to truncate my name to Purple, Backpack, PB, PBP, PBP89 or w/e. What the heck does that

Referring to someone by their last name in a rude tone is considered unacceptable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. This is a major PVGA fail. To start off, the article is simply too short. There is not much information telling me about the subject. Also most of the content is unreferenced. And a redlink? *tsk, tsk* It fails several parts of the criteria for a VGA. —§ stay (sic)! 13:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length is not relevant to the article's quality. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Juliancolton, it is good quality. But, it should still be longer. I have never seen an article this short get promoted to VGA status. And with expanding the article comes with adding more refs. My comment above should be taken care of. If the problems aren't fixed, it fails my support. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be longer, I-on? What gaps does it contain? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the ENWP article. The sections are longer and there is a subsection that isn't even on this one. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I wrote much of the enwiki article. Simple articles don't require the level of detail that enwiki articles sustain. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw; I've got no interest in arguing. Sorry for being grumpy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for everyone's benefit, the criteria we apply on this Wikipedia to determine what makes an article very good can be found here. Yelling about needing a specific number of references or even a certain length will do nobody any good whatsoever. What would be useful to nominators would be if people could actually make constructive comments which can be specifically remedied. I can't see a single complaint above that holds any water when reviewing our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question There is a statement that Native Americans "built" the Sepasco trail. Is "built" the right word? To what extent was the trail actually constructed? Was it a made surface? Did it have cuttings and embankments? Or was it a simply a winding track following he path of least resisitance and created by the passage of human feet and horses? Amandajm (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal should be withdrawn. In short, it is not ready yet. —§ stay (sic)! 10:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need "in short" we need specific areas of concern and just saying "too short" isn't a valid oppose as the article, in its current state, meets all the criteria. Please provide objective criticism where you believe the article fails to meet the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Slipknot: The proposal has already been withdrawn. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 14:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of simple words needing either simplifying or linking. I have put a list on the talk page. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as unsuccessful, but please, guys, be constructive, don't just yell "too short!!!!!" when this is no longer a criterion of our VGAs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden

Joe Biden (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Recently approved GA. Close to VGA quality, if not there Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean "close to VGA quality"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I mean that. Corrected above. It's so close to GA quality, it meets or exceeds GA quality Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. The only thing that's holding me back right now is the length of the article. If this is destined to be "the best" of Simple English Wikipedia then perhaps it should be more comprehensive...? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody review this, please. I feel that it touches on all topics, and it's clean in all the other criteria. By the way, where the heck is Big Blue? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Rambling Man. It is a bit short. Also, something else I saw right off the bat was the date when he was born was not linked (fixed). Be sure to look for little things like this. On the bright side, no red links, and a good # of refs. A small support. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 22:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't link dates (since we follow en MOS unless otherwise prescribed here specifically) so I've undone your edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told you should link them only if they are for births and deaths. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no need to link any of them. Link me to the policy/guideline saying we should.... Otherwise we follow en.wp's MOS and we definitely don't link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: I-on and Rambler: if it's too short, what would you add or expand (you can put it on the talk page)? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with TRM. The article seems a little short for VGA and should have more information. You might be able to find more information over at enWP, considering that it is a good article also. Megan|^talk_changes 23:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Without infobox, refs etc, Word tells me this article has 832 words, the en-wiki version has over 10x as much information. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's your target? 1200? 1500? (Remember that ENwiki isn't always the best barometer for what to put here). I think one of the problems is it only has one image. It should have 2-3, at least Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no target, and actually I was shocked to see how big the en. article was. I think you can do more here. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is an enormously important biography; there's no way to comprehensively describe Biden's career, role in the presidential office, life, personal details and whatnot in such a short article. This should not have been promoted to GA at all to be frank. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE Purplepackback89: I have posted a list of things you can do to expand the article. It is waiting for you on the talk page as you wanted. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 14:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the VP section and added awards/honors to the Personal Life section. I'll expand the Senate section in a couple of days. If, it definetely will exceed anything needed to stop a PAD/GAR Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the article is not ready to be promoted. There are a list of problems with the article. The most obvious is the length, it is simply too short and is inferior when compared with the other VGAs. Biden has had a long political career and only a few are mentioned in the article. There needs more to be added. —§ stay (sic)! 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we are trying to do. You can help expand it if you want to. There is loads of work to be done. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 02:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is not ready for VGA just yet. For GA it seems quite good enough, but VGAs are the best articles in Wikipedia; I think it requires rather more. Classical Esther 02:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, sorry, but Esther is a bit right, and so is Ian. The article definitely needs more correcting. Besides all that, it is too short. Expand! Expand! Belle (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as unsuccessful. This is a good article, definitely, but there is no consensus to promote it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble (2009)

