Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 6

Requests

Ten Commandments

Ten Commandments (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I'm suggesting this as it looks promising, and I think it can be done in the two weeks available. We have at least 2 editors which might have this right up their street, so I thought (well... Epty thought) that we'd give it a shot! Comments please! Gob lin 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be the only one with this problem in this article. But the section "The problem with images of God" seems to (for a lack of a better term) contradict the Bible in some parts. Which since it is about something in the bible I think it should describe it accurately. My point is it says "Jesus in his human form" but the fact remains it says in the bible that God made us in his own likeness which mean he has human features as does Jesus.-- † CM ₁₆ 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't writing this from a Christian point of view. Your view contradicts with Wikipedia's fundamental policy: WP:NPOV. Anyway, this article isn't ready. There is simplification needed and citation needed tags to be addressed. Not quite yet, but good work. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said we were writing it from a Christian POV, and don't think we should. Try actually reading what I wrote and then maybe you can understand what I meant.-- † CM ₁₆ 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very basic point: The Catholic Church shows many images of God, the Grandfather-type, as shown in the Sistine chapel image is quite common - Churches that have been influenced by Protestant/Reformed/Calvinist/Lutheran traditions usually have a much stricter view of this (they don't show images of God at all, and only very rarely show images of Saints in their Churches. All are invited to help to make this a GA; the original estimate was 2 weeks for GA, then we can see what we need for a possible VGA nomination. --Eptalon (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) My intent was not to silence discussion: CM16 - If you think the passage does not accurately reflect the situation, please change it; but keep in mind that we also talk about Jewish and Muslim understandings. Once this is GA (meaning one step further), I want it ot become comparable to the enwp aricle, which is three times the size of our current article. --Eptalon (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiased and quick review placed on the talkpage. Strikes me this is quite a way short of GA right now unless people are happy to roll up sleeves and crack on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like much effort has been put into the article since the nomination. At the very least, the maintenance tags need to be addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

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

I'm curious, how close is this to GA? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 23:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is almost a GA, and I've left some comments on the talk page. TheAE talk 00:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some things. Looks good to me. Barras (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's "only" GA but there are a number of things I think that need to be fixed. I'll leave an extensive list on the talk page in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One list there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

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

Controversial subject, probably still quite a bit of work to get us there. Just wanted to flag this candidate early on, so the workload can be shared. Noted a number of issues on its talk page. Note: This is not the voting section yet. --Eptalon (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. I'd like to see a section on the mixed laws about and positions on Abortion added. (How's that for unbiased)-- † CM ₁₆ 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad at all, If I add the discussion section form enwp, the article will roughly double in size, Should we do that for GA, or wait for it for the VGA stage? --Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe that helps keep NPOV, adding that section.-- † CM ₁₆ 20:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Added the two more common arguments (can the fetus feel pain, and the breast cancer hypothesis). Both probably need simplifying. Did not add the relation to crime (as there is no link), or the Mexico City policy (it is specific to the US, and not directly related to abortion). I invite all of you to collaborate on this article. The EnWP article is about twice the size of ours, so if you feel something is missing, do not be afraid to bring it over, but remember to keep the refs, and to simplify it so our audience can understand it. --Eptalon (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are problems here, and it's down to the use of Simple English. Edits such as this try to simplify the text, yet they add a POV. The arguments about fetus v unborn child on EN go on for archive after archive. That change is more than just simplification, sadly. Soup Dish (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page. All at the top of the article, embryo and foetus are explained (depending on how long the pregnancy has gone on). That particular edit would have had to say foetus or embryo, which as per article talk page was replaced by unborn child (this is only one such edit, please note I made many others; if all went as planned, we only have unborn child now, except in citations (where the correct article title is citied), and at the beginning where these terms are defined. --Eptalon (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the effort that has gone into the article, and I think the solution found does work. I just think it's harder to accept it as a GA because of the workaround with the wording. Fine as an article, though. Others may differ, and I should stress I take no "moral" position on this one way or the other! Soup Dish (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it helps, you could add a paragraph somewhere that for the interest of avoiding complexity (and bias?) the phrase unborn child is used except where foetus/embryo are defined, and on citations? --Eptalon (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastide

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

I think it's worth another go for GA. I have spent some time simplifying the Charta which was the main concern last time. PeterSymonds, noted there were too many book refs at the bottom, that need dealing with. There are also a few red links which will take no time at all to do. Overall, a nice article. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some work is still needed.
Lead needs to be expanded.
It doesn't look like the heaps of books has been cleaned up yet, so this needs to be addressed.
More inline citations.
Some of the language is rather complex (eg. "fortified").
Complex language such as "What became of bastides?".
A couple redlinks.

