proposed Good Articles/Archive 1

France

This article has a few redlinks, but it has a good references section (called "footnotes") and it has good other websites, and it also has a good amount of writing on it. This definitely qualifies for GA status. If anything needs to be fixed, it would be a few more references, but other than that, it will be a good GA someday. Razorflame 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article...I think it is ready for VGA. Lets see what others think. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references. -- Creol(talk) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More information on the sections that aren't a list would be appreciated. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon what the other users have said for this, I have decided to withdraw this proposal for good article. Razorflame 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoCo Lee

--Thamusemeantfan (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs copy-editing badly. The first sentence is usually meant to explain the basic topic, but in this case, that sentences says "CoCo Lee was." Multiple terms need linking and others that are linked need to have the links corrected (English -> English language, American -> United States unless referencing all of North and South America as the term is ambiguous). The first two sentences in the bio section could be split into smaller, easier to understand sentences. Categories need to be cleaned up: Chinese-Americans, Hong Kong actors and Chinese singers are all Chinese people, Chinese singers and American singers are both Singers. -- Creol(talk) 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I now realize that I just skimmed over the article, and nominated it. Due to the comments given, I have decided to withdraw my nomination. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy server

It was previously a VGA. After the VGA rules changed and GA rules were introduced, it was demoted to the level of regular article because of its size. It is now more than 4KB (link) applying the conditions on the 2nd requirement for GAs. It meets all of the other requirements (although item 6 is met in a more or less lame way). - Huji ^reply 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does meet the GA requirements, however, I can see a few important redlinks that isn't linked. Squid, the most well-known proxy server has yet to be created; I will be doing this shortly. Other than that, I believe that this meets the remainder of the requirements. SSL also needs to be created. Razorflame 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I didn't put it to the voting right away. In a few days (and with a few help from others, if they may) I can expand it more and also add all the required red-linked articles (at the stub level). You can also help by changing other important phrases to links/redlinks. - Huji ^reply 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've created the stub for Squid, will start working on the stub for SSL. Razorflame 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Universe

I have worked quite hard on this article over the past few days. I think that it definately meets the criteria for a GA, if not a VGA. I think it is a great article. IuseRosary ^(talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has many, many problems:

1. This article is underwikified. In order for this article to even be considered for GA status, there would need to be more links wikified. There are some important links in the article that aren't wikified, and possibly might not even be created under this Wikipedia yet. If that's the case, then they would need to be created in order to meet the requirement for redlinks that says that all important terms must be linked.
2. This article is not written in Simple English. It is complex, and therefore, deserves the {{complex}} template. This means that this article automatically fails the no improvement templates requirement, which states that articles can't have either the {{wikify}} template or the {{complex}} template. This goes hand-in-hand with my next point.
3. This article does not have very good sentence structure or fluidity; it would need an insane amount of copyediting to even begin to start to get this article on the right track to becoming a GA.
4. Some more pictures would be nice, but isn't required to become a GA.

This article does have some good points to it, though:

1. It has a good Other websites section.
2. It has a good References section.

Clean up these things by the time that this proposal is up for voting, and I am sure that people will be fine voting in support of it becoming a good article. Good luck! Razorflame 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

This failed the recent GA vote only because we were short one support vote. It had 100% support, but it only had 4 support votes. This article should definitely be a GA because it meeets all the requirements. Let's try to get this one to pass again! Razorflame 16:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Other websites", "Suggested reading" and "Notes" need to be at least halved to get the most simple websites out there and the article doesn't have a single reference. If you want I could get you references, but going through each and every website I won't be able to find the time to do. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crap! I'm so tired today that I forgot the check for references! Yes, if you could do that, that would be great! Razorflame 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some references (more are still needed) and halved the "Other websites" section. But a lot of work must still be done on the "Suggested reading" lists. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 07:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is ready for voting. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. The "Suggested reading" list is huge, it needs to have maximum 6 websites, each with as simple as possible content and it needs far more references for an entire religion being described.
Christianity has 11 references alone. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I meant was, "once these are fixed, I think that this is ready for voting". --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I think this article still needs a few things to be ready:

• Merge Notes and Suggested reading (name it Books about Buddhism, for example); unlink editors in that list.
• In References, there are templates that do not exist yet; either get them (from ENWP) or try to do without them.
• Coffee (a Good Article) is about a third of the size, and has the same number of references. Judging from that, this article should have between 20 and 30 references; it is also possible to cite books, they don't all need to be websites.

