Wiki Simple English
SIMWiki Tiếng ViệtWiki English

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8

I think it needs more references.

< Wiki: Proposed good articles

Archived requests

Richard Nixon

The article is quite fine other than that. Nifky^ 05:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably more lead prose as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I do not recall there being any question of Nixon actually asking the burglers to do the job; the question was whether he covered it up when he did know about it. That seems to underline the need for key statements to be backed by more/better refs. 2. Some basic text-editing needed, eg delinking dates, and putting dates in the now standard order. 3. If claims are made about closeness of elections, the standard stats are states won and overall votes. The election vs Kennedy was close enough to make these statistics really essential. I feel more could be said about his political career to the benefit of the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: This article has been here for 3 weeks and I see hardly any effort to improve it. Thus, this is not promoted. Fix the issues and bring this article here again. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

  • I will say this. I have seen (heck, written) articles that are of better quality than this and aren't GAs. I would say 10-15 more references would do it good, a few more links, a few less redlinks, and slight prose cleanup. The length is OK, though Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't say Biden is any better or worse, but apart from that, you've hit the nail on the head Purple. The length is fine, the article isn't. Talking of Purple, when will we see it back here? Goblin 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

Green Day

Looks almost there. Well referenced, informative, inline cites and very few red links. Thoughts? ···Katerenka (討論) 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more could be said about "21st Century Breakdown"? It's been almost as successful as American Idiot, certainly over here in the UK at least... (And I went to their gig twice, but that's besides the point ^-^) Goblin 15:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

      So successful that I've never heard of it? (Also, you went to their gig? Ew, it's just noise) — μ 10:49, Tuesday January 12 2010 (UTC)
    Maybe that section could do with some of their charting songs from that album. Overall, the article's great. Nifky^ 05:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I, shhhh *support* this being made into a GA. I'll wait for a bit and if there's no objections I might make it one tommorow :D FSM Noodly? 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Err, wut? You won't make it one tomorrow, because there's no consensus formed here for a promotion of said article. PGA is a community-based process, not one user coming along and just deciding that he likes an article. If it's promoted, i'll be quick to un-promote. Goblin 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

(unindent) Three users said they thought it was good enough, most of the the problems that have been pointed out are fixed. Isnt that what you do when your promote, decide you think its good enough and then promote? Why can't I? I fail to be bothered to participate in this process any-more, and I fail to want to try and fix it. It seems like you've appointed yourself leader of PGA/VGA because you are the only one doing clerical work on it. I won't be contributing to this area of the project anymore. FSM Noodly? 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article needs another lead image; the current one is nominated for deletion. — μ 10:53, Tuesday January 12 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed as promoted: At the end of three weeks, I see more or less clear consensus to promote this to GA. No issues have been raised, and after a quick check, I found the article to be good overall. Thus, this is promoted to GA status. Congratulations, Lauryn. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden

Twice-failed, but most or all of review concerns fixed; has also been several months and a few tweaks in GA criteria since last nom Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping Forecast

Because Microchip08 is too lazy/scared to list himself; it's ready. Goblin 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

    Looks reasonably good, but would cut the introductory clause in the nom Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Nom? I don't see a nomination in the article to cut from. Please rephrase your comment; I have no idea what you are talking about. "Reasonably" good? OK, so I haven't worked hard enough -- could you list some improvements so I can make it better? Thanks, — μ 23:47, Thursday January 7 2010 (UTC)
        Nom=The nomination of this as a GA, i.e. where Gob takes a shot at you above. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Oh. Could we focus on the article itself, please? I've worked hard on it, and struggled to find sources. I'd like to know what made you feel the need to qualify your "looks good" statement. — μ 23:55, Thursday January 7 2010 (UTC)
          I'm not taking shots at anyone fyi. Chippy was refraining from nominating his article as he didn't think it met criteria - despite multiple assurances it did - so I nominated on his behalf. Regards, Goblin 23:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
                It definetely has enough links and references, I'm just a little worried that the lead is too me and some of the sections are too small Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  Too me? What does that mean (sorry for being dumb)? Which sections? Any suggestions on how to expand them? — μ 00:09, Friday January 8 2010 (UTC)
    For some reason, it didn't look right before, but now it does. Let's make this a GA proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm struggling to find any any 'making of' sources to add to the article; and I have no idea as to how it is actually made. Could you give me some advice as to what to do? — μ 22:01, Thursday January 14 2010 (UTC)
    The article has made process and there are people agreeing with this becoming a GA. Length isn't a matter at all. I close this as promoted as it seems to meet our criteria. -Barras talk 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican Republic

For the exact same reasons as the Haiti nomination. Sinbad (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as not promoted Exempt of the proposers yes to there article, I don't see more input. Also, just by scrolling down the article I can find one issue that the proposer should be able to fix ithout any comment as it is the standard, namely the date links in the prose. Not GA ready yet. -Barras talk 13:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Haiti