Nice job overall, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a more comprehensive review of this article, but right now it's not a GA. Forgive my brevity, time is short but I'll do my best to be more explicit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wijerd Jelckama

Wijerd Jelckama (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've reviewed the article and fixed the changes myself. Would be nice if someone else could have a look too. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an initial look and made changes (see history); I'll reread it tomorrow and do another sweep. (It is looking good though) fr33kman ^talk 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Some things on the talk page. Barras (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have a very different PGA. It's in a half-decent state. I'll review it thoroughly and hopefully make some modifications which will make it a worthy voting candidate in a week or so's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It fits all the criteria now. You guys have been working on it and it has improved even more. I know it is not a very long article, but it is longer then 3.5kb as it should be so that shouldn't be an issue. I say: let the voting begin! Mighty Wodan (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, I find that the language used may be too complex for some of the readers of Simple, particularly in the Rebellion section. Other than this, there are no formatting problems, but I do not think the article is ready as is. Malinaccier (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad but some manual of style stuff for me (such as use of hyphen/en-dash). Notes and references section need to be made consistent, i.e. no bare URLs. Per Malinaccier, some complexity needs addressing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two wiktionary links do not have a page to link to: petty and fruitfull, I'd fix it now but it's late. Maybe tomorrow --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't even think "fruitfull" is a real word. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven

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

Hi all. After a failed PVGA (here) I just want to try a PGA. I hope the article meets our GA criteria. All comments are welcome. Barras (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barras! The Rambling Man's askance for references in English hold true for PGA, imo. Other than that, I think this is an excellent candidate for GA and one that I can support; if the references are fixed. Betthoven is a very well known figure, English sources must be easy to come by. I'll have a look also. fr33kman ^talk 02:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few refs and will probably do so later. If at least 75% of the refs are in English, it'll surely become a GA and possibly a VGA. Pmlinediter ^Talk 08:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

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

I first saw the article while searching for DYK hooks and noticed that it was good. After reading it through, I've decided to try for a PGA. All comments are welcome. Regards, Pmlinediter ^Talk 10:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good candidate for PGA. It does need some work, but I think with a little effort this can become a GA. I'll make some notes tonight and post recommendations tomorrow on its talk page. Good catch! fr33kman ^talk 02:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs need to be formatted correctly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain JC? Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he's referring to the fact that they don't use {{cite web}}? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the article and all of the refs use {{cite web}}. I would appreciate if JC explains. Pmlinediter ^Talk 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citations currently provide only the title; they need author, publisher, publication date, and accessdate info. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Boris (1996)

Hurricane Boris (1996) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Very simple and I fell its read for GAN. Evan (talk)

Where are the wikilinks? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive work (if not a complete rewrite) is necessary. I left some comments at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read it, because there is a complex tag. This is a no-go. And the wikilinks are completely missing. Barras (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors exist as well as cleanup tags. No chance of being promoted lest it is attended to immediately. Pmlin editor 17:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground 1967 Stock

London Underground 1967 Stock (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I know its got a fair way to go yet, but guidance as to what there is so far and as I add things would be appreciated. Many thanks, Gob lin 18:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I don't like the tool, but the article is too short ([1]). Please expand it. Barras (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some things on the talk page of the article. Barras (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done stuff on the talk page, and expanded - I believe it meets the length requirements now. Regards, Gob lin 10:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Other editors have dropped by this article and simplified it further, i'd like to ask for more input as to what state it is in now. Thanks, Gob lin 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

The article is definitivly too short: From our criteria:The article must have a certain length. A minimum is 3.5 kilobytes, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. There is no use in denoting very short articles as good. This article has a prose text of about 3.06. That's not enough. 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wernher von Braun

Wernher von Braun (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi there. I know there are some redlinks, but the article is is good I think. It needs probably a spell and grammar checking. I hope for comments. Regards Barras (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the headings, grammar, & did some other general clean up. hmwith τ 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. My english is sometimes not the best :) Barras (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hi all! I want to present Adolf Hitler for a good article. I'll add in the next few days a few references for the last two section. I feel, that this article can become one of our good articles. Barras (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some redlinks for articles on which a subject exists (created a few redirects and changed the links) and I copyedited a bit. However, I still think that it could be simplified a bit more. There are some complex words given without explanations. hmwith τ 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post the complex words on the talk pgae, please? Thanks Barras (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've now done so. hmwith τ 14:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

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

I'd like to see what work needs to be done; I feel I can help it become a GA. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 18:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is tagged with {{complex}}. I review the article after this is fixed. Please ping me, then. Barras (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've simplified it, and BG7 is checking to make sure it is simple enough. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left some comments on the talk page; a lot of work is left to be done.--Eptalon (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many issues. I've left my comments here. fr33kman ^talk 00:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why articles like this are being proposed. The article should be brought up to standard before being listed here, as we're extremely short on reviewers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not being an article reviewer by trade, I brought it here because I wanted to know what entailed getting it up to GA status. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps WP:PR should be re-opened? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, PR immediately. I'm ready to review it. Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot of work in my opinion. History section is entirely unreferenced. The Belluci image is gratuitously forked in, no need at all, Other pages section contains mainly pages which don't exist, which I think is unhelpful, six external links is over the top, one's dead, 3 of the last 4 are trash, the first two are just about okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 117