If I find the time, I will also work on it.--Eptalon (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Helens

Most of this article is made of simplified section from its ENWP article, a FA over there. It is 11kb and has 15 references; probably good enough for the new VGA criteria, but I thought I would post it here for starters. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to comment on this?? --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99% of this is a copy-paste from En Wiki. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but only to a certain extent. I copy-pasted this from ENWP, but simplified all of it. Can you find any examples of "non-simple" words or phrases that aren't linked? --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mile, native, established, acre, elk, deer, sea level (sea and level are, "sea level" is not), venting, lumber, noon, massive.. (etc.) -- Creol(talk) 04:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and/or changed the word completely for all of those instances. Thank you for the example. Are there any more obvious ones that you see? I would like to know so that they can be simplified. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any other thoughts? Or should it go to voting? --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

I know that I'm trying to abstain from intervering (i don't know how to spell that) with the VGA/GA process(es), but I think this article could become a GA after the red links are filled in. --§ Snake311 _{(click here to chat)} 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Intervening", I think it is. But this article has way too many red links and a lot seems to have come directly from En Wiki with just a couple of words like "unitary" removed. More references would also be nice. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support this article going to voting because of some issues that I have with this article:

1. .This article looks like it was written by an English professor. This can easily be remedied by major copyediting, sentence shortening, and sentence restructuring. This article would need to have the whole entire article copyedited, which I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to do, but I am sure that there might be someone who would want to do that.
2. .This article has way too many red links. There are well over 150 red links in this article. Before this article could be even allowed to be voted on, there would need to be a lot of red links filled in, and even then, because of the first and third points, it might still fail the GA process.
3. .This article does not have enough references. Before this article can be voted on, there will need to be a lot of references added to make it more referenced.

Based on these three factors, I have to say that I do not think that this should be voted on yet. Razorflame 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be archived. If these are fixed, I think that it can be resubmitted in a month or so. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Thile

I definitely think that this article is worthy of the GA title. I originally nominated it for VGA but it was disqualified because of the VGA overhaul. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails #6. True, it has no redlinks at all, but this is because it suffers from the common "If its a red-link, unlink it" syndrome. Copy editing is needed for sentence structure. Grammatically, it states that his latest work is soon to be releasing an album. How does work release work of its own? -- Creol(talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed redlink problem. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World History

After a brief scan, this article looked worthy of the GA title. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Brace this can be lengthy) Quite a bit of the article was written by Isis and me. At the start it looked like a good idea. In my opinion the article has several problems:

• In the Ancient History section, there should probably be more cultures (At least mention La Tène / Hallstatt cultures)
• Given its length, far too few references
• Many of the redlinks left are hard to fill in(with Wikipedia alone); Actual reading of history books (and mentioning them) will be necessary.
• Far East (China, Korea, Japan) is lacking totally
• Africa, anyone?
• Europe in the Middle Ages: Mention migrations, absolutism
• Renaissance/Colonisation/20th century: Industrial Revolution? - Slavery? - Marxism? - Revolts of 1848? - Two World Wars?

Those are just items that sprang to my mind in the last 10 minutes; I am sure a critical reading of a sufficiently knowledgable person will reveal more of these. Comparing what we have to what enWP has, for example, I can only see two ways ahead:

• Finish what was begun; this might easily take a few months, as a community. The result might be more suited to Wikiboks than pedia, too. In this case, it is unrealistic to get the article in shape in about two weeks time.
• Look that as much as possible can be saved (to specialised articles), and replace this article with something similar to what EnWP has. In which case, this does not have to be tagged as a PGA either.