Well referenced, informative, balanced article. GA ready. Sinbad (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not well referenced. — μ 19:23, Monday January 18 2010 (UTC)

Not ready. Lead is about as long as the rest of the article. Not enough information, references need to be formatted correctly, let me know when it's all done, or if you want a line-by-line review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti

Informative, one of the best nation articles on Simple English Wiki Simple English. Sinbad (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Making a decent article about the earthquake can give us visibility. I have not looked at the article about the country, but I have to agree with Not Now. What we have seen is possibly the biggest (as most deadly) earthquake to hit the region in the last century. In addition, it has hit a country that struggles with many other things as well (IIRC, more than half of thep opulation lives on less that 1 USD parity a day). Keeping the focus on what the article should be about (the country, not the earthquake) will be very difficult until the media coverage regarding the earthquake fades away. While we are at it, making 2010 Haiti earthquake might be an option. Note however, the article is nowhere near meeting any crieria though; ie. a lot of work. --Eptalon (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ofcourse it should be mentioned in the article. But i dont think it should be any problem to evaluate the Haiti article now as it will only mention the earthquake incident, i mean the earthquake itself has its own article and it should be to mutch info about it on the Haiti article. if it now is sutch a big event then why hasnt anybody already added a mention about it on the Haiti article by the way?--Sinbad (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many red-links for me, even for GA, references need to be correctly formatted, Holidays section is as long as the History section which rings serious alarm bells for me. I know it's only GA, but we need to get close to comprehensive coverage, even at a top level. Not ready yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent earthquake is now a major point in Haiti's history. Why? Its very notable, its captial city and government was destroyed, thousands of lives were tragically lost, and affected Haiti significantly after the earthquake(s). The country rarely had an earthquake of that magnitude so strong compared to the one two weeks ago. Its best to keep the article updated and not to promote now. —§ stay (sic)! 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many red links in the economy section. Overall, the article is too unbalanced for me. The economy section, for example, has five, six paragraphs worth of information, but the demographics section has three sentences. The list of holidays adds nothing to the article as far as I can tell. Overall, going on here for a GA article right now. Either way (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree with some things said. If there is an article about the earthquake itself, then that's fine, but at least link that article to Haiti. Also, the dated years should be linked. This article is just not ready yet. I-on talk sign! 14:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the dated years shouldn't be linked at all. There is no real use for it. Most people agreed on this and all our current (V)GAs have the dates unlinked (exempt of biogrpahies in the lead, the birth/death in brackets). -Barras talk 14:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as not promoted There are still issues on this article. Not all references are properly formatted. The Demographics section is very short for an own section. Only by scrolling down, I can see this issues that are not fixed yet. -Barras talk 12:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Grace (1991)

This one's been around a few months and nothing major was brought up. Think it's good enough for GA. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • TRM: Thanks, I'll work on it over the next couple days. Peter: perhaps, but I agree with Barras in that an automated tool isn't the best way to determine that. Snake: feel free to help out, of course! This is a wiki after all. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

Interesting reading, good sourcing, informative. Sinbad (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me. But doesn't the country's government hold a reputation for being corrupt, or at least in the past? —§ stay (sic)! 12:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Great length, plenty of blue links (good to see), and a fair amount of refs. There are loads of sections which can be simplified. If some things can't be any more simplified then they are but are still complex, remember to place the {{complex}} template on the complex sections. A small support for me. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I was the one who did most of the additions to this article, and it was a VGA before I decided to add the Government section, so I definitely think that this article is a definite Good article, at the very least. Razorflame 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Comment
          • The legislative branch of the Romanian government is known as the Parliament. It contains two chambers – the Senate, containing 140 members, and the Chamber of Deputies, which has 346 members.[81] The members of both chambers are elected every four years through party-list proportional representation.[81] The judicial branch of the Romanian government is separate from the other branches. It is made up of a system of courts.
          This stuff is so unnecessarily complicated! Why talk about the "legislative branch" which then requires the editor to create an article to explain it, when you can simply say "Parliament" and link that? Likewise, why write about the "judicial branch" when you can just say "Law courts" or "Legal system"?
          KISS!
          Amandajm (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)08:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Closed as not promoted There are concerns above referring to the complexity to of the article. A non fixed issue. Please try again later when it is fixed. Not all references are properly formatted (accessdate/publisher is missing). -Barras talk 12:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Tina Watson