Royal Rumble (2009) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've worked on this article all night. I've added some information, created a few articles, and I think it's ready for VGA.-- † CR ₉₀ 11:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready. Some comments on the opening two sections are on the talk page. Plenty more to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Took care of those.-- † CR ₉₀ 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not in simple English. Readability is Grade 11, and 57% - it would not be accepted as a DYK article with those figures. I have put a more detailed comment on the talk page. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find any problems but with the changes and fixes CR90 made, I can't find anything that would go against the criteria. Good job CR90. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The article is very nicely written, and has a good length and many references, but as Peterdownunder has pointed out, it needs simplification. Words like household, elminiated, defended wouldn't be very easy for children or foreign people to read. Classical Esther^♣ 02:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of all the concerns from TRM, anything else, I'm gonna get help on Peter's suggestion, so other than that, any suggestions?-- † CR ₉₀ 04:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't get closed? Nom is indeffed. --Diego (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's ban is irrelevant with the PVGA. Regards, —§ stay (sic)! 05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Slipknot. Not a reason to end discussion.--Sinbad (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close as not promoted: Hard call to make, but it's now a week or so overdue a close and no consensus has been formed. Presuming that it would have got the standard 'one week extension' (which would have passed) the point we are at now would have induced this same result, so i'm just going to inact it. Sorry to do this, but discussion appears to have stagnated too :(. Please try again soon! Gob lin 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Hurricane Vince (2005)

Hurricane Vince (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Imported from EnWiki where the article is a FA. Simplified it today and created the red links. I think it is good enough for VGA. There are some self notes in the talk page which I will attend to shortly. A review would be great. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 11:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC) This is the first PVGA of hurricane/storm related article not proposed by JC or Slipknot, I guess? :P[reply]

Very nicely done indeed! Good length, quality pictures, well linked, well written, and not overly complex. Of course, the simpler the better...and there's still some simplification to be done...but other than that, I can't find anything glaring to stop it from being VGA. Amazing work, Pmlineditor. Classical Esther^♣ 02:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not fully simplified, how can you approve it for VGA? A VGA should not need more work to be simplified... Either way (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, Either way. :p I'm sorry if I put it unclearly: I meant that with some simplification - which Pmlineditor and I-on are doing, and which I will be happy to help in - it qualifies in everything else for VGA. So when the simplification is finished, I mean, it'll be a good VGA. Classical Esther^♣ 02:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were some problems with date formats in the refs, but I have just fixed those. The average grade level is 9th grade. I will see what I can do to simplify it. Megan|^talk_changes 13:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was only able to get the grade level down to 8.5. It is going to be hard to get it lower because of the weather terms used. I hope this will help. Megan|^talk_changes 14:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 8 now. Seeing that most of the complex terms are linked, I think it is fine, unless people have specific words to simplify...? Pmlineditor ∞ 15:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another look through the article and found two red links (I guess I didn't pay too much attention the last time I looked). These are going to need to be fixed in order to reach VGA. Megan|^talk_changes 13:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Kansan (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's about VGA quality now. I can see no glaring imperfection in the article at present. Sincerely, Classical Esther^♣ 03:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's about VGA quality, what is needed to make it VGA quality in your mind? Either way (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that if no further requirements that Pmlineditor can't fix (which I highly doubt there could be), I support this for VGA. :) Classical Esther^♣ 23:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a better version than the one I wrote and nominated for almost three years ago. Nicely done PM. —§ stay (sic)! 01:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Since the red links are gone, I believe its ready for VGA. Megan|^talk_contribs 01:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely referenced, and the issues above fixed. :) Ready for VGA. Nifky^{^} 08:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! :) Yottie ^=talk= 15:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Excellent work, Pmlineditor. The article is in good shape to be a VGA and has the backing from the community; well done! Gob lin 00:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Epping Ongar Railway

Epping Ongar Railway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Relisting as I now believe i've met (or will meet) the outstanding concerns from the previous nomination. Cheers! Gob lin 17:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Looking good. I'll have a longer look later. Yottie ^=talk= 17:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left some comments on the talk page. Megan|^talk_changes 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed/responded to most of them, working on the remaining ones... mind taking another look? Gob lin 14:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Left some more on talk page. Megan|^talk_changes 17:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

& fixed :D Gob lin 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

I just found two more...sorry for not finding them all at once ;) See the talk page. Cheers, Megan|^talk_changes 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

& fixed too. No worries, better to find them sooner rather than later! Gob lin 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Great job, Bluegoblin, for fixing all of my concerns (and rather quickly too). I now think it's ready for VGA. Cheers, Megan|^talk_changes 14:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article some time ago and was asked to have a second look at it. I just did so and I think the article is well written and sourced, easy to understand. I've no problem this article becoming a VGA. Well done BG. Barras ^talk 14:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Barras, worthy of VGA I believe. Yottie ^=talk= 17:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very neatly, simply, and accurately written. I think it's good enough for VGA. Classical Esther (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* Could someone close this, please? ;) Gob lin 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Done - Promoted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manatee Palms Youth Services

Manatee Palms Youth Services (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

should be a very good article because it was brought over from English Wikipedia and it is relevant and timely. Tkfy7cf (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any major criteria that this is hitting right now. It is too focused on the shut down and scandal. The references are not properly formatted. It's not fully simplified. It needs a lot of work and expansion to be a good article. Then from there it can be worked on to be a very good article. Either way (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed as not promoted: Pretty much per Either way, above. These things should be fixed before it comes here, per the criteria I can never remember... Gob lin 11:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

