proposed Good Articles/Archive 9

Monarch (butterfly)

Monarch (butterfly) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Classical Esther 06:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be well written. Review coming soon. Pmlineditor ∞ 06:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! I'm sure this proposal will succeed - at least, I agree to it becoming a good article! A very good article, rather! O how well written it is! Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reviewed the comments on the talk page. Megan McCarty|^talk_changes 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly good , but While in Mexico, the Monarchs hold on to everything they can find. "Hold on to" is not a good description. Do you mean "cling to", "perch on", "hang from" or what? Amandajm (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was "cling to". I was trying to keep things simple and I guess I was a little misleading. Thanks for pointing that out. Megan|^talk_changes 18:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that this nomination could be extended for maybe another week? Pmlineditor is going to review the article further and has not yet put any comments on the talk page. Thanks. Megan|^talk_changes 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the habitat section needs to be expanded... Classical Esther 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to expand the section tomorrow. Megan|^talk_changes 02:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the section somewhat. I hope this is a little better. Megan|^talk_changes 17:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Megan~ :D Classical Esther 06:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful work, plenty of references. Nifky^{^} 00:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite simple enough yet - needs a bit more more work to improve readability [1], see comments and list on talk page.Peterdownunder (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready yet. I have left an initial run of comments on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the comments on the talk page later today or tomorrow. Megan|^talk_changes 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the concerns on the talk page have been fixed. The rest I will work on tomorrow. Megan|^talk_changes 01:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problems with the article. It looks alright with me. —§ stay (sic)! 10:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sic.--Sinbad (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how TRM's concerns have been addressed, I have no problem with this article being listed. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just five or six new comments to take care of, it's close. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just took care of TRM's last comments. But I'm still unsure about a few "unsimple" words still listed on the talk page. They don't have wiktionary entries and I don't have the time right now to create them. If someone is willing to help, please do. Megan|^talk_changes 19:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simplified the rest of the complex words listed on the talk page (e.g. singly -> one by one). Hopefully the article is ready now? Classical Esther^♣ 05:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned this article now meets the criteria for a good article. Good work everyone, both reviewers and Megan & Esther alike. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TRM. Your comments were exceedingly helpful. Classical Esther^♣ 02:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one will become a good article, most probably. Megan worked on The Rambling Man's comments so nicely that now it is most ready. Good work, everyone! ♥ Belinda ♥ 02:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed as promoted: After this long time of improvement and the consensus to promote this above, I close it as successful and promote the article. Well done all! Barras ^talk 11:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1910 Cuba hurricane

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

I created this a couple nights ago based on the enwiki version written largely by myself as well. I think it's very easy-to-read, concise yet detailed, and comprehensive. Barras left a helpful review on the talk page which I've largely resolved, so any additional comments are welcome. Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks really good. Some more simplifying would be great...I'll see what I can do. Some of the book references, though, need to be fixed, like ref number 16. Classical Esther^♣ 03:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esther, thanks for the look-see! Just curious, what do you see an issue with at ref #16? Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good and is easy to read. I have left a comment about two possible improvements on the talk page. --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks,   Done. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ref 16 needs to be cited with a correct template and ISBN number, I believe. It's very well written overall, though. Classical Esther^♣ 06:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book info is listed at the bottom of the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Good job. Classical Esther^♣ 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article, and found it very simple. The readable scores are probably high because of some of the words used (like "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale", "high pressure", etc). However, I think the intro needs references. Megan|^talk_changes 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Megan. Generally refs aren't needed in the lead, since the info is all cited later on. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had read somewhere (I have no idea where) that the lead should be cited like the rest of the article, but maybe I'm wrong. Well, anyway, I'm glad I could be of some help. Megan|^talk_changes 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The readability scores are really good! I think it's ready now. Classical Esther^♣ 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check, but this looks good. Nothing strikingly awful hits me in the face so I'd be happy for this to represent the Wiki as one of our good articles. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse this article for GA. It seems to meet all of the GA criteria, so I see reason not to. Kansan (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good article to me as well. Either way (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready for GA. Megan|^talk_changes 12:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Not much point drawing this discussion out for another week when it's in great shape and clearly has a consensus behind it. Great work, Julian! Goblin 16:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Mercury (planet)