Article that I created, was first here on Simple Wikipedia before it became an article on English Wikipdia which is nice that we were first:). It is thoroughly detailed, very long, has many references, and is quite simple and easy to read. --Sinbad (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Sinbad, this is probably the best, most balanced article about on the Watson case. The contributors have kept it current and objective without descending into the emotional hash of other accounts. Facts are handled sensibly. The link back to the Tom and Eileen Lonergan case is now properly described and documented, as is case influence and the spectre recently raised of a death penalty and double jeopardy for Mr Watson. Now included are some relevant legal policies and practice of the Australian Commonwealth.
  • Way too many issues in this article. The article contains too much in terms of speculation, personal analysis, and unencyclopedic information. I'm working on some clean up right now, but there's a lot going on here. The "Investigation" section, for example, is way out of sorts. It starts out in Jan. 2008 as being "still under investigation" yet it never tells us why an investigation had begun. It then talks about 2007. A few sentences later it's about March 2005, then back to 2008 to talk about his new wife which has absolutely no connection to the investigation and is just tabloid gossip that she looks like the deceased. The article also mentions people such as "Justice Muir" or "Sergeant Flinn" but we have no clue who these people are. A lot of clean up needed here. Either way (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thanks for doing those clean-ups even though I dont agree with you on all of them I think you have made the article mutch better.--Sinbad (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Its definitly ready for GA now. Thanks to all who contribute.--Sinbad (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What? This isn't even close to GA material yet. None of my concerns about the order have been addressed at all. Either way (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Well thats your humble opinion. You yourself have addressed all or most of the issues in your drastic edits. And other people are of other opinions.--Sinbad (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            By the way this is a GA review not a VGA review. Your standards are extremely high and not the view shared by me (for example). I also dont agree with many of your edits on the article.--Sinbad (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              Not to say that i dont respect your opinion. But i just dont agree with you at all on this issue. Hopefully Razorflame will make edits that will satisfy ous all and make it in everyones opinion GA ready.--Sinbad (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                I'm sorry you feel my standards are too high. However, I think logical order are to be expected in articles regardless of GA or VGA status. If I knew nothing of the case (which I didn't until yesterday), I would be extremely confused by this article (especially in the state it was in before some of the major rewrites of the last day). Either way (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  I agree with you now when you have fully replied what was the issues.. but as i said i think Razorflames copyedits and changes will satisfy you my friend to. Cheers.--Sinbad (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an orphan and is tagged as such. Because of that, it fails the guidelines for GAs. Either way (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a minor issue and has no value in the overall status of a article/ its not a problem for the article itself and you know that too Either Way. --Sinbad (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The orphan tag has been removed by an established user, which came to the conclusion that it was not an orphan.--Sinbad (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, the tag needs to be replaced. The article is most certainly an orphan. Links coming from user talk pages and this page do not count. The only other inbound link is the Tina Watson redirect page and that does not count either. Therefore, it has no inbound links to the article. fr33kman 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Well, there are people of other opinions on that subject. Please comment on the orphan discussion on the articles talk page before adding any sutch tag back.--Sinbad (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            And anyhow that doesnt make this article any less worthy og GA status. Orphan tags doesnt reflect the overlal quality of an article. So that discussion can be closed as of now.--Sinbad (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              Actually SInbad, it does. Articles with tags on them are not allowed to be promoted; see the PGA rules. fr33kman 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                We could discuss this to the end of the world. I still question why the orphan tag was placed there and i still question its status as i dont think the article should have an oprhan tag of any kind. Still i wont get into any heavy discussions about that and ask people to look at this article for what it is. Wont be able to beon simple wikipedia for a couple of weeks as i am going abroad so i dont really have any interest in keeping this discussion afloat.--Sinbad (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted Has many issues and concerns that have been raised above. Please try again when they are fixed. Razorflame 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lichen

Seems to tick most boxes; comments welcomed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Left a very small review on the talk page; waiting for others.. --Eptalon (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Willing to extend this for a week to fix concerns. Bare websites is a big no-no. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. MOS issues (en dash, bare URLs), captions appear to be written in pidgin English not Simple English, some confusion over whether the plural of lichen is lichen or lichens, I can't believe we use the word "thing" in any article here, the references are a mixture of footnotes and references, "Their life habit" is a very confusing heading, what does it mean? The English is pretty weak, "Their success is as a pair (or trio). " for instance - one or the other? Why do we have single leaf in italics? Is "discernible" simple? And "litmus"? Too many issues at a first glance for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could fix the references then I think It would pass. I will see what I can do to help.--Guerillero (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Renaissance

I think this article is quite nice, even though nobody may think me worthy enough to propose this... But it's very nicely written, and the pictures are quite good, too. No red links, either... Anybody can object, of course, because I'm very bad at proposing these sort of things and I probably proposed it badly. Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ..."The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.