British Rail Class 117 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Nominating this one for GA, please come and review the article and i'll fix anything that is flagged up. Regards, Gob lin 17:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

Some comments left on the talk page. Barras (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Later operations section is entirely unreferenced. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than one line of prose is needed. :P Shappy ^talk 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I should probably withdraw this as I removed most of the content... but I should have it re-added soon-ish. It was copied from EN and highly inaccurate (i've been restoring one of these vehicles for about two years now, i'm a bit of a pro on them ;). Gob lin 18:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Yeah, by the time I got a look, it was just a line. I'd certainly say withdraw for now. :) hmwith τ 16:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Come back soon. ;) Chenzw Talk 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

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

Recently failed PGA. I've fixed most of the concerns, so I'm renominating it. Pmlin editor 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are posted at the article's talk page. Barras || talk 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

Withdrawn by nominator

Tropical Depression Ten (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Probably needs a few tweaks, but on the whole I think it's about as good as it's going to get. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article is really short of information other than the storm history. At best this article would be the equvialent of a start or C-class article. Also do this article have to be very precise in terms of measurements? (i.e., 2,574.9504 km) Additionally, several words are unsimple (i.e., gaining, similiar, tore, formation, downgraded, dissipated, involved, etc.) These are only some of the issues that I can list. According to Juliancolton's idea, he thinks this wiki should be written at a pre-school level. However this article seems to be more like 7th grade if you ask me. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Snake311: Will you please stop opposing PGAs. This is a proposal and not the vote. And "According to Juliancolton's idea, he thinks this wiki should be written at a pre-school level. However this article seems to be more like 7th grade if you ask me." is not too nice. Regards, Pmlineditor Talk 08:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposing ALL good articles. I just explaining my opinions about the article, not voting. After all, all editors are allowed to express their opinions. Also fyi, I did support a PVGA nomination. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 08:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, both for this and the PVGA note that I left. Pmlineditor Talk 08:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the voting period. This is the proposal period. And no, I don't think articles should be written a pre-school level. Perhaps you should leave your personal grudge behind and judge the article fairly? Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the only instances of complexity that I could find. I knew some fixes would be required, hence "Probably needs a few tweaks". Feel free to remove the {{complex}} tag when you're comfortable with the article's tone. That said, your opposition towards the page's length is not by any means objectionable. It meets and surpasses the size requirements listed in the criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because you nominated this article is nominated for GA doesn't mean you can just remove it. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 01:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume neither preschool nor 7th grade are the best levels to write it at. I personally aim for about 2nd grade. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without going off-topic, the SEWP is NOT a children's wikipedia. It is written for someone who may be learning english as a second or third language regardless of age. Hope this ends the discussion. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 23:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good to me. I don't think it needs much work. hmwith τ 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion - IMHO, it looks like crap. The article borderline fails notability, has little detailed info, a weak prose, and contains unsimple words I have listed above. I'm surprised people find this GA-material. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this request. It's impossible to work on content at this project without personal vendettas and politics getting in the way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JC, we can continue discussion here. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but, after extensive discussion, we'll see where consensus lies. hmwith τ 18:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I try not to participate in these discussions/votes, as I personally prefer clerking work and writing articles myself (okokokdontshoutatme;)), but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this article and it's very much GA material. Good luck guys. Gob lin 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Essjay controversy

Essjay controversy (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Article was nominated by User:Griffinofwales, but a proposal was never started... until now. From what I see, it has the potential to be a GA. Chenzw Talk 02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I nominated the article, but there was some more work to be done, so I moved my nomination with the suggestions back to the article talk page so I could complete the changes. I plan on re nominating after the work is completed. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Not promoted, nomination rescinded. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the vote now, this is jus the proposal like what needs to be fixed. Not closed. The nom has two weeks time to fix the concerns. Barras || talk 05:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help with this one... couple of questions on the talk page if someone can find a moment. :) Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still pretty complex and there are a lot of red links. hmwith τ 17:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India

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

Article was initially reviewed for VGA by Eptalon. Many concerns are yet to be fixed, but most of them apply to VGA, not GA. Pmlineditor Talk 11:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Snake311 moved to talkpage. Please continue detailed discussions there. And please be reminded, this is not voting time, this is discussion time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@TRM, can you post a detailed review? Pmlineditor Talk 16:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