City of Manchester Stadium

City of Manchester Stadium (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a featured article on En. that I have brought over and simplified. I am currently working on the redlinks, but welcome comments on the article overall. Right now I believe it meets all of the criteria expect for 7 (the redlinks). I would appreciate reviews as I know my simplification probably was not perfect. Thanks, Either way (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left a small review on the talk page. Megan (^t/_c) 15:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with those (though one was not done, see the talk page for my rationale). Would love more comments. Thanks, Either way (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more on the talk page. Megan (^t/_c) 15:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with these as well. Down to 25 redlinks on the article. Hope to have them done by the end of the week. Either way (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of it under its long title, nor COMS! It's always known as Eastlands in England. "usually known as Eastlands" > intro sentence? And Blue Camp is not so rare, either... Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the talk page. Good work overall! -Barras ^talk 18:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the redlinks have been filled. Thanks to those who helped with that. Also thanks to all the comments so far. What else needs to be done to get this to a VGA? Or are people ready to accept it as one? Either way (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is one non-encyclopedic and serious omission in this article. You have written about a work of design/engineering/architecture and failed to acknowledge the people behind this great design until well into the body of the article. This should be the substance of the second sentence in the article. Since that sentence is taken up with telling us other names, and and as this is Simple Wiki, then the third sentence should state the designer. Fourth sentence- that bit of history about it being part of an Olympic bid. Please fix. Amandajm (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that as the third sentence. Anything else? Either way (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sentences could be tweaked to be slightly simpler, perhaps, but on the whole, it's a very well-written, interesting, detailed article. Now that the requirements are fixed, I think it is good enough to be a VGA. Please keep up the wonderful work, Either way! :) Sincerely, —Classical Esther^talk 02:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will give the article one last review later today. Cheers, Megan (^t/_c) 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left a few more comments on the talk page. Megan (^t/_c) 14:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All are done, thanks Meganmccarty. Either way (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all the changes that have been made, I believe it is now worthy of VGA status. Ι-ση // _{ταlκ ραge}^ψ 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine for me. Well done. I think this article is ready to become a VGA. -Barras ^talk 16:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted - All issues have been fixed, and consensus is in favour of promotion. This has been open way too long. Great article, good job Either way! Griffinofwales (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Como La Flor

Como La Flor (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article talks about Selena's first #1 U.S. Billboard chart single. This article has very good text and reliable sources to back up the claims. I believe this article is a "good article" because it allows users to view what the single was about and a little history of Latin music AJona1992 (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closed as not promoted: I suggest that the nominator takes time to look over the requirements for VGA before proposing further articles, and in particular Yellow (song), a current VGA that is also a song. The article is literally lead, one paragraph, an infobox and then lists - it's not much beyond a stub. I know there are no length requirements, but this is nowhere near ready and by the time it was up to scratch wouldn't meet the "stable" article, "small changes" criteria. Gob lin 16:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

1910 Cuba hurricane

1910 Cuba hurricane (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Arguably one of the wiki's best hurricane articles, and been a GA for a while, so here goes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very well written and informative article! :) One immediate concern I have is that the first reference and the Atlantic Hurricane Database link in the "Other websites" section seems to be dead. There's a redlink (Casilda. Cuba). It would also be nice if words like mph and km could be linked, as readers might have difficulty understanding them. :) Kindly, —Clementina talk 03:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Clementina. :) I've fixed those two links, I believe. Regarding that redlink, I remain unsure of what to do with it. I can find nary a trace of Casilda's existence, but standard practice is to link every city. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that making an article about Casilda would probably be pretty hard at the moment. It does seem quite unfair that such a good article shouldn't be promoted to VGA simply because of one red link (maybe that requirement in the VGA process should be slightly changed - a lot of our current VGAs have broken wikt links that are, in a way, red links). Anyway, good work on fixing those dead links! :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 12:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a review on the article's talk page. -Barras ^talk 19:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll address any remaining issues this afternoon/evening. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and Done, sorry for the delay. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK! There's just one remaining issue in the Florida section. I still don't get the difference between the USD of 1910 and the one of 2010. It's not explained in the article. This is the only things that should be fixed before this article can be a VGA. -Barras (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I believe. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the promotion to VGA. It now has the quality needed to show it on the main page. A really good work! -Barras (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT I edited this article a while back, and I believe it meets the standards! Well done, Julia! Protector of Wiki (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very, very well written! Very Good Editors make Very Good Articles... No wonder why this is so nicely done. :) Cheers, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 02:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: The article is excellent, and users have shown approval and support. :) I am very happy to say that this article is now a Very Good Article. Good work everyone! God bless, —Clementina talk 05:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

Elizabeth II (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article has quite a bit of text, and some references. Probably needs improving accuracy, and more refs. Let's see. --Eptalon (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a fairly long review on the talk page. :) Hopefully these will be fixed and I'll be able to do a more thorough review in time. Good work! Kindly, —Clementina talk 09:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE: You acknowledge in your opening statement that the article needs more accuracy and more refs! You expect the reviewers to rectify those issues?! You expect the reviewers to clean up the sloppy article?! No! Clementina below is working diligently to ameliorate the article. Please look to her as a role model! I look forward to changing my vote below on Clementina's article to strong support!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was point out an article I found promising, see criteria. This is also not about ownership issues, but a community effort. --Eptalon (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protector of Wiki, Eptalon has written several GA/VGAs, and I believe he is trying to help the article become better. :) But this isn't just his to fix, just as Gettysburg Address is by no means "my" article: all of us, as he said above, have to work together. —Clementina talk 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your standards, all articles on this wiki are potential candidates as long as someone is willing to apply himself! Yes, it's true that VGA is a "community effort", but you don't nominate an article that is far from achieving such status! Work on it yourself and ask others to assist you in the process, but don't nominate an article when it clearly isn't ready! This page is for finalization — small changes, not for sweeping edits that transform the article! Clementina's article below was excellent when she nominated it, so I hope that you only nominate an article that you have extensively labored over and then feel free to propose it here! Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as unsuccessful: I'm sorry, this article certainly has lots of potential, but the concerns have not been fixed in time, and there has not been sufficient consensus to support. :) Please renominate when you feel it's ready to brave the criteria. Kindly, —Clementina talk 05:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gettysburg Address