...The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link."
There's only been a few editors editing this article, it's fairly new so I understand. It also needs information on where it happened (we're told when, why, what and how however). For the last point it needs an interwiki link (hopefully the bots are able to do this automatically). Other than that it's fairly fine and could do with more references (other good articles have a bit more text and ~20 references). Nifky^ 09:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh! Very well; thankyou so much, Nifky?. But you edited it, no doubt, and very nicely and wonderfully, too! As long as you or Classical Esther had part in any article, it would be a very good article - but perhaps you are right. I hope more people will edit it... Oh dear! I am so clumsy and blind. Luckily Pnlimeditor helps me very much, but still... Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Dear Belinda does know how to flatter: Classical Esther should never be named, my dear, with an editor like Nifky in the same sentence - I am yet too inferior to him! It is too great a gratification. Thank you for helping me with my article anyway: whether it becomes a good article or not, I am sure it will become much better in the process of discussing it, and I am glad. And by the bye, you spelled Pmlineditor's name wrong. ^_^ Classical Esther 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, as long as the article does not have a counterpart in the English or other wikipedias, this cannot be a GA. :( Pmlineditor ∞ 10:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, here it is ([3]). It's not under the name Renaissance medicine, but Medical Renaissance, though. :D Thanks for pointing that out. Classical Esther 10:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not be vexed at me because I am so bad at these things. The article is very good, I am sure, but it is just that I proposed it all wrong - I missed some words, I think - said it so uncomfortably and innaturally - and therefore made everybody angry at me and disgraced myself. Oh! How miserable! Please help. And thank you so much, Wikipedian "father" :p Pmlineditor! You are so kind and helpful sometimes! Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Haha, I just try to be helpful, though I don't know how much I succeed. ;) There was nothing wrong with your nominations; after all, if a great article is nominated with a poor statement, it doesn't mean it won't become GA. No article is perfect, and they need work to become (V)GAs. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Left a few (comments of a general nature on the article talk page. Will help extend. --Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is definitely not a good article yet. It doesn't have to be long, but it does need to be well organised and accurate. It should not be misleading in anyway.

  • Problems include the statement that leeches were dangerous. The application of leeches in medicine, when used appropriately, is not dangerous. It is certain that many doctors used leeches appropriately, as well as it is certain that some doctors used them inappropriately. (The modern over-application of very useful medicininals is also inappropriate and dangerous but we would not state that medicinals are something dangerous that modern doctors use).
  • There is a statement about medicine in the 1600s that is immediately followed by an example of foolish things that were believed to work. Where does the example come from? The 1200s! That is the Middle Ages, not the Medical Renaissance!
  • To improve this article, keep it simple! Start out by defining your dates. Your beginning point is probably 1400 (when the artistic Renaissance began). Start at that date, and then list the important developments and discoveries. We are talking about history here, so dates are important. Who did what when?
  • Be aware that every discipline has its own time frame and they do not all run exactly parallel. For example, Renaissance architecture in France started much later than Renaissance architecture in Italy. Romantic Poetry happened at an earlier date than Romantic Music. So the dates of the Medical Renaissance might not match those of the artistic Renaissance.
  • You need a clear cut-off point. When does medicine become "modern medicine" and not Renaissance medicine? When including information in the general article on the Renaissance, I wouldn't include anything later than the early 1600, because then we get into the artistic Baroque period, and the "Age of Enlightenment". However, if this article is specifically about changes in medicine, you could push the date later, since the term "Renaissance" can be used in a number of ways. However, you need to be clear of the cut-off point.
      Closed as not promoted Sorry, but the risen concerns aren't fixed yet. The article can become a GA one day, but still needs some work. Please re-list the article here once the concerns are fixed. Kind regards -Barras talk 19:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, Barras. To tell the truth frankly, I didn't really think it was a good article yet, either. History and medicine are not some of my best subjects, and I lacked the adequate skill to adapt the article to the requirements. I'm glad it could be improved by the various helpful efforts put in by the community though! Classical Esther 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

I know, probably a complex subject; article has many red links, and parts of it are probably written in complex language. Nevertheless, I think the article should be listed here. So there you go. Happy picking. (Note: there are a few fact templates; I'll look these up in the process). --Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I will again remove the tag, and archive this discussion. More intensive work has shown that the article is too far away from anything I would consider a legitimate candidate. I have also been the only one to do larger changes/rewrites. While I would very much like to continue, I currently lack the time for the "in-depth" research needed. The area (philosophy) is also not what I was trained to do. Thanks to everyone for supporting me. Unfortunately, the article is not there yet. This is not a work of a few days, but more. Sorry folks. --Eptalon (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kelly