One of the most important figures in any English-speaking country. Deserves the nod. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading it now, it has 0 references. Barras || talk 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can and will be fixed. The English one has like a hundred Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your concern, it now has five additional references, not to mention a suggested reading list. Still hope this can be a good article. He's Abe Lincoln! Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln is a very inspirational figure. I'd like to see this article become a GA. However this article is plagued with red links. Also a two-sentence lead is very uninformative to someone who might be quickly browsing the article. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 23:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are nowhere near the most important issue in the GA process. Besides, I think there are six or less in the whole article. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Thirteenth Amendment should be created, since it is very important in establishing Lincoln's legacy. Otherwise the article looks decent overall. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 00:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review posted on the articles talk page. Barras || talk 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes made. Snake and I like it. Can we get an American synop to comment on this? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Reviewers are reviewers. It is also possible that an American reviewer might be biased. Don't get me wrong And not only sysops, all users can review a PGA. Regards, Pmlineditor Talk 10:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some cultural differences between what the avg 6-year-old American and 6-year-old non-American know...by the way, while we're on the subject, what do YOU think? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone should be allowed to review articles; admins or not, Americans or not. Remember WP:NPOV. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 15:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with NPOV; just mentioning that there might be a slight, inherent different of POV between Americans and not Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote part of presidency, minor fixes here and there; please have a look.--Eptalon (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very important article indeed, one definitely worthy of GA status; however I feel the article in its current state is not comprehensive. I'm afraid it's impossible to summarize the thousands of pages worth of data known about Lincoln into a few paragraphs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to summarize Lincoln in any length article. He's the most biographied person in the history of the world. But I still believe this article to be worthy, which is why I nominated it both here and on the big boy. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, a four-line stub would be sufficient? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. It wouldn't make 3.5KB that way. I do, however, believe this article to be sufficient. The problem is when you get longer, you get more complex, and you have to spend more time explaining the terminology you're using than actually explain the subject of your article. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Page itself says "Simple does not mean little. Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want simple information. Articles do not have to be short to be simple; expand articles, include a lot of information, but use basic vocabulary." –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground 2009 Stock

London Underground 2009 Stock (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Putting the '09 Stock up for a GA. Article has plenty of refs, is at about 4kb (with some more to come) and I believe it meets most if not all of the GA criteria. Please cast your eyes over it :). Gob lin 15:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

I'm going to be lax about the redlinks and ignore them. The article has potential to become a good article. It has decent quality, but questionable quantity in terms of article length. I also noticed a {{transport-stub}}. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 16:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's 4kb - that's more than enough for a GA - and it seems I forgot to remove the stub tag, fail... Redlinks, I intend on creating a fair few of them, but per GA guidelines there are allowed to be some redlinks. Thanks for the comments. Gob lin 16:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

On my last count, there are 11 redlinks. I think that is too many, the most I would accept is 5 redlinks for a GA, imo. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 16:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Gobby has retired and will be unable to answer any concerns. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, BG7 will be back editing tonight. He is working today, and will be unblocked later. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the retired tag then? He signed the agreement. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the stupid agreement. Nobody said you'd get blocked if you didn't do what the agreement said. It's just BG7's way of showing his discontentment. He told me and others in his channel on irc yesterday, that he'd be back and focusing just on article writing. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-That's better. Thanks for the explanation. Should someone remove the retired tags or should we let BG7 do it himself? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let BG7 rmove it. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Abortion

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

Spent two weeks in the queue, fixed most issues I could see; still a relatively high number of red-links in the methods section. Please note I am neither doctor, nor biologist. Looking forward to votres.--Eptalon (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes possible until (including): May 17

Weak oppose Fix the red links, and it'll be good to go. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The section "Controversy about induced abortion" has no references at all, and this is one of the areas where verifiability is extremely important so as to keep a NPOV. Also, there is very little mention of religious opposition to abortion so I don't think it covers the topic enough. Also, the redlinks need to be addressed. Malinaccier (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not into healthcare or a medical profession, so I don't feel qualified enough to tackle the red-links in a simple way; as to the missing refs, the resp. section in EnWP also has few of them. Help there would be welcome. As pointed out below, putting something up at PGA/PVGA should be seen more as a community thing, than the pet project of one editor. --Eptalon (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the problems of Simple English, this has a POV. References to foetus being a "child", etc, is a POV. The word is foetus and it cannot easily be simplified Soup Dish (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is not that the word is foetus or fetus, depending on where you are from, but that for some time (8 weeks) it is an embryo, and then becomes a foetus. So instead of saying fo(e)tus or embryo all the time, I opted to say unborn child - this is easier to understand, and in my opinion at least as correct - since what grows in the womb is an unborn child that will be born, if it does not get aborted, or dies during childbirth. This has also been stated on the talk page. What irks me a little more is the way this article (and other PGA candidates) turns out - A lot of work for one editor, and then opposes based on things that were not discussed or mentioned, in the last minute. --Eptalon (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
since what grows in the womb is an unborn child is, I'm afraid, POV. I know it's ridiculous and I personally have no real opinion on the whole issue of abortion, but that is POV. Soup Dish (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unborn child vs fetus or embryo - this is merely a point of definition, and like so much else it is laden with controversy. If we speak about unborn children abortion does indeed kill the unborn child, if we speak about fetuses or embryos it is merely a matter of putting away some heaps of tissue - Let me add that certain countries do stem cell research that involves embryos- In short no matter what position we take we make a statement. Talking about an unborn child is probably simpler because we do not need to make a difference between embryo and fetus (up to 8 weeks old: embryo, then fetus) except when we define the two. (Copied verbatim from the talk page) --Eptalon (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all. Razor flame 13:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - POV, redlinks, unreferenced section, unbalanced coverage (for example, why were only two examples listed in the "selected issues" section). It's off to a good start, but it needs work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Much good work has been done to the article already, which I appreciate, but several problems still do exist, and until resolved, I am going to have to oppose. Sorry. — RyanCross (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some comments at the talk page of the article- Given the enormous help I am getting however, I will probably stop changing this article. I cannot do it alone. --Eptalon (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per all concerns above. Barras (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted. Chenzw Talk 08:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