Gettysburg Address (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've worked on this article for several weeks—all the redlinks are fixed, complex words linked or explained, references and pictures added, and sentences simplified—and I believe it is good enough for VGA. I would be very grateful for comments and reviews, as I know my simplification was probably imperfect. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 03:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what is meant by speech, ~~dedication~~, ~~culture~~, ~~perish~~, ~~reprint~~, ~~"turning point"~~, ~~"Civil War"~~, ~~influenced~~, ~~vast~~, ~~suffering~~, Governor, ~~honor~~, ~~dedicate~~, ~~candidate~~, ~~organizing~~, ~~speaker~~, ~~ceremony~~, ~~appropriate~~, standards, participation, "Executive Mansion paper", ~~"chestnut bay"~~, ~~dignitaries~~, ~~townspeople~~, ~~dedicated~~, ~~ceremony~~, ~~"sitting governors"~~, ~~"exact place of the program "~~, ~~oration~~, ~~"waning year"~~, ~~dimly~~, ~~towering~~, ~~brethren~~, ~~annals~~, ~~dedicate~~, ~~consecrated~~, ~~detract~~, ecetera ... What is meant by "very well known"? By whom? In the line, Also, Wills's letter "made it equally clear to the president that he would have only a small part in the ceremonies", president should be President as it is a proper noun. These are just a few examples that need fixing. Frankly, it is very far away from VGA standard. I would, however, be glad to help. fr33k man 05:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed First of all, thank you very much for the review. :) Secondly, I think I've fixed almost or all the things you listed. I've changed president --> President, clarified turning point, exact place of the program, and Civil War (I meant the America Civil War, which I linked on its first usage). Influenced, suffering, Governor, organizing, speaker, towering, brethren, ceremony and honor are already Basic English words; I've linked dedicate, waning year, dimly and candidate to Wiktionary (they're all blue links), and I've already explained vast, perish, annals, detract and appropriate in parentheses. I don't think anybody would have much trouble figuring out what townspeople means (it's just putting together town and people, two BE words, after all). Oration is already linked in orator, and I didn't want to overlink. Culture and consecration has been linked. Very well known <-- it just means, very well known in general by most people, so I just changed it to "famously" (a BE word). I've struck out all the words I've fixed, so I won't get confused later (I hope you don't mind - feel free to undo any words you think that haven't been properly fixed). The only things I didn't fix were standards, participation, and "Executive Mansion paper", because I couldn't find which section they were in. Cordially, —Clementina talk 06:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure "president" needs to be capitalized in this case, since it's not being used as part of an official title. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julian, thank you very much for commenting. I tend to agree with you, but...well, actually, since it's a quote, I guess it shouldn't really be changed at all. I've changed it back to the original of president, so if someone who's better at grammar than me thinks I'm wrong, please feel free to change. :) Kindly, —Clementina talk 03:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is one of the best-known speeches in United States history." > "It is one of the best-known speeches in the history of the United States" - "Lincoln delivered it during the American Civil War, at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania." link dedication - "It is one of the best-known speeches in United States history." "This address came to be seen as one of the greatest speeches in American history." "The speech is very important in the history and popular culture of the United States." 3 times in the lead, all saying basically the same thing - "The speech famously begins with "Four score and seven years ago". It is about the American Revolution in 1776." rephrase the last sentence, it confuses me [lead review complete] - "172,000 American soldiers fought in the Battle of Gettysburg from July 1-3, 1863." American is Union and Confederate? - "Because of the smell and suffering, the people of Gettysburg wanted to bury the dead neatly and properly." Um, that doesn't make sense, if you wanted to get rid of the bodies fast, you wouldn't do that. I think you should rephrase. - "He asked Edward Everett to be the main speaker ... president of Harvard University, and Vice Presidential candidate, to be the main speaker." a redundancy, please remove. - "But Everett replied that he would not be able to prepare a good speech in such a short time" a sentence shouldn't start with But - "Therefore, the date of the dedication was moved to Thursday, November 19." Therefore isn't simple - "Also, Wills's letter "made it equally clear to the president that he would have only a small part in the ceremonies"." It should be Wills' - "Lincoln came by train in Gettysburg on November 18." in > to - "He spent the night in Wills's house on the Gettysburg town square." Once again, Wills's to Wills' - "Letter of David Wills asking Abraham Lincoln to make a few remarks." of > from - "By August 1863, millions of people had been killed or wounded because of Civil War battles." wounded > hurt, more simple - "In the summer of 1864, Lincoln felt sure that the people's bad feelings would make him fail." fail at what, it implies the Presidential election, but it could be the war or something else. - "That was the greatest purpose of Lincoln's Address at Gettysburg." that needs a source - " Dirge, sung by a chosen Choir Benediction, by Reverend H.L. Baugher, D.D." link Dirge and Benediction - "Modern versions printed in newspaper accounts of the event and [26][27] Among these, the Bliss version," why is Among capitalised? - [from the address itself] "conceived in liberty," what is conceived? I notice you explain later on, but you should do it for the first example - "Now we are engaged (joining) in a great civil war" the simplified word should probably be "in" - "we can not hallow this ground." what is hallow (you can link or add a simplified word) that's up to the second para. of sources. Fix it. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the very detailed and thorough review, Griffinofwales! :) I think I've fixed all of them. Please tell me if you think there's anything further to fix, and I'll do my best to correct it. Gratefully, —Clementina talk 04:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for a week so users can agree/disagree on the VGA-ness of the article Griffinofwales (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE: I have many problems with the article, but it's getting there:

"The Battle of Gettysburg was an important influence on the American Civil War" and "The battle also greatly influenced the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania" are not explained. How exactly did the battle influence the war and the town? Without support, those statements can be refuted!
Actually, I did explain its influence quite lengthily, with references too (having "the greatest amount of human suffering" would certainly influence the town). :) If you would please specify what part I didn't make quite clear enough, I'd be happy to fix it. —Clementina talk
I apologize, but I fail to see the influence explained "lengthily". Please point out what you consider to be the influence! Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a popular story that Lincoln completed his address on the train on the back of an envelope, but it is not true." Why isn't it true? From where did that story originate?
There are two references cited that say it is not true. :) I have also already explained that there were earlier copies on Executive Mansion paper, and reports of Lincoln finishing his speech while he was a guest of David Wills at Gettysburg. —Clementina talk
"People are not sure about the exact place..." People?!
Fixed —Clementina talk
"This is very much like the Gettysburg Address's famous beginning." How so? You alluded to it briefly ("remembering honored people"), but provide a deeper analysis!
Fixed —Clementina talk
"Everett, who was collecting the speeches...to sell for the dead soldiers" Dead soldiers?!
Fixed Thanks for pointing that out. —Clementina talk
"It is different from the drafted words in a few ways" What are those few ways?
Well, that's a bit hard to specify, as there are several copies and they are all different in very minor ways (punctuation, for example). I'm not even sure if it would be worth noting. —Clementina talk
Anything is worth noting! That paragraph is rather short, so you could add a sentence about the differences, however infinitesimal they may be! Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It...was so Impressive! It was the common remark of everybody" Is "Impressive" really capitalized? Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. —Clementina talk
You think so?! I would like to get an affirmative on that. Give me a source! Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protector of Wiki, first of all, I said "I think so" because, like some other objections you raised before, there already was, actually, a source (reference number 19). Words are often capitalized in this manner in less modern writing, and the capitalization of "Impressive" does not surprise me. If you still think there is a strong objection against this, please specify it more clearly next time so I can find a way to fix it. As of now, I do not see why the capitalization of Impressive, which is referenced and a quote, is a problem. Kindly, —Clementina talk 08:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was never complaining that it was capitalized! I was just discontented that you only thought so and did not confirm it. I looked at the source, and it is capitalized. This is no longer a concern! Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments: hopefully the article is looking better now! :) Please tell me if you see any more problems and I'll try to fix them. Kindly, —Clementina talk 12:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please look at my first edit the the article. I tightened up the prose by replacing phrases with complex words. Now that I understand that this is Simple English, those changes are inviable! Anyhow, I also changed punctuation (changing the parentheses to brackets in your insertion of synonyms next to words in a quote) and other things that did not make the article more complex. Please accommodate those revisions! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were deleted. They were miraculous! "equal as said in the..." → "equal as spelled out in the", "The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address are different from one another in some details" → "The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address differ from one another in some respects", "one of the best examples" → "the epitome", "Much argument about its existence and origins" → "Its existence and origins were questioned", "can be seen" → "is typified", "became highest with" → "culminated in". I also changed the parentheses to brackets in your insertion of synonyms next to words in a quote. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits made the language in the article much more complex. We are the Simple English Wikipedia. Please make sure your edits do not make the articles more difficult to read, because otherwise they will be removed. Words like "epitome" and "culminated" are not in the Basic English alphabetical wordlist. EhJJ^TALK 00:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquence is truly wanting here! I never realised that this was a Simple English encyclopedia. This then brings up a serious question. What is the point of this encyclopedia if one can obtain the same information from the English encyclopedia, which is much more developed? It's not that hard to look up words, and you may even learn some new vocaulary! Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I have more time, I will look at your responses in more depth! Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A response is located here. (where we should talk "that" discussion, rather than have it here.) fr33k man 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed about half of the article, and left my comments on the talk page. Cheers, Megan (^t/_c) 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your helpful comments, Megan. :) They are all fixed. Please tell me if you find any more concerns in the article, and I'll do my best to fix them. —Clementina talk 03:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few more concerns on the talk page. Megan (^t/_c) 00:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All kindly fixed by Lauryn. —Clementina talk 03:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a reply to one of the comments on the talk page. Megan (^t/_c) 12:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by me. —Clementina talk 12:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Thanks everyone for all your help on this article. :) However, though I have fixed all the comments, the time period is up and there has been insufficient community consensus to promote. Therefore, the article is not promoted. Perhaps it can be renominated next time. Regards, —Clementina talk 08:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc

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

I read through the guidelines and think that zinc is somewhere near them. I would like to nominate it as one of my better articles I created or expanded. Chem ical interest (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single reference on the article. Not even remotely close to a very good article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything in the guidelines that says that references are needed. If you want, I can copy them from en because the article is based on en. --Chem ical interest (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chem, It's pretty clear that references are needed for milestones. And for a VGA, you'll be looking at probably at least 30 or 40 of them. Purple backpack89 17:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References and good prose are the two most important things in a good/very good article. The entire purpose of the good/very good process is to create well written and referenced articles. This is why it takes a long time to do each one. On en people often spend weeks on a single article to get it to the point of being featured. This is why many on this wiki think worrying about good/very good is not the best use of our editors time and that getting 10 articles to decent quality is better than 1 to very good quality. Creating a very good article is alot harder than people think. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this was to alleviate the concern of User:The Rambling Man at WP:ST. I will try to add some references, although, as I said before, it is mostly from en and common knowledge. Best, Chem ical interest (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I started to look through the article, and here are some things that IMO need fixing:

Facts need to be backed up by references; these can either be from a book,a (citable) publication, or an online link
For my gusto, the article is a little short, but the length will come with time, do not worry about it now.
"Zinc is a type of metal". Great - what "types of metal" are there? - "Zinc is a transition metal. Together with Mercury and Lead it forms Group 12 of the PSE", or similar? - GAs and VGAs are meant to be precise. Their language may be simpler than EnWP's, but precision should not suffer.
Try using slighlty longer sentences, esp. in the lead.
Zinc is essential for most forms of life, we might expand that idea a little
Givern the current state of the article, probably the next steps would be:
1. Add the references from EnWP
2. Try to meet the GA requirements, and Manual of Style ones: Numbers up to about 20, which are part of text should be written in words (5 -> "five")
3. Strive towards meeting the extra VGA requirements (No red-links, comprehensiveness)

Other than that the article is a good start to bulid on. (Don't be surprised, both GA and VGA is a lot of work; In my experience, the amount of work required for GA is not really much less than that for VGA). --Eptalon (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect it to be easy. I added some references from enWP. --Chem ical interest (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. 3 and No. 5 for GA requirements are the problem ones. Although User:Eptalon has been helpful here, no one has been expanding content in the article. There are some minor edits but not as many as there should be. --Chem ical interest (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready yet

References should go after punctuation per WP:MOS.
I imagine we should have a "Element infobox" for the pertinent information like symbol, atomic number etc.
Raw URLS in references are unacceptable for a VGA.
Image captions – complete sentences should take a period.
What's a "megaton"?
"does not look as nice"? Needs reference, otherwise this is pure WP:OR/WP:POV.
The "In biology" section needs several more references.

Overall, perhaps fix the above, reference everything, then good to WP:PGA, right now, not a VGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll work at that. Done
- We do have {{chembox}}, but no element infobox. This shows the pitiful condition of the chemical element articles.
  - I suggest you create one here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - EnWP has infoboxes for each individual element, rather than one infobox for all elements. I'm not an expert at template generation so it might not work very well. --Chem ical interest (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I made it anyway, although it has tons of redlinks for concepts I don't even understand! --Chem ical interest (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]
- Really? They are obtained from en:zinc which is a FA!
  - I don't see raw URLs in that FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The {{citation}} templates are not the same for en and simple. There must be a problem with the simple's citation template. I checked the citation template and it is configured to display bare URL's in citations. I asked at WP:ST why citation template supplies bare URL's. I don't really feel like editing the template. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I'm working on it. It's more fundamental than the template, it's something to do with the Mediawiki software. I've asked over at en-wiki as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Done Thanks for your help. --Chem ical interest (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work at that. Done
- A million tons, clarification needed. Done
- OR/POV? How could I say that a patchy galvanized-zinc surface looks uglier than a shiny-smooth zinc-plated surface? Anyway, I added some weasel words. Done
- I'll see whether enWP has got any more refs. I added more. Done

This should be done in the next day or two. You can help too! One of the requirements (the most difficult to meet) is to have several editors work at an article. --Chem ical interest (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That requirement has always seemed stupid to me, because all articles have to be reviewed before they pass, so it's not like no-one else will ever see it... But I digress. I'll have a look to see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you've got the infobox (good), you need to create articles for each of the red links within it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I don't even understand many of the concepts, much less write them in Simple English! Maybe "Van der Waals radius is a concept. {{stub}}{{stub}}." --Chem ical interest (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is reference 9 good? It is from wiki.answers.com. --Chem ical interest (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't reference other wiki's, they're not considered reliable. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. --Chem ical interest (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawing nomination until all red links are fixed, as a minimum. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You ask me to put element infobox in it then want to close it because of all the redlinks? --Chem ical inter est (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not fishy at all. I thought you'd be capable of writing articles for those red links. You don't seem to be able to, or don't want to. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check. I am writing them now. I just don't understand some of the concepts so the articles may be a lie to children. --Chem ical inter est (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Chem ical inter est (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we promote it now? --Chem ical int er est (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