If we take the first option (a community decision would be nice), I think that the mere extent of this would justify a Wikiproject. This has become too big to be the work of less than 6-8 people. The general work on world history I have are two books, each of about 1500 pages. --Eptalon (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hallstatt and La Tène (Celts) done.--Eptalon (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, what about Inca and Aztec history? --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  There are sections about the Aztecs and the Incas (ion Middle Ages). The problem there is that there have been many civilisations in America, like for example the Toltecs; I have no problem if someone writes about them; I am however not a historian, and at the moment I have little time to read and summarise the respective books. Please also look at the World History talk page for discussions.--Eptalon (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with most of the points brought about by Amandaj on the talk page, here are some of my suggestions to help make this a good article:

1. While the article has already been simplified a lot since it began as an article, there are still many, many complex words throughout the article. Some examples of this include: demigod, notable, division, flourished, structure, demonstration, inhabited, significant, inscriptions, monuments, constructed....just to name a few. There are a ton of these complex words throughout the article. If this article is indeed to become a good article, then this needs to be fixed. This point goes hand-in-hand with the next point.
2. The sentence structure is not very simple. Some examples have been given above. If this article is indeed to become a good article, it would need to be copyedited thouroughly to help both shorten the sentences, and make the sentences flow better and more completely.
3. I would like to see some more Other websites. The Other websites section is a bit short for an article of that size.
4. There are a few redlinks that should have articles made for them:

• • Quetzalcoatl
  • Oxaca
  • sarcophaguses
  • Cave paintings

If this article is to become a good article, then these articles would need to be created.

I hope this helps you on your quest to have this article become a good article. Cheers! Razorflame 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune (planet)

This article, a previous VGA nominee, was denied because of multiple redlinks. This has been fixed, and I think this article is probably VGA-worthy, but have decided to nominate it here first. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good, but needs to be more simplified. Fafas (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good, maybe very good. Durova (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•   Oppose This article would need to be completely copyedited to have the sentences flow smoother and to be shorter. Currently, it looks like an article that an English professor at a college would write for Wiki Simple English. Razorflame 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•   Oppose per Razorflame. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

I think this article should have the GA title. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak   Oppose - A few more references are needed. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•   Oppose. This article needs more references and it needs a major copyediting to shorten sentences, simplify the sentence structure, and an overall shorting of words used. Razorflame 01:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 result: not promoted
I created this article and I believe it meets up to GA standards. I am requesting a GA review. Maybe it will be the first GA on Simple English! -- penubag  08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support as Nom The article created has full incite on all aspects of the biography and his tycoon. Encompasses a broad view on the person but is also narrow, short, and concise. Easy at a 5th grade level and has a great overview of the biography. -- penubag  06:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose Too new of an article. Articles that were just created shouldn't be allowed Good article status. Razorflame 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article was created recently does not mean that its content is of lesser value. -- penubag  06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose there are still things that need to be sourced. Oysterguitarist 03:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are from the English Wiki Simple English. Do you mean inline citations? Although unnecessary, maybe I should migrate them over. -- penubag  06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I mean, I would like to have that on things like when he was born. Oysterguitarist 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Please review the article and promote/ask for further improvement. Thanks-- penubag  07:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.