Informative, ok length, no red links. Interesting reading. Sinbad (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lead needs work. It's not supposed to be just the first section, it's supposed to be a summary of the whole article. The "score" may indicate it's simple enough, but unless people read the words and look at the structure, we're not reviewing the article correctly. There are also MOS issues (ref placement, linked dates, en-dash), the article is still (apparently) a "stub", the sources for the references don't appear to be reliable (for instance, what makes denheldid.com reliable?) Not at all ready for GA status. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      The lead has been improved. Stub removed as it is no longer a stub. Sources are reliable, all are from people well known in Australia for their research into the Kelly Gang, in fact most of the references are from the standard research book on the subject, sorry they may not be household names in other countries. I have added more detail on the story of the burial. The article is lacking with information about Dan's role in the Kelly gang's activities. This needs to be worked on before the article is complete. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment:
        I just removed this addition to the intro "which many people believe was to be the start of revolution to create a republic in north east Victoria". The reason is that it reads as if Dan Kelly's death started a serious revolution to set up a republic. This was not the case. It was earlier, when the friends of the Kelly's were being hounded and denied land that a republic was proposed. (ie "started"). Perhaps it was Kelly's intention to drive that plan forward, with the 30 or so people that were held hostage at Glenrowan (among them women and children). If so, then he had Buckley's, so it seems rather improbable.
        Either way, tagging the information about the proposed republic onto the sentence about Dan Kelly's death doesn't seem a good move. The expression "Many people believe...." is fuzzy and inaccurate. If this is really about opinion (people believing) rather than known fact use "(Name of specific author) said in (Book) that Ned Kelly was hoping to start a revolution etc etc at the hotel at Glenrowan. (if this is indeed the case).
        Amandajm (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Australia's most famous Kelly historian, Ian Jones, is the source of the republic theory. To quote from John McQuilton's book, "The Kelly Outbreak 1878—1880" (1979) page 168, Jones said of Glenrowan "...It was to be the start of a guerilla campaign, and the establishment of a republic...Glenrowan was to be the opening blow in a war..."

I agree Amandajm that he probably had Buckley's too (a lovely Oz expression which means he had no chance at all of succeeding). Peterdownunder (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further issues:

  • Prove that "bailup.com" is a reliable source.
  • Same with "thekellytrail.com"
  • Refs need spaced en-dashes.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "For more details" note needs to be moved to the top of the section.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done Peterdownunder (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The literary source appears to be called "Ned Kelly, the Authentic Illustrated Story" not "Ned Kelly, the authentic illustrated story."

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done to match National Library info Peterdownunder (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link £.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done Peterdownunder (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Put refs after punctuation per MOS.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done Peterdownunder (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is undertaker simple?

That took two minutes. Please get it properly reviewed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - still nowhere near ready...

  • We don't link dates per MOS.
  • Victoria and NSW need links in the lead.
  • What's the difference between "frightened" and "scared"?
  • "to fool the police " do you mean "evade" them? fool isn't exactly quite right as far as I can see.
  • " in 1861 at Beveridge, Victoria " since when do you get born "at" somewhere?
  • "John "Red" Kelly. [2][3]" remove space between punc and refs.
  • "1850.[5]. " remove full stop after ref.
  • "(1863).[5][1]" refs in numerical order please.
  • "the family moved north to a farm at Avenel, Victoria. His father " whose father? His? Doesn't lead on logically.
  • "His mother's family" same again, whose?
  • "been doing some work for " why not just "been working for"?
  • "Riverina area and on the Monaro High Plains" could use links.
  • "a common work pattern" is this Simple?
  • "This was a common work pattern for young men in the area. His group of friends were a wild group of young men, known as "the Greta mob". They were well known for their visits to nearby towns such as Wangaratta, Beechworth and Benalla." unreferenced.
      proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done referenced
  • " Dan had been arrested for stealing" why not just "Dan was arrested"?
  • You use reference 1 19 times but every time say it came from page 9? Really?
  • "weren't able" don't use contractions.
  • gaol is overlinked.
  • "Dan Kelly for stealing horses. Dan Kelly had been" doesn't seem a need to repeat Dan Kelly here.
  • "" Fitzpatrick incident" and is covered in detail in the pages on Dan's brother, " remove the space, and we don't link to other articles by saying "is covered in detail in the pages" at all, that's what wikilinks are for, or templates like {{seealso}}.
  • isn't the Bush usually referred to with a capital B?

That's the lead and the first section reviewed... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        Closed as not promoted Sorry folks, but the article is not ready yet. As TRM stated one line above, this isn't peer review. Please ensure that you propose articles that are more close to GA status. This makes people willing to review it properly and makes it easy to fix a few issues and gives us the chance to promote the article. Barras talk 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Kelly

Well referenced, interesting reading.--Sinbad (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work:

  • Lead is too short - it should adequately summarise the whole article and one short para doesn't cut it.
  • We don't link dates any more, per MOS.
  • Too many (explanatory notes in parentheses) in the lead alone. This is a modern linking Wiki, we don't need "gaol (jail)", that defeats the entire purpose of wikilinks.
  • Refs should go after punctuation, per MOS.
  • Decide on whether you wish to use 'this' or "this" method of describing alternative names.
  • "Red Kelly had been a convict" no need to repeat his surname so quickly.
  • Link Victoria properly the first time round.
  • "wasn't " - avoid contractions.