If you link to wikt for a definition, please check it exists (there are at least three missing). Done fixed definition
I've never seen us link to an image in another Wikipedia before. That's very odd. Done obtained temporary access to commons
"mass number" in lead needs linking. Done
Lead should contain an overview of what zinc and its compounds are used for. Done
Half life should be Half-life and shouldn't link to a disambiguation page. Done
"millisecond" could be linked. Done
"a reactive metal" is not simple English. Done
Link aluminum. Done
"the common metals" - is this a common term? If so, suggest an article to link to. It is not a group of metals; maybe I can just remove it. It excludes the alkali metals, the alkaline earth metals, and the precious metals, as well as some other rarely-heard metals like scandium. Done Made it more clear.
You link base, but not acid, seems a bit odd. Done
Oh you do link it, but second time round. Link it first time please. Done
Link salt to an appropriate article (i.e. not the table salt article!) The chemical salt definition is in the article salt. Table salt is also included.
Link "hydrochloric acid". Done
Don't overlink base. Done
The See also could use an indentation (using a single colon) just under the section heading. Done
"in the earth" do you mean in the Earth? Or just in soil? In the crust Done
"Picture of...." in an image caption is unnecessary. Done
Penultimate reaction in "Preparation" section has a full stop, while the others don't. Done
"About 10 million tons are made every year." reference please. Done
Bar (counter) is a redlink. That is bogus. There are no bars that serve molten zinc. It refers to the bars that you use for building things. Done
Redlinks in the references need to be fixed. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second concerns are similar. I cannot upload my files of zinc burning to Wikimedia Commons because I do not have access to it. I do not have access to Wiktionary, either. I thought that the pictures would help in the article so I inserted them in that curious fashion. Chem ical int er est (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed pictures. --Chem ical int er est (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I notice is the reference to spelter as an alternative term. Now I would say that term is almost never used as a synonym for zinc, but as a term for a zinc-dominated alloy, or a very impure form of zinc. It is right to mention spelter, but not to offer it as an alternative name. While we're on the subject, the passing references to zinc alloys could be expanded into a sub-section. Alloys of stable metals are very important. Much modern research into metallurgy is going into the creation and testing of new alloys.

I see this article as a GA candidate, rather than a VGA candidate. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else makes a move to make this a GA candidate, then I will move it. But please give some reasons before I move it. Is it too small? --Chem ical int er est (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is more of a GA candidate right now. :) I'm sorry, dear Chem - the article does look good, and no, it's not too short (as I said before, length doesn't really have much to do with the quality), but VGAs take an ~~insanely~~ massively large amount of work and copyediting, and I'm not sure if this article is ready for that yet. ;) I also find that it's generally easier for an article to be a VGA if it passes GA first. What do you think? :) Love, —Clementina talk 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A reference from Chemicalinterest suggests that some of this article (some of the refs, at least) come from the FA at en.wiki. Just take a look at that FA. It has 13 sections, is a shade over 100KB long, and is utterly comprehensive. This article has six sections, is a fifth the size of the en-wiki one (and about 10% of is the infobox I asked for) so would make a better GA candidate as it's clearly not a comprehensive article on the subject. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been closed as a failed nomination. --Chem ical int er est (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States

History of the United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think that this is pretty good. 80+KB total, including over 140 refs. Had nommed for GA, but I think it could probably make VGA. Concerns and body redlinks have been fixed. Purple backpack89 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get a full review of this, please??? It's been over a week Purple backpack89 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel cautious about this one. In the first place, I don't really have the time for a full review. Secondly, I wasn't happy to see it bypass the GA stage. I think it would not be a shoo-in at GA. However, its defects are not of the kind listed in the check-list of requirements. It is that the article as a whole does not look like VGA, and therefore should not be a VGA. The main problems are those of perspective and quality of writing. IMHO, and I have no idea whether others will agree, I think some of our VGAs are embarassing, and I have no desire to see another such. What we want is for outsiders to look at our main page and think, 'Wow, I'd no idea they did such good stuff'.
The intro gives the game away. It has no perspective. A series of short sentences that don't flow together, and seem jerky. By the end of the intro we are in modern details which could -- and should -- be left to later. Other things (see below) are almost not mentioned. By contrast, the enWP intro has a bit of class. There is some scene-setting, and the prose is better written. Yet even this page has many problems. I often think that problems in our pages start with problems in enWP pages.
Look at para three. All the sentences are disconnected. The last sentence should come earlier, since the southern states split and then the war started. And by the way, it was started by the North to regain the South.
All the Americas share one huge similarity. From top to bottom they were invaded, conquered, and totally transformed by different types of European civilisation. Now their religions, languages, culture and people are the result of this. Much that is unique about the United States comes about because this process went on differently there from the other American countries. An example is the US constitution, which is a self-conscious attempt to correct certain perceived failings in the British (unwritten) constitution. Passed over without comment in the intro! Much of the ethics and behaviour of US Americans has a connection with the Protestant religion. Not mentioned in the intro. In writing this (or any other) page, I would like to see how roots produce the tree.
Oh, I have to add that the page at present seriously underplays the conflict with Mexico, which was certainly more significant than any other conflict except the civil war, and hugely important in the long run. Also, at several points, the page claims that the French or the British had 'occupied' huge areas (like the Louisiana Purchase) which they most certainly did not occupy in any meaningful sense. 'Laid claim to', no doubt. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Mac, way to chew me out! I think you don't quite understand the way it is written because you're looking at it as a Brit (who have some ideas about the US) rather than as an American. I think the perspective issue is fine. It is pretty clear to me that you have read just the lead, and obviously there are going to be some things left out of the lead that are in the body (In my American history major opinion, the British "constitution" isn't important enough for the lead, partly because it isn't exactly true--the US Constution is based off Locke and Rousseau, not the British "constitution"). The idea that the North started the Civil War is controversial at best; if the South had not seceded there would be no war. And finally, the Mexican War is not as important as you make it out to be...more important than WWII, WWI, Vietnam or the Revolution? No way!!! The Mexican War was not a total war, had a comparatively few number of casualties, and had little effect on the average American of the 1840s. Also, the Mexican War isn't mentioned that much is a) it only lasted a year or two and b) It has its own article (P.S.:It's very ironic that you're talking about the importance on the anniversary of the Grito de Delores). The third paragaph of the lead has been