Mercury (planet) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Good and interesting reading about one oour closests planets. Sinbad (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet our criteria at this time. There are five paragraphs in the article and four of them are the lead. Needs a lot of expansion. Either way (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit short just now...and maybe some simplification would do good. It has potential, but it needs a lot of work to do first. Classical Esther^♣ 02:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article may be an interesting subject does not mean it should be a GA. Work on it first. —§ stay (sic)! 05:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. It's all the wrong way round. The lead should be a summary of the article. Per Either way, right now we have a four-para lead and a one-para main article. Completely wrong. J2000 is redlinked but has no relationship with reality at all. What does it mean? I couldn't even guess. Avoid overlinking (e.g. Earth, Moon, Solar System), don't link dates, what's a "crater"? You link K in the lead but not C or F. "only a little bit less" while this is SEWP, that is really poor language. Miles off a GA I'm afraid. Take a look at Jupiter to see what it takes to get a notable article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily closed as not promoted: There are multiple concerns about the article and none of them have been handled by the nominator. As such, expanding it and fixing the concerns would be impossible within a week. Try again when this is comprehensive enough. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Interesting reading, simple english, comprehensive on subject. Sinbad (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not comprehensive. There are two sentences on his presidency. The speech section needs to be completely cleaned up. Lots of work needs to be done. Either way (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too small. --Diego (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE Either Way: fixed a small portion of the speech section. Looks a bit better. The rest of the article looks quite good. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Joe Biden article, there is very little content. Reagan and many other prominent American politicans have had a long and complex history regarding their political careers. Expand, simplify, cleanup, review, etc. —§ stay (sic)! 05:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look that bad, but it needs a lot of expanding. And as Either way pointed out, it isn't yet comprehensive enough. Classical Esther^♣ 10:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on talk page. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 12:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, no. Nowhere near comprehensive enough. This is one of the most iconic western world figures in the 20th century. It needs serious expansion before it can be considered for GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Need to about octuple the number of refs. Also, taking issue with above: wouldn't necessarily put Reagan in the century's greatest; also, Slip, Biden made GA. Needs to be expanded (though would note, comprenhensive is VGA, not GA), but is fine in terms of simplicity. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No. As above, and prose is awful. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily close as not promoted: Prolonging this is pointless; it's not going to pass. The nominator hasn't looked at it since nomination and it still needs lots of work. Meet the concerns met, then come back. Bluegoblin7 ∞

Pichilemu

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

I've worked a lot on this article (here and in en.wiki). With the help of Gordonrox and some others, this article seems much simplified. Today I've expanded some more the article, and I can't see why it should not become a good article. I think is very easy to read. Comments are welcome. :-) Diego (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many red links and a far too short lead based on just glancing at it. Either way (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are not my fault (anyway I'll try to simplify some). And will expand the lead. --Diego (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you mean by "not my fault." If you are nominating this, you should know the criteria for a good article and where the flaws in your article are. Either way (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Either way, way too many red links. But if that is taken care of and the lead is expanded we atleast have some of the issues solved.--Sinbad (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll work with that. --Diego (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's overly complex as well. The readability scores are very high, and glancing through, I can see why. There are words like "haciendas," "corvette," "hydrographic," "roadstead," and "archeological" that are not simple and not linked at all. Either way (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Gonna link 'em all. --Diego (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it is too complex, but after I can make all the red links blue, I'll simplify some more :-) --Diego (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see Either way was faster than me. :) The article is rather complex. As of yet, it's too complex. I have, however, put a quick list of some words I found a bit complex on the talk page. And as Either way and Sinbad pointed out, if the redlinks could be eliminated (maybe by making some quick pages using information from English Wikipedia), it would be great. Good work, everyone. Classical Esther^♣ 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks out of control. —§ stay (sic)! 05:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This can definitely use some more work. Just a while ago it was pretty much a copy and paste from the EN article. I'm not sure if that has been totally fixed yet...--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this different from the en article? It can possibly still be deleted/content removed per A4. I don't want to discourage you, but this needs more simplification. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Gordonrox..--Sinbad (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Left a few items on the talk page; still a bit of work left.--Eptalon (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ho hum, where to begin.

• Lead is too short.
• Captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't take a period.
• Too many redlinks, even for a GA.
• Surf in the infobox should link to surfing.
• Don't mix date formats in references.
• I'm busy, but this needs quite a bit of work before I think it's ready to be a GA. If I get time and if requested, I'll attempt a line-by-line review. But be advised, there's a way to go right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm quite shocked. Surely it's wrong to propose an article in such a condition. Top candidate for fast rejection. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been two weeks since the nomination and I see little change to the article. My first concerns of a short lead, complex language, and lots of redlinks still stand it appears. I highly doubt this can be improved upon in a week's time. Either way (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed as not promoted: Per the above two; too lazy to write it a third time! Bluegoblin7 ∞