These are things in just the first 10% of the article. Please get a decent copyedit and a check against MOS before nomination in the future, this is a waste of a lot of people's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muse (band)

Good referencing, albeit short. Looks like it is ready, but all comments welcome. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought adding a section of the band members would help, such as their names and the instruments they play. —§ stay (sic)! 12:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      It is a bit short. But it has great information. Only 2 red links, a fair amount of refs, and some good photos. It has my support. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment You can't jam an image of any sort directly under a long box without it causing formatting problems. On my screen, the text is divided from its heading (orphaned) by about 6 inches. If you have a wide screen, then is probably does this on yours as well. Even on an almost square screen, it is causing a problem.
        • Everyone needs to use the "Show Preview" button, and if the layout doesn't work, learn how to fix this boxish problem that happens all the time. If you happen to have a squarish screen, then you need to know that long boxes cause this problem on wide screens and simply avoid putting any other pic under them by several inches.
        • If you can't see the problem, get back to me.
        Amandajm (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • "They formed..." could be simplified.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done formed -> began. Classical Esther 10:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image caption doesn't need a full stop/period.
  • "most western countries of the world.[2]" I'd be more specific, a Simple reader isn't going to get this.
  • Lead, once again, is just a single para, can't we at least stretch to two? One about the history of the band, the members, style of music, and one about their music, achievements etc?
  • "When they were 13 years old" there was a window of only 5 days when this was the case... are you sure this is true?
  • "they broke their instruments, but still won." deliberate or accidental? worth a note...
  • "The Resistance" section is a terrible list of "on x month 2009, .." prose which reads really badly, and shouldn't be considered the best we can do. Please look at writing it out as prose.
  • Refs - link all dates, or none, preferably none.
  • Make sure they all have accessdates, publishers and titles as a minimum.
  • Ref 32 - make sure they're formatted correctly.

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci

Hi people! I can remember that this article was up to VGA when I came here last year. I just re-read the article I think that it is well written enough to be a good article. I'm pretty sure that there are still some things that needs to be done. I apologise for having not that much time the next weeks and thus I'm probably not able to fix the issues quickly. -Barras talk 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No ready yet. Comments on talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on the talk page seem to have been reviewed. proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Classical Esther 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn for now. The reference issue needs to be done, and I'm currently too busy with other things (called real life...) to take care of it that it is really and has some standards. But I'll re-propose it this summer. Barras talk 12:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lawless

Has many references, and is thoroughly detailed, good length. Sinbad (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) A quick glance revealed the following (unrelated to referencing):

  • Article a little short (for my liking), if you do not count the two tables
  • Fix spelling errors (Carrer)
  • One idea per sentence, violated in a few places.
  • Numbers in flow text as word, not number (20 -> twenty); esp. for the simpler cases.

Will provide a more in-depth look, once these issues are fixed.--Eptalon (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Basic encyclopedic content and style needs to be improved.

  • Lucy was born Ryan, but uses Lawless, the name of her partner (first husband?). This needs to be stated in the intro.
  • Lawless's life. State the full names of her parents. Her mother is an actor. Is her stage name the same as her married name? What was father's profession? He was presumably only Major for a few years.
  • She suffered bulimia etc. This is a very bald statement. It reads as if she had bulimia as a baby. If this was during her teen years, then say that.
  • Further down, it says that she became pregnant and uses only the Christian name of her partner. Use his full name.
  • It states that they divorced, but I don't think that the reader is told that they were married.

Amandajm (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Victorian bushfires

Well sourced, interesting reading, good length for subject.Sinbad (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the fires were started by fallen or clashing power lines or were deliberately lit.[14] There was also lightning,[15] cigarette butts,[4] and sparks from a power tool.[16] These two sentences come from the introduction. There are a few problems.

  • Many fires were started by fallen or clashing powerlines. Is this right? One fire was started by a pole falling in a strong wind, but was it "many"?
  • "or were deliberately lit" The two causes that are joined here by the words "many" and "or" are nothing like each other. One is a problem caused by a natural force, high wind. The other is a wilful and shameful act, which needs to be given a stand-alone sentence. In human terms, these two things are no way equal. One is a criminal offence and an offence to humanity. You are trivialising the criminal and inhuman aspect of this "cause" by simply linking it as if arson was just another natural event.
  • To create good sentences, put like things with like things. The two natural causes, lightning and wind bringing down powerlines could be linked. The using a power tool during a total fire ban, and the utter and habititual stupidity of the imbeciles that chuck lighted butts out are both linked to human error/carelessness, and so can be put together in a sentence. But arson is something else again. It needs to be mentioned in a stand-alone sentence. You could include a quotation from one of the many press sources about the nature of arson.