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

I fixed the issues TRM posted on the talk, and I think it looks pretty good. It's been two weeks. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes possible until (including): May 23

Support Looks good to me. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yep, problems left by TRM fixed, but new ones have been left in its' place. These new ones will need fixing before this article can be supported by me. Cheers, Razor flame 02:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a way to go. I only reviewed the lead and the History section. Plenty more to do. More comments left... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not think the langauge is simple enough yet and more work will need to be done. Looking at readability scores on a version with tables, lists and refs removed [2] it still has a Fry grade level of 10, and a Flesch Reading ease of 56.8 [3] I am sorry for not bringing this up earlier, but I have been on a Wikibreak, and am just about to take another one for two weeks. When I'm back I'll do some more simplifying if it still needs it. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments on the talk page and the fact that there are huge swaths of unsourced text. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Me and Barras have fixed up a lot of the issues. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Needs a full review and a bigger history, geography and economy section. There also needs to be a section about other things in culture. Yottie (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per lack of citation. Were this en, it would have been quickly failed. Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
even though I agree, we aren't en. Yottie (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't en - I accept, but does this mean that we are going to pass such articles as GA? Pmlinediter ^Talk 10:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said I agreed it needed more citations. It's just that the criteria for GA here aren't quite the same as on other wikis. Yottie (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, enough with this "en is evil" attitude. You know that regardless of the wiki, citiations are a necessity. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you like making me angry, is it a game ? If it is I don't find it very funny. I said WE ARE NOT EN!. Come on, I didn't say en is evil. And you say You know that regardless of the wiki, citations are a necessity well what do you think I said above. READ! You tell me to read articles before I vote on GA according to readability scores, but maybe you should read what other people write before you comment. I don't want us to get on badly, but I can't stay quiet on something like that. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I am growing extremely tired of you parading around telling us how much you hate enwiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say I hate en wiki? ^[source?] Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough thanks, from everyone. This is PGA. If you wish to continue this discussion, use your talk pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is good. --AleksA ツ 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted. Barras (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastide

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

Voting ends 28 May 2009, 19:00 UTC

Oppose - several of my talk page comments appear to have been a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have fixed the question header (Who built them?) and properly sized the image therein (it was too small to see much detail even at 400px so a reader would still need to click on it to view it, so it should therefore just be thumb size), but I still have to agree with TRM in the need for inline citations of facts asserted; a reader shouldn't have to read all the additional reading in order to WP:V a fact. It's very close, however, and I'll reconsider if it can be fixed before voting closes. fr33kman ^talk 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AleksA ツ 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support this with outstanding issues but oppose Ismael? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is much bigger and better than Ismael.--AleksA ツ 11:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size does not equate to quality. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Did you seen TRM's comments on the article talk page??? Barras (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I nominated but I was ill and didn't do anything, still not right. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted; mainly per the fact that the nominator does not feel it ready ;). Gob lin 23:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ismael