Chess

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

I'm trying again to get Chess to GA. With the changes that have been made, I believe its finally ready. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 19:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still a lot that needs to be fixed. There are grammar issues (I see an its v. it's at a quick glance, the unnecessary capitalization of Pawn, King, etc.), formatting issues (one sentence paragraphs), other pages does not look like it was cleaned up, and a severe lack of citations (setup, movement, promotion, strategy opening, and large bits of other sections all lack citations). Either way (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to get more refs for those sections. I copied all en had to offer. How do I get more? Besides that anyway, I should be able to fix the rest. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 13:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do some research on your own beyond what's listed in the English article? Either way (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, doesn't look that bad...I'll see if I can find some better sources. It has had a lot of good work put into it. ♥ Belinda ♥ 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs   Done I will be adding more later. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 9 refs in total. I hope this is enough. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 19:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems overall well written to me. Good work on the references! This is a complicated subject, so it won't be easy, but a little more simplification would, I think, be great. Classical Esther^♣ 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More things put on talk page. Not near GA at present. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All things fixed except for one. Check TP. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, everybody! This article really looks fit to become a GA! Long, well-referenced, nicely-pictured... Ian did a really good job on fixing this thing. :) ♥ Belinda ♥ 12:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for GA. —§ stay (sic)! 03:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this appears mean but I have several comments to make, but I'm off to bed now. Will do my best to leave a list on the talkpage tomorrow. So, for the current article, oppose it's promotion... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mean, you're one of the greatest reviewers here. :) It's just that I'm not as clever as you in spotting out any requirements that aren't glaring. Will be waiting eagerly for the review... Classical Esther^♣ 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments there on the talkpage now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all of the comments except for one, and Esther fixed pretty much of them too. I hope it will become a GA now. :) Please review it again, Rambling Man! Your sharp and intelligent eye is really a great help around here. ♥ Belinda ♥ 11:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're not all done yet. Some of Pmlineditor's requirements have not been entirely fixed, but we're nearer GA stat than before. Classical Esther^♣ 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah, sorry.  ;) I was talking about the review that The Rambling Man did... ♥ Belinda ♥ 05:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Review @ talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Tho' I'm not very good at these sort of things, I fixed most of them I hope. Tell me if I did anything wrong, please. Wow, "done"-ing the reviews people write are really fun! :P I hope there are more, whenever I fix them and write "done" I feel so happy as if an itch is finally off me. ♥ Belinda ♥ 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extend for one week: There's currently no consensus to promote or not promote, however the work and effort has been put in so it would be unfair to just straight 'no' it. So let's extend if for a week and see if we can find ourselves a consensus :) Goblin 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Any more comments/suggestions? Anyone? I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good for GA right now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article lacks way too many references for GA. I left some comments on the talk page. Megan|^talk_changes 22:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to most of Megan's comments with changes. I am neutral on the key question. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More changes have been made. I must say, the huge number of changes since this RFA was proposed shows quite clearly that the article was initially nowhere near the required standard, as I indicated early on. A great deal of effort has made the article fairly good, but I am now too close to it to have a vote. The article now needs a period of stability, and I suggest contributors use the talk page if they see any more problems. I can virtually guarantee the accuracy of the moves and rules now, and I think the references are adequate. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Macdonald-ross. This fails criteria 5 for Wiki: Requirements for good articles in my opinion. The changes over the last month to the article have been more than minor. I think it needs to sit for a bit before being renominated. There are still redlinks to be filled, wikilinks on complex words (resign, for example), and clean up on formatting to be done. Either way (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people say it is bad, but I think it's good enough now. I fixed most of Megan and Pmlineditor's criticisms. I hope it's ready now! Do you think so? ♥ Belinda ♥ 12:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most does not equal all. It is not ready. It does not meet criteria 5, for sure. And there are lots of other concerns with formatting and references. Either way (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close as not promoted: Still criteria that need to be met, in particular number 5. I suggest getting further comments from those who have commented here, making the needed changes and then come back once it has been left a while with no major changes. Bluegoblin7 ∞

Bobby Dodd

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

I transwikied Bobby Dodd from en:Bobby Dodd (where it is a good article) a few weeks ago and have done my best at simplifying it and getting it to Simple Wikipedia standards. I do not claim that it is perfect, but I would appreciate input on how to get it to Good Article status if it is not already there. I think it is comprehensive and meets our criteria. Either way (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At first glance, the lead seems a bit complex to me. For example, "he worked as an assistant coach under William Alexander at Georgia Tech starting in 1931" is a bit unwieldy for even a native English speaker. I can type out a full list of comments if you'd like. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a full list would be appreciated if/when you have the time. Thanks, Either way (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a little bit of work to the lead in an attempt to simplify it. Either way (talk)

Way to complex for GA. Work on it and re-nominate it later.--Sinbad (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about what's complex about it? Its readability scores are in a good range and I believe that all the more complex words are linked. What do you find complex in this article? Either way (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Left a review at the talk page. Cheers –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Left a review at the talk page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have fully addressed both Juliancolton and The Rambling Man's concerns they listed on the talk page. Any other reviews or comments would be helpful, thanks, Either way (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left a couple of concerns on the talk page. Once these are fixed, I have no problem with this article becoming a GA. Megan|^talk_contribs 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two concerns have been fixed. Either way (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe it is now ready to be a GA. Meganmccarty ∞ 19:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. The article has changed greatly since it came to Simple, and it looks excellent. Classical Esther^♣ 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: It's run it's time, it's in good shape, and there's been a couple of votes in support. Extending it would be silly... Goblin 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

Mary II of England

Mary II of England (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hello, everyone! I've expanded this article from a bio-stub with information from the English Wikipedia (where it is an FA), section by section. I've created most of the red links (at first there were about ten) and simplified it thoroughly to the best of my ability. I believe it is good enough for GA. A review would be great. Thank you. Heaven's blessings, Classical Esther^♣ 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did a wonderful work with the red links and your simplification still needs a bit of work, but it was pretty awesome! I still tried to leave a good review, but it just came out as some crabby old sentences that sounded messy and nonsensical as if I was just trying to make the article look bad (though I can never do so ;). Well, I have no worries of you done-ing them all. ♥ Belinda ♥ 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and you're right! Thank you for your review, Belinda. I've   fixed all of them. Classical Esther^♣ 02:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can say no more but just stand with my jaw hanging open and nothing to say ;). This article is recently one of the best PGAs I've ever seen. I think it's just about ready to pass straight in, if there isn't a more specific review anyone smarter can do. Wow. ♥ Belinda ♥ 05:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Megan and Peterdownunder were so good as to put up some comments yesterday, and they are all   fixed. :) --Classicalina|^talk_tea 02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and well-written article. Could be a bit simpler in some places, but overall good for GA. Nicely done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and help on simplifying the article! —Classical Esther 06:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all the concerns fixed, I believe this article is GA worthy. Megan ( ^t/_c ) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some problems: berate, inconsistency, executed, vacant, annul, negotiation, proclamation, criticize, uprising, removal and endow don't exist on Wiktionary. While some redlinks are fine, so many redlinked defs are okay for me. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I either changed or explained in parentheses the struck words above. I was not able to change the rest, however. Megan ( ^t/_c ) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Pmlineditor, for your review, and Megan for your excellent help! I've either created (very clumsy) entries on Wiktionary for the complex words I've linked to there, linked it to articles in Wikipedia, or explained in parentheses what it means. I hope the concerns you have stated have been fixed. Sincerely, —Classical Esther^talk 01:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read over it one last time and I think it's pretty good enough now. Although there are a few things I still think would look better with, I believe it's still okay for GA... Not that I'm having a prejudice for my sister or anything... Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As previous editor i believe this article is GA ready.--Barnaby (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further problems: "Legacy" isn't a simple word. Change it to a simpler one. Why is "In Film & Television" under a third header? Why are the actor names bolded? Also, in ref 15, the accessdate is linked as a whole, while in the other refs, the date and year are separately linked. Be consistent. Dissenter and abdicate have no entries in Wiktionary. These need to be fixed before this article is promoted. I don't have much time at the moment, so I can't get to a thorough review. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the header and the words "dissenter" and "abdicate". However, I tried to find a simpler word for "Legacy", but I couldn't find one. I believe the actors names are in bold because that's how they are over at enWP. The date in the ref can't be fixed unless something is done to the template (I'm not an expert with templates, so I won't mess with it). Megan ( ^t/_c ) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both so much for your invaluable comments and help! I put "Film & Television" under "Legacy" because it's part of the (media) legacy she left behind - and because it was done that way at en - but if you think it's more accurate this way, I have no objections with it. I can't think of a simpler word than "legacy" either. I bolded the names of the actresses because they did so at en, but I'll change it if necessary. As for the template, I've just fixed it. Thanks again, and cordially, —Classical Esther^talk 03:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Tough call to make, would ordinarily have been an extend but it's already had the extension time so, in my opinion and in the sense of fairness etc, it's a no promote. Taking a look through the hist and what not too, it wasn't in a promote shape when it was due to close. Please take a look at any outstanding issues, let the diffs settle down a bit (Minor changes) then re-nominate. :) Goblin 22:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

Davy Crockett

Davy Crockett (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Copied from en and simplified. Several different editors have put some work into it and it's changed significantly since it's come over. The reading levels are reasonable, but maybe a little higher than ideal, possibly because of some of the sources used. Kansan (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some improvement, I would be happy to support. I have left a partial review at the talk page. Classical Esther^♣ 10:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I improved it and fixed a few of the issues from the review. I hope I helped, but still there are a few left to be   fixed, which is impossible for me to do. I hope Kansan can fix it! ♥ Belinda ♥ 12:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kansan & Belinda have fixed most of the concerns I have listed in my first review. I've put up a few more on the talk page. Great job, everyone! Classical Esther^♣ 02:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed one or two, but there's still a ton to go which I don't think I can do. I'll try, though! ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way has put up another list of comments for making the article better. I've been trying to fix them up, and so have Belinda and Kansan, but there's still a few left to be taken care of. Classical Esther^♣ 23:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own comments added. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Closed as not promoted: Still outstanding work and not in GA shape, nor has it got any consensus to promote. Please work on the article and come back at a later date :) Goblin 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Rise Against

Rise Against (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Copied over from en. Its simplified to the 8-9 grade. It looks well formatted and has a good number of refs, and has very few red links. I well continue to create the red links as well. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 13:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs some work here and there. Other than that, it's on track for GA and probably VGA after that Purplebackpack89 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Griffinofwales[reply]
Left some comments on talk page. Meganmccarty ∞ 16:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to all. Some I have questions about. They are the ones that are not marked   Done mccon99 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to your questions. Cheers, Megan|^talk_changes 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Maybe now we can make a consensus? mccon99 15:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended by One Week: Seems issues are fixed, so extended by one week to allow a consensus to form. Goblin 15:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

• Question: What do you mean by the sentence "They made it in 1999." in the first para? Pmlineditor ∞ 15:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed —Classical Esther 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are problems with some refs. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed broken linked refs. It should be good now. :) I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the refs! However, ref number 40 is still forbidden so that it can't be viewed. Can this be fixed? —Classical Esther^talk 11:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Esther: I clicked the ref and it works to me. Maybe it just doesn't work on your computer. Well, anyway, other than that.... All looks pretty good, though a few more fixes of red links could be done please, it looks good enough for GA overall. Though I don't like rock, ;P, the article itself looks in good enough shape. ♥ Belinda ♥ 08:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's funny. It didn't work a little while ago, but it does now. I can't think of any other glaring objections to the article. Excellent work! I think it's ready for GA now. —Classical Esther^talk 08:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else, anybody? I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 14:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a bunch of stuff from me on the talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have a question on no. 3. Thanks, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And 15. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 13:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Outstanding work, was a close call when it got the extension and there's still changes to be made, suggesting that it didn't meet one of the criterion (I can't remember the exact one, and am too tired/lazy to look!). Please work on the comments made and then come back another time :) Goblin 22:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