Please rewrite these two sentences in a way that creates meaningful order. Amandajm (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers Karamazov

I like this article because it's long, with nice references, and good websites. No red links, and very satisfactory. Please delete this proposal if you do not like it... And so sorry for proposing again in one day! Wrte your comments freely! Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you very much, Lydia: I am undoubtedly very honored by so kind a notice of an article I made; but...I'm afraid it's still too complex to be a good article yet! And more editors need to refine it. Classical Esther 09:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-)By the way the page is already 32 kb long. Nifky^ 11:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very long plot, but nonetheless an interesting article. Should this be promoted? —§ stay (sic)! 12:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this plot "summary" is too detailed for the article. It needs to be cut down. Additionally, the sources need to be cleaned up. {{citeweb}} should be used for websites. Sources should also be added to the character sections. Right now they read like someone's personal analysis of the characters. Lines like "He becomes a better and stronger man in the end, and this shows the novel’s hope for humankind" or "His final madness shows the novel’s rejection of his belief" need citations. Either way (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the very helpful advice, Either way. I'll see what I can do about it, and everybody is more than welcome to help! By the way, I made a subarticle about Alyosha Karamazov, I hope that answers at least one of Purplebackpack's requirements earlier on. Classical Esther 06:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks like everyone is working hard on the article, and it looks great. I am thinking it will need more refs but besides that, its ready for promotion. Maybe 6 or 7 more refs? That would seem good. But not 40 as Purplebackpack89 said to do. VGA don't even have that much. I will also try to help if new tasks come up. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 14:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made another subarticle just now, The Grand Inquisitor. Not very high quality one ㅜ.ㅜ but I'll expand :-)... Classical Esther 08:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments
      • The first sentence of the background section begins "Dostoevsky’s time in prison greatly influenced his book and his life."
      Your reader doesn't know that Dostoevsky was in prison, and the Simple Wiki biography of him is short and inadequate. You can't presume theat your reader will have this knowledge. If it is important to the background, then it needs stating in a proper sentence, preferably dated, because that makes a difference to the reader's understanding as well.
      The background needs to begin: In (year) the author Dostoevsky was imprisoned for (number of years) for (crime). This was to have a great influence on his later life and on this book.
      • Then go back to the story and summarise it with the same clarity. eg: "The Brothers Karamazov" is the story of the lives four Russian Brothers who have very different characters.
      • You tell us near the beginning that the novel was in series. So state the number of books, instead of leaving it to your reader to look to the end of the list to find out.
      This all sounds "simplistic" but this is about writing simple English well.
      Amandajm (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I'll do my best to try to change it...and I'll see if I can add some flesh to the article on Dostoevsky as well. Thanks for your fair comments, Amandajm; would you be so kind as to put them on the article's talk page, too? Classical Esther 08:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done I have just reviewed the comments on the talk page, thank you Amandajm! Classical Esther 05:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            Comments.
            • I've looked into this a little further. Smerdyakov is "rumoured to be" the the son Fyodor. He uses his mother's surname and is therefore not one of the "Brothers Karamazov" who are the title and subject of the book. He is essentially a secondary character, whose actions affect the primary characters. That explanation must read "It is the story of three brothers, otherwise the next part of the sentence is nonsense!
            • So the corrected sentence is: The Brothers Karamazov is the story of the lives of three Russian brothers who are very different in body, mind, and spirit, and is often thought of to represent three parts of mankind itself.
            • To look at the parts of the sentence we have ''The Brothers Karamazov is the story of the lives of three Russian brothers who are very different in body, mind, and spirit... This is now clear.
            • The last part of the sentence states ...and is often thought of to represent three parts of mankind itself. What does this last statement mean exactly? It doesn't make sense because the grammar is not quite right. That word "is" is a singular form of the verb "to be", so when we look backward for its subject we find that the subject of the verb is the word "story".
            Put the sentence together and it says ...the story ....is often thought of to represent three parts of mankind itself.
            I am certain that this is not what is intended. That word "is" should be the plural verb "are".
            Now it reads: The Brothers Karamazov is the story of the lives of three Russian brothers who are very different in body, mind, and spirit, and are often thought of to represent three parts of mankind itself.
            Now we leave out the "itself" as redundant, and instead, add a little word that directs us backward to what aspects of mankind are being referred to. The three that are mentioned earlier in the sentence. Improve the grammar with "as representing" not "to represent"
            The Brothers Karamazov is the story of the lives of three Russian brothers who are very different in body, mind, and spirit, and are often thought of as representing those three parts of mankind.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done I have reviewed all your helpful comments on talk page. Classical Esther 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing still needs a lot of work. Use referencing templates like {{citeweb}}. There is an author listed named "Joyce Carol" who should be "Joyce Carol Oates" I believe. Be more specific with websites. You did not get all the information from the "front page" of SparkNotes, for example, they came from subpages within that site. Link to those individual subpages instead. Also, please be more mature in naming the references. One of the references used multiple times is named "toast" and another is "giggle." Either way (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. :P Sorry for the silliness in the ref names, anybody is welcome to change them, it doesn't make any difference to me. Could you please help with the citewebs? I'm not very good at citing websites yet, tho' I'll see what I can do to make them better...Classical Esther 05:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Either Way, I have changed both of the silly ref names to better ones, made the websites more specific, and am trying to make the references better with a citeweb template. I have changed a few, and am working on them! I hope this meets your requirements for now. O, by the way, I removed the Joyce Carol Oates website. Classical Esther 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - not ready...