1. Not categorized.   Done
2. The first paragraph alone contains multiple words that need either simplified or linked ( American financier, banker, Corporate, industrial consolidation).  Done "able to play at banking".. Banking is a game he plays?   DoneThroughout the rest of the article there are many terms that need wikified, wordings that need changed and sentences that need trimmed. In the early life section, for example, there is a run-on sentence from hell that could be split into three separate sentences.   DoneSeveral terms are linked to less than optimal articles (American when used for a person from the United States is better linked to United States than the actual page American as American means both from the US and from the Americas, Britain has two meanings, the link should be to the one you are using if for - in this case United Kingdom)  Done.
3. The early life section also reads as if his deformity was a result of his rheumatic fever which it was not.   Done
4. En:wp is not a reliable source and should not be listed as such. Most of the other in-line references should be changed to {{cite}} tags where applicable.

En:wp is a reliable source especially because it is listed as GA over there.-- penubag  08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second issue is the killer as it shows the article is not in Simple English  Done which for me is the first and main requirement to be made. While there are always going to be times where it just may not be possible to be entirely in keeping with Simple English, every attempt should be made to do so and this article lacks that in many areas. This article really needs a full peer review before it will be ready for nomination. -- Creol(talk) 08:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can to fix the above, however the next 2 weeks are extremely busy for me. I'll have to work on it in a few weeks. Thanks for your input though! -- penubag  07:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm done with the improvements you have suggested. Please rereview it or promote it. Thanks! -- penubag  08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Needs better sources. Durova (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Not sure if this one should get it. I'm not even sure if people are involved in this right now. Razorflame 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone else has the knowledge on the biography to be involved in making major improvements, let alone the dull topic of the article. For what it's worth, it's not a Very Good Article, but meets up to Good Article per criteria. -- penubag  06:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it all right to cite en:Wikipedia as a source? Durova (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather see the en:Wikipedia as an interwiki than as a source. Razorflame 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valais

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

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 result: not promoted
I made this article a while back and I believe it meets GA requirements. The requirements I believe it meets are: 1,3,4,7, and 8. I made this a while ago and I definitely believe that it is a great article to put up for GA. Do you agree with me? Razorflame 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support

• Weak support as the nominator, even though I agree with the Oppose comments completely. Razorflame 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose. Demographics/Cities sections confused. Too many redlinks, even without the 14 lists of places. History section sketchy. Possible simplify Economy section. New section heading needed instead of demographics. 45% of the content is the IW, towns, and cities lists.--Bärliner 23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Barliner. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per above. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too many red links. Durova (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

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

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 - result: not promoted
Buddhism was recently a failed VGA due to a lack of inline citations, but has a list of references. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support, a definite good article. Razorflame 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - While we are at it, can we unlink the publishers in the suggested reading section? --Eptalon (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Islam

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

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 - result: not promoted
I think that Islam qualifies for GA. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Weak support Meets the requirements, but I have to address concerns about some of the red links in the infobox. These red links, I think are important, and should definitely be created. Razorflame 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Weak oppose A good candidate, but at least some of the red links in the Critics section should be fixed; those in the infobox are less important, imo. --Eptalon (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per above. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I just found out that those in the Isalm tepmlate are also in Muhammad (which is currenlty a VGA). Therefore fixing those should have a higher priority. --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano

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

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 - result: not promoted
I definitely think that this article qualifies for Good Article status. Razorflame 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support: Solid article. Some redlinks, but overall good. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as the nominator, even though I agree with some of the points listed under the Oppose heading. Razorflame 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose - more of a list than an article. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Little tiny thing. Three small paragraphs and a list. 1.5K of text, 3.7K of fluff. (and term linking/simplicity - Lava gets explained and linked but magma is ignored. And that is just the first sentence.) -- Creol(talk) 20:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I change my vote to Oppose per Gwib and Creol. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Like those above me, I think we need to take into account that most of the article is a listing. Not ready yet. · Tygrrr... 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Needs more work. Durova (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Goat Rock Beach

Goat Rock Beach (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 result: not promoted
I think that this article is of good quality. I recently nominated this for VGA and it had 50/50 support. I added a new section, and it seems a lot better now. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support This article meets the GA requirements. It doesn't have any red links, it has a references section, therefore, it makes a good article. Razorflame 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as nominator. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Moulin Rouge!