United Kingdom

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

One of the better nation articles in Simple Wiki Simple English. Its in simple english but still comprehensive on the subject. Barnaby (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too poorly referenced for GA. Only the lead and infobox have references. Megan ( ^t/_c ) 17:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to agree. I don't think I can support this for GA yet. Doesn't have enough references, and some sections need expanding and a lot of simplifying. Why don't you try taking a look at India, another nation GA? I think it could give you a lot of ideas for improvement on the article. :) Cordially, —Classical Esther^talk 07:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as not promoted. This has far too much work needed to pass any time soon. The nominator is, again, reminded to read the requirements of a good article and focus on nominating only one article at a time. Either way (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway

Natalee Holloway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Has becomed a good article after improvements by me and some other users,comprehensive about the subject. I believe that this one could be GA ready. Barnaby (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really want to assume good faith, and not sound bitey or anything, but may I venture to ask one question: is Barnaby the sockpuppet of Sinbad? Or maybe this is just a silly imagining of mine... Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 03:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sinbad is not blocked or anything so being under another account would not be an inappropriate use of a sockpuppet. Also, this is not the appropriate place to be discussing this. Either way (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far too complex right now. Needs a lot of simplification to get to good article status. Either way (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think I have to agree that the article is too complex at present to be a GA. —Classical Esther^talk 00:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW close as not promoted: Too complex too, and doesn't seem to meet the elusive criteria that I can't remember! (Should probably look it up...). I remind the nominator to look at the GA criteria. Goblin 16:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

Tree

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

I took some parts from en, simplified, and expanded it from a stub to 17.8KB. PiRSquared17 16:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, from a first glance, there are way too many red links, even for a good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To start, to many red links and not enough blue links. The section Damage doesn't even have one link. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only had a quick look, but this article has a few issues:
1. In what way is a tree different from a shrub? - Are all shrubs trees and a all trees shrubs?
2. Roots are not necessarily under ground; an example for a tree which does not have all roots under ground is the Mangrove.
3. Roots can have other functions than carrying nutrititents and water.
4. Manual of style issues: In a dictionary, you, or we has no place.
5. Most of the article is a bigger-better-faster style (tallest, oldest,... trees)
6. The biology-related section lacks references (and accuracy)
These are just a few issues I found in like ten minutes; I am sure I could find more if I had a closer look. At the moment, I would'nt even consider this close to GA. --Eptalon (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed first and second. iRSquared17 14:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and third... PiRSquared17 17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and fourth and sixth. What is wrong with the fifth? PiRSquared17 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably encyclopedic, see how many other GA-quality articles you find which consist of "trivia", to that extent? --Eptalon (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can be proven. PiRSquared17 19:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is wrong with that. PiRSquared17 22:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... PiRSquared17 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody clarify? PiRSquared17 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He means that the list of oldest, tallest, etc. is too much trivia for a good article. I agree. This should be significantly cut down and mostly eliminated. Also, please have patience. People are not going to response to you right away, and posting every few hours here makes you look incredibly needy. Either way (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It/They is on the enwp article. PiRSquared17 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent):We're not enwp. Either way (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is not for me, by a long way. Far too much imported, covered in red links, too much detail, no coherent style: varies from the naive "not like humans" to obsessive detail. This is one of many proposals which are put up in an impossible state. Once here, they take up valuable time which would be better spent on proposals which are already in good shape. The key question an editor needs to ask, and answer, is 'what do we need from this topic in this particular wiki?' Much, much less would be a start. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, PirSquared, but I think I have to agree. The concerns raised are certainly valid, and the article still isn't simple enough (most of the grades are around 12th, while some are at 14th); it has lots of complex words (and not all of them are scientific), and lots of sentences are unreferenced or doesn't fit MOS. Keep up the good work, however. :) Kindly, —Classical Esther^talk 07:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as not promoted. Too much work to do and the nominator has said he has no intention to follow through on the nomination. Either way (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)

Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Simplified from the enwiki article (going to attribute it in a bit) which is a GA. I know that there are multiple red links, but those will be attended to. Note that the plot section is unreferenced, and I can't do much to help it, unless you want me to cite IMDB. I should note that it is the general convention in enwp not to cite plot summaries. Comments are welcome. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just left a few comments on the talk page. I'll do a more thorough review when I can find time. As for the plot being without references, it seems fine. :) It seems to be an interesting, well-written article with plenty of potential. —Classical Esther^talk 12:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On first glance, it looks fairly well done and simplified. Hopefully this weekend I can sit down and give you a thorough review. Good work so far, Pmlineditor. Either way (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just put up a few more comments on the talk page. :) I have no doubt you'll be able to fix all of them excellently. If there are any left, I'll try to fix them myself. Great job fixing the earlier concerns, Pmlineditor! —Classical Esther^talk 01:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm afraid there are some broken wikt links that you have to improve, such as faithful, irritate, brag, and dedicate. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few broken wikt links are okay, just like a few red links are okay in a GA, though of course, the less the better. —Classical Esther^talk 08:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left a review there for you Pmlineditor. Hope it's not too overwhelming :) Either way (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well done, Pmlineditor. It seems fit now. :) Nifky^{^} 09:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's ready now as well. :) Excellent work! Warmly, —Classical Esther^talk 12:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted - The concerns seems to be fixed. The article looks fine. A good work. I hope for the next such an article. --Barras ^talk 13:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross

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

I've simplified it from enwiki, and fixed as much red links as possible. I hope it's okay to become a GA? Comments and criticism please. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 07:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small bit of simplifying would be good. And in the Breeding and dancing section, link it up! I found many things that could be linked but were not. Examples: dancing, islands, black, all the measures used (ft, oz, etc), and more. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 14:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have simplified this from en, how come there is no attribution anywhere? If you took this from the en. article, it needs to be credited, otherwise this will be deleted as a copyright violation otherwise this will be reverted to the way it was prior to your additions. Either way (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you dear Either Way. I have put in the template of enwp based on the talk page of Albatross. And I-on: I am   Doing... what you have told me to, thank you for your helpful comments. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 04:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I   Fixed this article according to Ian's requirements. I hope it is good enough now? :) It didn't work because of the {{convert}} template. So, well, now I undid all the templates and wrote it myself, and then linked it. I am also simplifying it as much as I can. Happy editing and God bless, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 07:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments on the first half, on the article's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I   Fixed them all. Thank you for the review. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made changes to the intro, and left suggestions on the article's talk page. Amandajm (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is ready at this time. A review and some other unaddressed comments have sat on the talk page for about two weeks now. There are a lot of issues that I can see in terms of writing and style (I see some one sentence paragraphs, the breeding/dancing section is very long as compared to others, there are sentences that start back to back with "The bill" or have "is large" in back to back sentences). It's a ways off right now, I think, in terms of writing. Since this has been up for about a month now, and since comments/reviews have gone unaddressed on the talk page for two weeks now, I think this might need to be closed as stale and brought up at a later time. Either way (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you really think so, feel free to close it. :) There is absolutely no way I can do what Admanjm told me to do, and otherwise I know it can't pass. I always respect your opinion, and whatever you say must be right. Maybe I can propose it again later when I can find a way to fix it. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not promoted: All concerns not handled+nominator has said they will not be able to fix the problems in any time soon. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

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

Although it is over-written and needs a bit of simplification, I believe that that's all it really needs, and that it should be promoted to good article status once the uncanny resemblance to the English Wikipedia article is no longer. Most red-links fixed, material is sourced verifiably, and categories and templates are appropriately placed. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't place an article here which is full of problems and covered with flags. You put it here when you've worked out all the problems, and honestly believe it will meet the criteria. This article should not be considered at present, for those reasons. It is not in the ball-park. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Work on the tags and simplification and then bring it back. Once this is done, I can see it coming out successfully. Happy editing, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 11:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Ian and Macdonald-ross: I don't think this article is quite ready yet. —Clementina talk 08:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily closed as not promoted: Nowhere near a GA, and concerns not fixed either. Of course, nominations are welcome but please nominate an almost good article rather than an important article in future. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

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

This seems to be a fairly well-written article, and I have tried to fix most of the redlinks so that they point in the proper direction. Even though it still needs improvement for it to be a really really very good article, I think that it would still qualify as a good article, considering how many people worked on this project. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification is the first thing that needs work. It is about 11.6. I haven't looked at the article very well yet, but work at simplifying first. Happy editing, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 11:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Closed as not promoted: Articles should be "nearly good" when they are promoted, and have already gone through a number of revisions towards GA status. I do not believe that this article has, so it's a "Not promoted" SNOW for now. Please make some more work on this article, then feel free to re-nominate. Goblin 14:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Banana

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

I know we are far from the Spanish-language article, but i think the article is a good start to be made a good article (note it is not complete, and still has many things to complete). What would you think about making it a good article? --Eptalon (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well written, Eptalon!--However there are not enough references. I left a short review on talk page. Happy Changing! Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So have I. :) I'll see if I can find more once these are fixed. Good work on the article! —Classical Esther^talk 12:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Lack of input and the concerns (references) don't appear to have been met. Please review the criteria before nominating further articles. Goblin 13:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Chess

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

Second time around for this one. I-on and myself are main contributors; many others have chipped in. Readability v.g. for a technical article. Details of explanations are now more accurate and consistent; computers & chess section expanded since previous. Reading list tailored to target audience. We take the target to be young learners, plus any teachers or parents helping them (most people who learn chess do so under the age of 10). Refs sound. Content stable; recent edits mostly tweaks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked at the content yet, but a quick check shows it has 7 bare references (5, 25, 31-36). References 22 and 18 don't have publisher information. Fix these and then I'll review the article. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the two references you mentioned, 22 and 18. However, I'm not sure of the meaning "bare references" or if I can fix them. Could you explain it more specifically please? Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 10:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All refs now   Fixed I think... Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Ref 27 seems to be a bare ref though, maybe you could fix that? I'll get to an in-depth review soon. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed ref number 27. I have a question, by the bye...is there a reason why there isn't an infobox about chess? —Classical Esther^talk 12:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Esther's question: there is a games infobox on enWP, but it's not much good, and at present can't be transferred. Sometimes info boxes improve articles, sometimes they don't. What would one put into it? Can't think! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Macdonald-ross. Infoboxes are pretty to my idea, and they make the article look very "official", but I don't think there is anything to really put into it here. However, I do like the picture on the most top of the enwiki article. Maybe we can change the picture on this one to the one like the enwiki. It looks more clean and more elegant.... But I suppose I am too picky. :) I have no great objections to the present form however, just some silly, unimportant preferences. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. An infobox wouldn't do much to help, as all the info in the box probably somewhere in the article and in more depth. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some complex phrases. I'll add a list to the talkpage in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed RM's list on talk page now really fixed... Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short section on 'touch & move' added. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made 2 tweaks to the new section. See the edit summary for details. Overall, great job Macdonald. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 12:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thank you Ian and Macdonald-ross! I am sure I more than want to help; but I don't know a thing about chess articles. However I will try to improve it as much as I can. To me, it looks good enough for GA status now, but of course others may think differently. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its ready as well. Ι-ση // _{ταlκ ραge}^ψ 23:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Great work! There's not as many "Supports" as there have been for other promotions, but I don't see that to be a reason not to promote, nor any reason not to promote. Congratulations! Goblin 13:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Bald Eagle

Bald Eagle (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've been simplifying this from enwiki, and I think it's ready to become a GA now. However, I would be glad to fix a few more comments anybody puts up, so please feel free to criticize. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a few comments on the talk page; generally looks good, but don't try to overdo the "sentence structure" simplification. Another point which needs work is to find the words that are both simple, and accurate. More on the article's talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, so much, for the comments, I fixed most of it. Because of my lack of English, I am afraid it still sounds a bit awkward. I will continue working on it and hopefully it can pass. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 09:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a fairly long review on the talk page. I will review more once these are fixed. Cheers, Megan ( ^t/_c ) 14:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The longer the better. :) My whole thoughts were occupied with the whole business of fixing them, and I have finally finished almost all - I hope you are satisfied with my changes. Thank you for the review, and perhaps there will be more afterwards to change. Happy editing, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) I'm always happy to help. Your changes look good so far, so I have left another long review on the talk page. Cheers, Megan ( ^t/_c ) 16:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your next review was very helpful; and Esther and I have fixed most of them. I will be waiting for more. Thank you, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 01:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments on the talk page. Once these are fixed, I believe this article to be GA worthy. :) Megan ( ^t/_c ) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed almost all of them, and will get to the few left later. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Ian fixed the rest. :) Hope it's ready now? Warmly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 12:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: This is more a 'time out' close rather than a not promoted to be honest, but nominations that time out are usually because they weren't 'nearly ready' when they were nominated. Feel free to work on it some more and then re-nominate. Goblin 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Pug

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

I've been working on this article a bit recently, and although it's pretty short, it's loaded with refs (as I brought it over from enwiki and simplified it), and I would like to hear if it's ready. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 09:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Belinda, on expanding the article. :) There are two things I found on a quick see-through: firstly, the dates need to be linked consistently; secondly, reference number 26 seems to be dead. I'll try to write a more thorough review when I can. Cordially, —Clementina talk 09:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I   Fixed the dead ref. :) The dates are already linked, I believe, or am I understanding the concern right? And I hope you can find time to put a review on the talk page. Will be expecting some soon. Warmly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 09:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You see, Belinda, some of the refs are wholly linked (for example, [[2 July 2009]]), while some are linked separately ([[2 July]] [[2009]]). It has to be the same all through the article. —Clementina talk 09:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've proofread the article. Please correct me if I have made anything more complex. By the way, it seems as if in the process of simplifying the article, you are slightly altering the meaning of some statements in the article. Codedon (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just removed some POV-ish things. I still reads a bit POV-ish. Haven't reviewed it for GA yet, just read it for the stub cup. -Barras ^talk 09:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much to like about this page. It does rather skate round the issue of inherited defects. This is a big issue: are breeders so obsessed with meeting the Kennel Club's 'points' for the breed that they overdo the inbreeding? What responsible breeders do is outcross every few generations. This keeps the fitness at the expense of the text-book 'points'. And also, from a litter breeders keep the best ones... This is dark stuff, but maybe the page should face it more openly. There are bound to be web sites on this issue. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thanks, Macdonald-ross. That review is so kind! Dark stuff? :P I would rather not write those "dark stuff" on there my self, though, so if you really think it is very necessary to mention, please feel free to do it. I thank you once again for your sweet attentativeness. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended by one week: There is a lack of sufficient consensus imo to close this PGA either way at the current point in time. I'm therefore extending the discussion time by one week from the original closure date, meaning that this PGA will now close on July 19th - if there is still a sufficient lack of discussion I suggest it be closed as an unsuccessful "non-consensus", however any other user is welcome to re-extend before me. :-) Goblin 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

• Overall, I like the article. You have done a good job on it. I think it is close to good status.

A few things I noticed:

1. I would like to see some entries in the infobox under Traits.
2. The infobox links for FCI and ANKC are broken. (Both are also broken on en:wikipedia)
3. The image Clara von Wille's Hunde vor der Hütte (1880) seems like it should be in the 18th and 19th centuries section. The image Pugs can get overweight could be moved up to its place.
4. In the section, Common conditions, the sentence "About 63.8% of pugs were caught with hip dysplasia." does not sound right. Maybe develop or have hip dysplasis?

Macdonald-ross brings up a good point. There is a dark side to dog breeding. But I don't know if this is the place to raise the issue. Perhaps an article on dog breeding is needed.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself raised the issue, and was quite right to do so. However, now all readers will think "Why is it that all these problems occur with the health of Pugs?" This is a question the page must answer, and fully. I'm sorry, but I don't think it can go forward as it is. A good article must cover the ground properly. It is a case for withrawing, and representing it later. As I said, there is much that's good in the page, but this issue is just too important to avoid. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: There was lack of sufficient community consensus to promote, and some objections which were raised were not fixed by the nominator. :) I'm sorry, it was a nice article. Please work on it, and if you feel all the objections have been fixed, you can renominate. Kindly, —Clementina talk 02:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States

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

I think that this is pretty good. 80+KB total, including over 140 refs. I'm nomming this for GA, but if you think it could be VGA with only a little more work, tell me here, there or yonder Purplebackpack89 18:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good idea. The problems are: it have some red links (I think you can improve it) and in references I find that we have problem wit one (cite article, do we have the template?). If you fix the problem, it will became VGA (I think so). Nataly8 (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that if the article became GA, we can propose it for VGA. That's my opinion. Very good job :) Nataly8 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size, and the absence of red-links, VGA is definitely an option (note, I did not look at the content, otherwise) --Eptalon (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn to persue VGA Purplebackpack89 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as withdrawn EhJJ^TALK 01:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France

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

Used to be a GA but no longer met the standards of the others. Since Peer review seems pretty inactive, I thought I'd bring it here. A few red links need doing, and a few sections require refs, and slight expansion for VGA, but apart from that, doesn't look too bad to me. Yottie ^=talk= 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yots, left a quick review on the talk page. :) You don't need to fix ones that you think is silly or unreasonable. Thanks, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 06:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I'll have a look now. Regards, Yottie ^=talk= 09:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a review. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 10:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.   Doing... Yottie ^=talk= 11:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good work on fixing my review. :) As soon as you finish doing PM's articles, I think it's pretty much ready for GA. Cheers, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I think PM may have to reviewv some of the content. Yottie ^=talk= 08:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me - (>ಠ_ಠ)>The King<(^.^<) (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a proposal which, personally, I welcome. I will think about it over the next few days. It is still a bit thin on culture. France has been the greatest home of fine art for over a hundred years from, say, 1850 to 1950. This includes sculpture and painting. Outstanding literature. Innovation in cuisine has influenced half the world (starting with Bonaparte). Wine very important. Mediaeval history a bit thin, also. I note no mention of one political innovation: de Gaul's idea of giving representation in the Parliament to representatives from ex-colonies. Also might mention France's anti-Americanism as the consequence of the vigorous defence of its own language and culture. Well, these are just first thoughts. Much improved from the previous presentation. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues not addressed. As it is, I don't think it makes the grade. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It have many redlinks. We have to fix it. Nataly8 (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted - Macdonald-ross' issues aren't fixed yet. There is no consensus to promote this. Please work out the remaining problems and come back to re-propose this! -Barras (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Earth

Future of the Earth (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

From enwiki, I have simplified and cut out some of the techy detail. I think it could earn GA here. —I-20the highway 00:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just from a quick glance, I see far too many redlinks and ref errors. Please fix these. Either way (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get this going today and tomorrow.   Doing... —I-20the highway 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One article created, more to do. —I-20the highway 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All ref errors resolved, redlinks is a todo —I-20the highway 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll leave a review soon. It seems pretty well written, if only a few things could be fixed here and there. And just a thought... Why doesn't the article have the {{enwp based}} template? It's simplified from enwiki, after all. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsuitable at present. Too much of an enWP textdump. Almost everything needs simplification and explanation. Above all, not stable. Should be withdrawn, worked on and re-presented much later. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to wrinkle out the edges. And yes, I have attributed enwiki. —I-20the highway 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's good. But yes, as Macdonald-ross said, it does need a bit more simplifying... some of the words are really complex. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just left a review on the talk page. Hope you finish it in time so it can be promoted. :) Cheers, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a very disorganised page, really needs to be rewritten. At present it deals with all sorts of things in any old order. Long-term and short-term; things that are certain and suppositions; details and broad view. It doesn't know where it's going. You have to ask whether the topic is not just too big for a short page on Simple. Is it sane to try and deal with ecology of the next century with stellar evolution over 5000 million years? I know quite a bit about the underlying science of the Earth, but I would not dream of writing such a page.
  Unfortunately, many of the problems are caused by using the enWP article as a text-dump. Misled by its GA on enWP (it is far the worst GA I have ever seen there) our proposer thought he was on safe ground. If asked how to proceed, I would have to say What is the objective? Are we asking: when will life end on Earth? Are we asking what will happen to the Sun? Are we asking what is going to happen to the ecology of the Earth in the next 100 years? It would be difficult to write a good page on any of these, but it's quite impossible to write a good article on all of them at once. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've went ahead and blew up the page (now about 5,000 bytes or so). —I-20the highway 22:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For such a short article are even the small numbers of redlinks too much. The only two sections start with "Main article:...". This article is far too short for GA. The article is completely unsuitable for my taste. -Barras (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not promoted The consensus here is against promoting it and the concerns mentioned haven't been fixed. It's not promoted to GA status, but you can of course work on the article and nominate it again. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]