  • Lead is too short - we need two or three paragraphs to summarise the article.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done Finished! Classical Esther 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • MOS flaws - the refs need to go after punctuation, no spaces between ref & punc, no links in headings, no bare URLs in refs, en-dashes for year/page ranges.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done I think... Classical Esther 02:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also is irrelevant as Dostoevsky is linked in the article.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done Moved wikiquote to "websites" and erased the "see also" section. Classical Esther 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other Websites ->websites.

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done Changed it to websites.Classical Esther 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plot Summary->summary but there are no references at all here. Not good enough.

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the biggest problems seemed to be the comparison in length of the other sections compared to the plot, I have expanded the "important themes" section and added a few refs. Classical Esther 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I was asked to close this on my talk page:
      Closed as not promoted There are still after nearly one month issues left such as the incomplete references. Bokks miss the ISBN number and pages (not all, but anyway). All things that are marked as a quote should have a reference, example: “I expected to find a wicked soul…But instead I have found a true sister, a treasure, a loving soul…” References are not completely ordered "people.[17][12]". Some odd formatting issues reamain "(job) . . . a civic" spaces in between the dotes. Other parts miss spaces as "no avail(no use)". Reading more-sections without any ISBN number for the books. Not yet ready per MoS. Please fix the remaining issues and try it again! Barras talk 12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

I've been working really hard on expanding the article and I believe it has great length, has few red links, and as a player of the game myself, I feel it explains how to play very well. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be a lot of issues in here. I'd suggest getting a peer review first rather than going through a PGA. There are issues with MOS, referencing issues (proper templates are not always used, the history section is not referenced at all), formatting issues (there are one sentence paragraphs, way too many see alsos), and some of the writing needs to be cleaned up (the notations section seems to have some confusing sentences). Additionally, the introduction should be an overview of the article, but it reads like it's taking the place of another section here. Peer reviewing this would probably be best right now with the issues at hand. Either way (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I added refs to the history section and fixed merged some paragraphs. See what think. :) I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 00:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You added four references to one sentence. The entire section needs references. There still exists problems with single or double sentence paragraphs or sections. In addition to things I said above, the categories also need to be cleaned up here. Either way (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A way to go for GA in my opinion. Some quick bullets:

  • I think a separate section with a picture and description of each playing piece would be good. proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done
  • Consistent use of capitalisation of piece names would be useful. proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done
  • You mention moving notation after you already used it in the en passant section.
  • You've got an image of the Scholar's mate, but no description of it anywhere. proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done
  • Check where references are supposed to go per MOS (i.e. after punctuation where possible) proposed Good Articles/Archive 8  Done
  • The other websites are dubious looking to say the least.
  • In general more references are needed and it could use someone to look at the overall structure. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw. There is no way I can fix these problems in time. But please keep the comments and suggestions coming, but post them on the talk page instead. I will get to work right away and hopefully re-propose it soon. Thanks all for the suggestions. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags:

proposed Good Articles/Archive 8 Archived requestsproposed Good Articles/Archive 8User talk:Nifky?User:Nifky?

🔥 Trending searches on Wiki Simple English:

TelevisionMilitaryThe PentagonPawn shopList of emotionsMadridMarchSusanna (Book of Daniel)Natalie BidenNudityErling HaalandSpokane, WashingtonC (programming language)RunningPope FrancisComputer programSunflowerAnnabeth ChaseUdit NarayanMedinaRakesh RoshanNetherlandsList of U.S. states by traditional abbreviationCatRikishi (wrestler)George BestNon-Aligned MovementOuter spaceSexy ZoneWeatherChabeloWingspanSubrahmanyam JaishankarMarbleSteve JobsBTSKarachiCircle50 CentCaliforniaAkbarIndonesiaChristianityMothMurder of SelenaCristiano RonaldoIsraeli–Palestinian conflictPretoria2019 UEFA Champions League FinalHello Kitty murder caseList of sex positionsMaizePolandLionel RichieMahatma GandhiKaabaMartin Luther King Jr.Louis XVList of countries by continentsStudentMohs scale of mineral hardnessAmazon (company)Leonardo da VinciTower BridgeInternetRed FortHarry StylesList of districts of KeralaCommon EraForestJacqueline Kennedy Onassis4chanEjaculationDemocracyKane (wrestler)Slash (punctuation)🡆 More