Fixed Now, why don't you review the most important part of the article...the body? Purple backpack89 21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mac, you say "By the end of the intro, we are in modern times". Yes, we are. That's the point of the lead...to summarize ALL the contents. Purple backpack89 20:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to review the and stop looking at the lead. The body is the most important part Purple backpack89 21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- As someone who is neither American nor British, and in fact has some grateful and favorable prejudices towards the US, I'm rather leaning towards Macdonald-ross's opinion. He makes some good points about the article, Purplebackpack. :) Remember, dear Purplebackpack, that reviewing is voluntary, and if Macdonald-ross wishes to only review the lead, he can. ;) However, leaving the evaluation of fine writing for cleverer people, I only have a few purely "technical" comments to make about the article:

Reference number 46 is dead.
Encarta Encyclopedia is dead as well.
References should be ordered numerically. For example: Many actors and authors were put on blacklists, which meant they could not get jobs in movies or get credit for their writings. [108][13] <-- this should be written as [13][108].
There should not be spaces between the punctuation and the reference number per the manual of style. For instance: After the French and Indian War, the colonists began to think that they were not getting their "rights as freeborn Englishman". [2] <--there shouldn't be a space between the period and the [2]. Most of the references here have this problem, sadly.

It has a lot of good effort in it, Purplebackpack, and a nice length, but I'm not sure if it's VGA standard yet. The prose needs working on to flow smoothly and clearly, in a neutral, yet interesting style. :) However, keep up the good work, and I hope I'll be able to help! Sincerely, —Clementina talk 11:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your technical concerns have been

Fixed. It's a pet peeve of mine when people stonewall a nomination based on unwritten rules (and also a peeve when they complain about an article but do nothing to fix it), and prose isn't a listed VGA standard. And I'm not seeing the issue with neutrality, unless you're referring to the isolationism of the 1790s and 1930s. If you and Mac want to tinker with the prose, go ahead, but the article is most definetly referentially and factually sound Purple backpack89 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is the whole point of a GA/VGA. So its sort of silly to say "but it isn't written down". Without good prose it fails, simple as that. -DJSasso (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose this is a good topic to take to VGA but the grammar and prose is excruciatingly weak. I've made three corrections to the first two sentences, so I guess there's a way to go. I could go through it with a fine-toothed comb but right now it needs a serious copyedit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda wrong to say just because you found two sentences that don't seem quite right that the whole thing is terrible Purple backpack89 22:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some prose concerns, in my opinion, the prose, in general, is smoother in the later parts of the article (after the introduction). Kansan (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the prose concerns to 1861 have been

Fixed Purple backpack89 17:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial review posted in the talk page. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence-by-sentence check of one section posted to the Talk page. Or, should I have just gone ahead and made my suggested edits directly? Not sure what the norms are yet and don't want to step on toes. Ted (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review concerns have been

Fixed; the rest of your question addressed on your TP Purple backpack89 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do my best to conduct a line-by-line review of this article. At a second glance, there'll be a few dozen comments that need addressing. This is the sort of article we should all be working to get promoted to VGA, so I hope the community will do its best to ensure we make it excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First dozen or so comments on the lead added to the talkpage. This could take some time so any volunteers to copyedit this prospective "best of the best" article are encouraged to take part! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and it looked fine for VGA, although I did make a copyedit for a picture of Coolidge. --Chem ical int er est (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the influence of the Christian religion is understated in this article, although some non-Christians would consider adding that a POV violation. --Chem ical int er est (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comments on my talk page. There are three reasons why I don't think we need to add anything about prayer in public schools or removing the Ten Commandments from Alabama buildings

It's not that important a topic (Culture wars are mostly a smokescreen; and there is no reference to gays or prayer in the English article)
It's not very historical (the legacy of the culture wars is still much in flux)
Adding religion to articles usually sparks POV wars

About the farthest I'd go is one sentence in the W paragraph b/w Iraq and Katrina Purple backpack89 18:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes in the structure and the content (mainly simplification) at the end of the article. The main change was to mark a transition from the post WWII and Cold War eras to a section for the current state of affairs in the US. I hope the changes are helpful and would appreciate it if a few people could take a look. More details in the history and on the Talk page. Thanks, Ted (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion going on with regard to those changes. I have notified interested parties. Also, 2001 isn't exactly "current affairs" Purple backpack89 08:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Yeah, it's getting there, but it's now been listed for over two months which is more than enough time to have got it into tip-top condition, which, unfortunately, it's not at the moment. :-(. Keep at it, and it should walk through if/when it comes back :-). Gob lin 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Conservatives in the United States

Conservatives in the United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

VGA. Also it maybe should be moved to Conservatism in the United States 12.175.78.130 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the two templates on the page, it is not simple enough and it may not be neutral. Also a few minor fixes are needed throughout. Seems to be well sourced for the most part. Why is there picture of a fox in the lead? wiooiw (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No! Tagged articles are an automatic fail. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed as not promoted: Nowhere near ready. IP doesn't seem to understand process. Gob lin 08:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]