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

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote ends: 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article (I wikilinked the word influence as it needed it) fr33kman ^talk 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well done. Barras (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (changing from opposer; reason: seeing en article length which is similar ti Simple) ~~To short.~~--AleksA ツ 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is borderline disruption. The article is not too short - it clearly meets the criteria. Continuing to "contribute" in this manner may very well lead to the reinstatement of your permanent block here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Endorse that this is disruptive. It more than satisfies the length criterion! fr33kman ^talk 22:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've stricken this vote, as I believe it is disruptive to this process. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 00:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, leave the vote. Should nobody else vote, then Lukic's strong oppose will result in the article's promotion. Do the math... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Aleksa: Can say us who long an article should be for you? Thanks. Barras (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over 35kb.--AleksA ツ 11:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - For a GA? OK! Then go on please and write an article with 35kb. I want to see your proposal here next time. Thanks. Barras (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please note the current criterion #2 for the requirements of a GA: "The article must have a certain length. A minimum is 3.5 kilobytes, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. There is no use in denoting very short articles as good." - You want an article to be ten times longer than the current criterion and you strongly oppose an article that meets the criteria? I think you should start a discussion to change the criteria if you are going to continue to vote in this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've made a few minor changes, but I think it's good to go. My only suggestion is expanding the "preparations" section to include where people were evacuated and what areas were affected by the warning. Either way (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes and suggestions. I expanded the preps a bit, though I have several redlinks now (which I plan to fix later this afternoon). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great. Pmlinediter ^Talk 11:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - 8 red links; make them, it'll look better and I'll support. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see 5 red links, and Juliancolton said above that he'd be creating them later today (those red links were added in there earlier today in order to help expand the article). Either way (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake I only see 7. They haven't been created, I'm waiting. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are indeed only five, but regardless, I'll work to bluelink them in due time. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Remember that this is a GA proposal not VGA. A few redlinks are allowed. Barras (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        100% agreed Barras. We do not insist on zero red links in a GA. Regardless Julian has said he will fix them up. Plus, two of them are in a template. These should not form part of the assessment of the article. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added some points on the talk page. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        All valid concerns have been addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        All the ones you think are valid. Let me try and find simpler ways for the complex words. I'll do it now and change to support. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, I'm not going to simplify the heck out of the article to the point where a newborn could read it. The prose should still be engaging. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've fixed what I wanted. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded Mazatlán based on enWP fr33kman ^talk 21:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice job! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks; I'll expand it more another time. I've been, it's a nice city! fr33kman ^talk 22:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: 8 Support, No Oppose No outstanding issues, a good article :). Gob lin 17:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wijerd Jelckama

Wijerd Jelckama (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: June 14, 2009; 10:51

Closed by Chenzw at 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Sure thing. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It fits all the criteria. Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Support Looks good. Pmlinediter ^TalkO 12:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have A3d it for it is copied for en. Pmlinediter ^Talk 11:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not bad at all, a little brief but still meets the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Support - I think the article is ok. Barras (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I did some edits, looks good. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good now. Malinaccier (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support fr33kman ^talk 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
very strong oppose - Clear case of A3. This article can't become a GA. Barras (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attention: This article is a candidate for quick deletion under QD A3. As such, the article cannot be promoted (regardless of voting) and faces deletion. However, you are free to improve it. Chenzw Talk 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Improve it?" Come on, it is a mighty fine article, fits all the given criteria. This is senseless. Mighty Wodan (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's purely copied from the English Wikipedia. This is Simple, we have our own articles (besides those useless Romanian rivers and asteroids...) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put many work in the article and with me many other editors. It is a good article, it is simple and understandable and notable. What good is deleting it? Mighty Wodan (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Closed as unsuccessful - It is simply puzzling how the article managed to slip through into the PGA process. This shows the current shortcomings we have in the PGA/PVGA system. The article's deletion can be contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Chenzw Talk 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

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

End date: 9 July 2009; 18:40

Oppose - per my comments on the article's talk page. Barras (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I have fixed a few of Barras' concerns but some very valid concerns still remain. Once these have been fixed then I will support.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Concerns. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all: Please give me the next three days. I promise to finish the article by that time. Pmlin editor 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for that.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Not enough votes and only opposes. --Barras (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven

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

End date: 9 July 2009; 18:40

Support - as nom --Barras (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks OK. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Also as one of the editors who helped make few refs in English. Pmlin editor 17:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good enough. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good, but would be better if some of his more famous pieces are linked. Something to keep in mind when nominating for VGA ;). Chenzw Talk 16:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a fine good article to me. hmwith τ 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosed as successfully promoted. EhJJ^TALK 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wernher von Braun

Wernher von Braun (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: 10:45 UTC; 20 July 2009

Support - as nom. Barras (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks OK. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks fine to me. hmwith τ 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but there are many problems with the article. For instance the words and terms "penetrate". "designer", "developer", "attainment", "research", "boarding school", "exam", "developed", "generations", "scientists", "astronauts", "landing", "sector", "humankind", "wider view", "universe", "reusing", "probes", "revenge", "attend", "studied", "minister", "director", "legacy" and "attend" are all non-simple words and need linking or inline defining. ~~I am unable to support its promotion to GA at this time.~~ fr33kman ^talk 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, words/phrases such as exam, wider view, attend, and studied were some of the first words I learned when taking my first year of another language, so I think that those few are okay, but I agree that the rest could be simplified. hmwith τ 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that we also cater to children and to native speakers of English who may have learning difficulties; not just those learning English as a foreign language. Terms like wider-view may not be known to everyone. It's not a real problem however. fr33kman ^talk 19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"penetrate" - linked to wikt, "designer" - linked, "developer" - linked, "attainment" - renamed, "research" - linked, "boarding school" - is linked, "exam" - is simple, "developed" - is linked (see above), "generations" - linked, "scientists" - is linked, "astronauts" - linked, "landing" - linked to wikt, "sector" - linked to wikt, "humankind" - linked, "wider view" - is simple, "universe" - linked, "reusing" - linked, "probes" - renamed and linked, "revenge" - linked to wikt, "attend" - is simple, "studied" - is simple, "minister", "director", "legacy - sectioned renamed" and "attend - is simple" —all is done imo. Barras (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the wikt: page on penetrate and the rest looks fine. I've also removed fleged from full-fledged because it adds nothing to comprehension and the wikt: page doesn't exist and I don't feel like making it. :-) I support the pages promotion to GA. Well done!! fr33kman ^talk 19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. --Barras (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Should be fine, had a look at it. иιƒкч ? 09:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay, so Support. Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though more info is probably needed if you're going for VGA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: 100% support. Congratulations! Gob lin 11:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: 12:22 UTC; 26 July 2009

Support as nom. --Barras (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not good enough. Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 12:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Please post you concerns here on the article's talk page. Not good enough isn't a good reason. Thanks. Barras (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 12(!!) red links. Definitely a no-go. Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 12:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all redlinks have to be created, just the most important ones. This is only GA level. Gob lin 12:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Fixed - two redlinks left and it's only for GA level. --Barras (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BG7. Redlinks are all but irrelevant to an article's quality. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to fixes. Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 16:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - some comments coming on the talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I have fixed your comments. Have a look, please. Barras (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work on making the fixes Barras. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good enough to be a GA to me! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support David0811 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted. Well done. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

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

End date: 08:02 UTC; 31 July 2009

*Tons of concerns at the TP; too short; several red links and few refs. Thus Oppose. Pmlin editor 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the concerns have been fixed. Please remember that this is GA and not VGA; a few red links are permitted. Shappy ^talk 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Posting more comments. Pmlin editor 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't this have been done before voting? This puts a lot of time pressure on me. Shappy ^talk 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pmlinediter's concerns at the talk page. Barras (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that concerns have been fixed and that it looks OK. Shappy ^talk 23:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Support Concerns fixed. Pmlin editor 07:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I have highlighted a few concerns on the talk page. Please fix them. Chenzw Talk 13:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - I posted some other things. Barras (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I'd prefer a few less red links. hmwith τ 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the posted concerns on the talk page? --Barras (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not perfect, but I think it meets the criteria. hmwith τ 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concerns. Pmlineditor 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'd prefer people post concerns before voting. 2 whole weeks... Shappy ^talk 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted concerns during the to weeks. Probably someone should have pinged me to have a second look... Barras (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And many of them were fixed. Shappy ^talk 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: The article has still not fixed issues. It's not right now to be a GA. Further more, there is no consensus, means only 4 people voiced their opinion. Please re-post the article when all issues are fixed. Barras || talk 22:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

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

End date: 12 August 2009; 22:20 UTC

Support Looks good. Shappy ^talk 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would support it's promotion as it stands right now. It is defiantly one of the best pages I have seen on this wiki. It is a simple but educationally satisfying read. I think User:Barras has covered most of the issues on the talk page and they all look like they are being dealt with.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A significant number of relatively straightforward issues to deal with on the talk page before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort out the accessdate fields for the links I noted on the talkpage and then I'll reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Pmlineditor Talk 08:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Can you add the publisher as well please for each reference? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I've Done that. Pmlineditor Talk 08:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After all of the work (as shown on the talk page), I don't see any issues with earth becoming a GA. hmwith τ 06:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nom. Pmlineditor Talk 08:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportShould be great, I've had a look. иιƒкч ? 10:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No problems except for red links, and that's not a big enough deal to oppose over. Malinaccier (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly a good article. Well done! fr33kman ^talk 03:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well written in Simple English Peterdownunder (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SNOW? ;) Shappy ^talk 18:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per WP:SNOW as promoted. 100% support, no concerns --Barras || talk 18:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground 2009 Stock

London Underground 2009 Stock (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: 12:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

* Support Have done some work, created 6 pages and looks good. Pmlineditor Talk 12:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, comments on talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Pmlineditor Talk 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as original nominator, article is in no way complete nor comprehensive at this point in time. Gob lin 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Oppose Inconsistent subject as well as questionable ordering of information (Description before introduction?) Promethean (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original nominator says that this is incomprehensive, so obvious oppose. Pmlineditor Talk 12:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bluegoblin7, original nominator. The article could use some expansion. hmwith τ 14:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted. Concerns by the nominator, no reason to promote this article. Just try it again later. --Barras || talk 16:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: 13:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

* Support Concerns at tp fixed. Pmlineditor Talk 12:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - review on talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Pmlineditor Talk 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not comprehensive as I explained during the review stage. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few suggestions may be helpful. I agree with you, but I'd like to know what to add. Pmlineditor Talk 12:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PMLine 100% on that. Please place on the talk page.
I explained during the review stage - Two things, a) this is why thy should be archived at the same time, and b) go read the points raised in the archive. Gob lin 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
a)the things he said in the archive are the same vague things as here, b) stop treating me like dirt Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with JC, for such a notable person the article is lacking in depth. The enwiki article would be a good place to get some ideas but these would require extensive simplification to implement. Promethean (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I can't do much here. I might be able to add refs, fix format etc., but adding from the enwp article and simplifying will not be easy considering it is 123 KB. I can't support it's promotion atm. Pmlineditor Talk 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does atm mean? Automatic teller machine? I suggest Julian lay out concrete proposals before he destroys the nomination of a very deserving article, and keep in mean that we can't have a copy of an enwp article, even a simplified copy. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being ridiculous. ATM is At the moment. And we aren't "destroying" anything. Its just that the article isn't good enough. And, we don't want a copy from enwp. Please do more work with the article rather than complaining. Pmlineditor Talk 17:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89 - I think you need to work on not taking comments here so personally and understand that we're all trying to make the articles as good as possible. It's a collaborative effort, and you really need to see that people are doing their best to spend their own time trying to help out. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my beef is the lack of itemization of complaints. There's too many short answers like "Oppose...needs work" or "needs expansion" and not enough knowledge-based "tell me more about this" or "add a section on this" or "add to this" by Julian et al. Also, remember I feel that adding lots lots more to the article will violate WP:NOT by making it 1) too complex; and 2) too close to enwp.

Not really. We don't need to copy things from enwp. After sufficient simplification, the article won't violate any of the two policies you mentioned. This is not Wijerd Jelckama and I don't think you'll make it like that.;) Pmlineditor Talk 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying from en.wiki is just fine, as long as we attribute it correctly. And please, don't edit someone else's comments. CHeers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It still needs some work and expansion. hmwith τ 14:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SNOW? Pmlineditor Talk 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Not Promoted per WP:SNOW: There's an overwhelming oppose here, and the article is clearly not GA shape. Closing as a SNOW. Gob lin 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman! Please don't archive this for 24 hours, let everyone see the result, not just "OH MY GOD IT'S DISAPPEARED!!!" or the like. Ta.[reply]

Joe Biden

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

End date: 13:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose notes on talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It could use some work, but I see it eventually being a great candidate. hmwith τ 14:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please itemize suggested work on talk page Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per Not Promoted: Note, this is purely procedural as I am making a bold change and removing the votes. Gob lin 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

India

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

End date: 12:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Support As nom. Pmlineditor Talk 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks alright. Shappy ^talk 10:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing about culture/sport which is a big thing in india (at least from a European's POV). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Pmlineditor Talk 11:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Had a look, but would like a picture of Taj Mahal in the article, hope I'm asking not too much. ;) иιƒкч ? 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Added. Pmlineditor Talk 11:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong oppose - I know it's GA, not VGA, but a quick run through the first three sections has shown up a number of issues which should be resolved - I've left some comments on the talkpage. If these are addressed then I'll happily look at the rest of the article. Sorry to pop in so late, I've been away. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will address them. Pmlineditor Talk 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Pmlineditor Talk 16:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article fails criteria number five of the PGA prcess: The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).. The addition of new section is a major edit. Barras || talk 11:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find this overly bureaucratic. That criteria is utterly ridiculous. I see no reason not to add a section if it is required. Also, we may ignore all rules here. Pmlineditor Talk 11:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, let's change that criterion! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 11:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want bureucratic, but I am not willing to read the article twice within a few days, because a lot of text was added. This is the reason, why there only should be made minor edits. Barras || talk 11:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added only few bytes of text and I don't think its too difficult to read it. I know this is not enwp, but there, we can add as much text as we wish. It'll be foolish not to add a section after someone has requested it. Pmlineditor Talk 11:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find this to be criterion to be a farce furthermore I would stress that "should" is not an absolute. IE you can say "I should have done X" but that doesn't necessarily mean you have or had to. Promethean (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sufficient by my standards. Promethean (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any problems. It looks like a fine PGA. hmwith τ 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong oppose~~ - dozens of comments on the talkpage from a review of the rest of the article. How so many people supported this with so many issues, I don't know..... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They'll be fixed in the next 30 minutes. BTW, they're the only concerns left? Pmlineditor  Talk 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Once you're done, I'll happily run through the article one more time and revise my opinion accordingly. Do take note of the previous comment that mentioned avoiding all those images, particularly all the maps. I think just one map would be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about this; I prefer 2 maps: one for states and the other for the geography section. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well including the map in the infobox, and the satellite image, you have six maps... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This version will have 3. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Pmlineditor  Talk 16:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support- a good example of someone reacting positively to criticism. Pmlineditor has done some really good work attending to my concerns, and while the article is not perfect by any means, I am aware that this is GA, not VGA, so I'm prepared to accept that this now meets my interpretation of a what a "good article" is here. Good work PML. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Promoted: Well done PM, there's clearly consensus to now promote this article, so i'm going to close it early rather than drag out the consensus into the voting-less system. Gob lin 23:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]