Moulin Rouge! (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 result: promoted
I have worked quite hard on this page to get it up to VGA standard, which I think it meets the criteria for that anyway, but have been advised to put it up for GA first. I think it meets all the criteria and all and think it deserves to get Promoted : - ) IuseRosary ^(talk) 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• IuseRosary ^(talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good --Eptalon (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definitely meets GA requirements. Razorflame 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lights § talk 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good after a thorough copyedit. · Tygrrr... 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Durova (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

• The plot summary feels a little long and detailed compared to the rest of the article's content. That's my only suggestion for improvement. · Tygrrr... 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenzburg

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

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 - result: promoted
This article is one of the municipality pages that I have worked on tremendously to simplify it in the past. Even though is has a good amount of redlinks, I definitely think that this article meets the good article requirements. Razorflame 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support Lights § talk 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - but red links need filling in. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Creol(talk) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Support. It is pretty well written and contains good info but fails criteria #8 (references). The redlink count is borderline, as well. · Tygrrr... 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per the nominator, I am not doing this because it is my article, simply because I just happened to nominate an article I wrote for this website. Razorflame 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

• Neutral on this one. The redlink count is right at the edge of being too high but many of them realy are not very important to the article itself. Given that the city has its own commons category, an image or two would be nice.  Done The phrase "In the old part of the town, some neat buildings are located:" is a bit odd though.  Done Do they keep the messy buildings in the new part of town? -- Creol(talk) 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

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

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 - result: not promoted
This article definitely meets the requirements for good articles. I have therefore proposed that it become a good article. Razorflame 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support Lights § talk 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the article... it's not the fact that I live there. --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as the nominator, even though I agree with some of the points brought up in the Oppose section. Razorflame 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose based on unsourced and need for linking terms -- Creol(talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per above. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Gwib and Creol. Stylistically, lead is too short. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't even need to read it to see if it's any good. It fails criteria #8. · Tygrrr... 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I highly suggest that the users who voted support look over the criteria again. (You may also want to read the bolded section in the intro of this page.) Articles must meet all criteria or it cannot be promoted. I might add that articles shouldn't be voted on until they meet all nine criteria (How to make an article good, point #3). · Tygrrr... 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States

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

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 - result: not promoted
This article definitely meets the requirements for good articles. Even though there are a good amount of redlinks, I definitely think that this article lives up to the requirements well. Razorflame 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support Lights § talk 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support --vector ^_^ (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support IuseRosary ^(talk) 20:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as the nominator, even though I agree with some of the points brought up in the Oppose section. Razorflame 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose - Completely unsourced. Multiple places terms need linking. -- Creol(talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per above and below. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, too many redlinks, no sources, and also too short of a lead section, IMO. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose doesn't meet all requirements (6 & 8). · Tygrrr... 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Tygrrr BirdsArmy Talk 03:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

IMO far too many important red links. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I highly suggest that the users who voted support look over the criteria again. (You may also want to read the bolded section in the intro of this page.) Articles must meet all criteria or it cannot be promoted. This article fails 2 of the 9 criteria. · Tygrrr... 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon

Joss Whedon (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 - result: promoted
This article meets the requirements for good articles completely. It has a full references section, a Other websites section, and has very few redlinks. I would therefore like to propose this article for GA status. Razorflame 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support Lights § talk 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IuseRosary ^(talk) 21:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Creol(talk) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pretty good and meets the requirements. I did a copyedit just now to remove some of the excessive links. There was a lot of blue. · Tygrrr...
• Support, nice article. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the nominator. Razorflame 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good BirdsArmy Talk 03:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Pipe organ

Pipe organ (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Voting ends on February 16, 2007 - result: promoted
This article is extremely good. It has no red links, has many good pictures, and doesn't have any templates on it that makes it not a good canidate. This article is definitely a good article. Razorflame 20:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support Looks Good : - ) IuseRosary ^(talk) 21:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. The Wolf ^Bark 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - possible VGA; the only thing that looks odd are the links in the section headings. --Eptalon (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support yeeeaaa --vector ^_^ (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good - Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)}- 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - although more references would be appreciated.. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the nominator. Razorflame 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good BirdsArmy Talk 03:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

I'm bothered by the capitalization of "vocabulary" words that don't need to be capitalized. There are probably 20-30+ 50+ words that are unnecessarily capitalized. I also think the amount of new vocabulary to anyone who isn't practically an expert on organs makes the article kind of confusing. I don't know what, if anything, can be done about that though. · Tygrrr... 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link each one of the "difficult" (and specialised) words to a page of their own, that explains the respective word? --Eptalon (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

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

Voting ends on February 23, 2007 -- Result: Promoted; unlikely to get 4 oppose votes in less than 12 hrs --Eptalon (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a definite good article. It is 5,776 bytes long, has many good pictures, references, and other websites, has no red links, and has a slew of interwiki links. It was nominated for VGA status previously, but that was thrown out due to our major overhaul of the policy. Therefore, I thought that it would be good to have it on here instead of there. Razorflame 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ...Aurora... (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Durova (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BirdsArmy Talk 18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Huji ^reply 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Kind of repetitive at times but, in that respect, it's thorough. I did a copyedit and linked some words I thought were important which left just a couple redlinks. Also, I noticed that not all of the words that are linked to SE wikt have definitions there. Definitely meets the GA criteria though. · Tygrrr... 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and oppose not any longer after having fixed the "four-changes-line" and the red links like dissolved that led to solvation. I don't try to write good articles but that sort of red link seems to me to be below standard of regular articles. --Cethegus (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solvation was purposely chosen because it's the proper word for "dissolve". Solution is not. I believe you've made a mistake in your change of that link. Please see Talk:coffee for my full explanation of why that link should remain as it was. How on earth is piping a word to its definition "below standard"?· Tygrrr... 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dissolve might have fitted better (existing since 2005). I have created solvation now as well. --Cethegus (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually a good idea to avoid linking to disambig pages. You're supposed to link directly to the word. Besides, it wouldn't have been that helpful because the dissolve page basically said "Oh, you mean you're looking for solvation? The page doesn't exist yet." Of course, now that you've created the page for solvation, everything is fixed. Good work! · Tygrrr... 14:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

• I think this article qualifies for GA, but it would be better if all images had captions. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been taken care of. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Universe

Voting ends on March 6, 2007 result: not promoted

Support

• IuseRosary? ^(talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

•   Oppose per the reasons that I brought up on IuR's talk page. Razorflame 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•   Oppose per Razorflame. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Chris Thile

Voting ends on March 9, 2007 Result: Not promoted because only 2 support votes Razorflame 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

•   Support per nomination. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•   Support This article is better now than it was earlier. There are still a few long sentences, but I am happy with the way that the article looks now. I support it becoming a good article now. Razorflame 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

•   Oppose There is one red link that needs to be created because it is important. An article on Stuart Duncan will need to be created in order to get me to support this article becoming a good article. There are also some sentences that need to be shortened and some that could flow smoother. Just my two cents. If these problems are fixed, I will gladly change my vote to support. Razorflame 16:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Mount Saint Helens

Voting ends on March 9, 2007 Result:Not promoted because only 3 support votes Razorflame 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

•   Support Support per nomination.Thamusemeantfan (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•   Support I have to say that this article has come a long way since it was introduced as a possible good article. It is now ready to become a good article. Razorflame 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•   Support Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 09:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

•   OpposeUnited States Geological Survey, mudflow, and pyroclastic flow are all important links to the article as they detail what happened in the incident. These would have to be created before I am able to support this article. Other than that, it looks good. If these articles were created, I would not mind changing my vote to support. Razorflame 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)   Done. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments