Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

Very good articles are the highest status of articles at Simple English Wikipedia. In order to become a very good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles.

This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the VGA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pvgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed very good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{pvgood}} tag replaced with {{vgood}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Very good articles and are placed in Category:Very good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{vgood}} tag removed.

Articles that are below the very good article criteria can be nominated to be a good article at Wikipedia:Proposed good articles.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for very good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comment. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

In order to make sure the article you are proposing meets the required size, use this tool. Please notice that the text size is important, not the wikitext size.


Proposals for very good articlesEdit

To propose an article for very good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a VGA. ~~~~

Jacqueline Kennedy OnassisEdit

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Simple English has been needing some VGA recently and I feel that it is appropriate to include more women-related articles to that list. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's article has been expanded to detail her life as the tragic yet one of the most influential First Ladies of the United States. I feel that this article is in a good spot to be nominated. As always, I am looking forward towards your feedback so that this article can be displayed on the main page soon! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  • As for me, very interesting article about great woman of US. I fully support.- Frontfrog (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Left some comments on the article talk page; in general, I see a very high standard of writing (and only very few minor issues) might need looking at. --Eptalon (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy CarterEdit

Jimmy Carter (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

With Simple English needing some more VGA, I originally wanted to nominate this article for GA but felt that the article is a good contender for VGA. The article of a former President has been enriched with his life and I feel would be an excellent addition to the VGA family. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly a good start; didn't have an in-depth look yet. Visually: there are many small sections ("EPA Love Canal Superfund", "Carter Center", for example); we might want to expand or regroup these a little. I don't know how much the average reader is annoyed finding a new section every 3-4 sentences. Other than that: havent had an in-depth look yet. Article looks promising. --Eptalon (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the sectioning definitely looks better now. I will give a more thorough review when I have more time to look at it; likely on the weekend...--Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Eptalon: Any other issues? I've merged the early life section with his navy career to expand the early life section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: it is well-written (pretty simple language for me) and good sourced. Frontfrog (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposals closed recentlyEdit


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

Good day! Please, let's try to do this article very good or just good. The article needs attention. Red links were removed, images were added. Frontfrog (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  • It certainly has potential, but I would propose it for good article first. Certainly it needs some work for GA. Quite far from VGA at this time. --IWI (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah it looks good does need work but I wouldn't remove the redlinks, instead create articles from them that way we can grow the wiki with more well done articles and help this one in the process. --Hellothere4 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll get all the red links back in just a few minutes. I will greatly appreciate further help! (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Added missing sources and addressed all the redlinks. I hope that this article will be soon VGA after GA nomination. Maybe need to simplify the intro and the body of text. Frontfrog (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as GA The article is well sourced and the content is good for a Good Article! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Why not go for GA first? - VGA has extra requirement; as an example, there are still red-linksin the article, and we haven't looked at "fairly complete coverage yet". I propose we first go for GA, which makes VGA application less work.--Eptalon (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I added this article to proposed GA already. But I don't see where the red-links? The information window does not count. Frontfrog (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I see redlinks in the table under atmosphere; also I found a few links to the English Wikipedia. Those will need to be removed and pointed to a simple Wikipedia page. PotsdamLamb (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I'm blind? I don't see any links to the English Wiki. All of them refer to Simple English articles. Or I just don't understand. Frontfrog (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s the link to special characters I saw it at. PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone close the nomination so as not to mislead? And @TDKR Chicago 101:, please, leave your voice in proposed GA. Frontfrog (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Result: not promoted to VGA at the moment. There's also a proposal to promote to Ga, let's handle that first.--Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nikolai KapustinEdit

Nikolai Kapustin (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I recently added a lot to this page, that is, a biography part. But why Kapustin? Well, he is a very talented Ukrainian composer, probably the most famous Ukrainian composer of all time in history. He was also very important in making classical music history because he was a classical music composer (the word composer is usually used for classical music) but he mixed jazz things into his classical works. This was very interesting, not many composers do something like that, and gave him a special type of style (Kapustin style?) For years, he was widely held to be one of the greatest living composers, until, sadly, he died recently. It's almost a year since he past away last spring, and many classical music people have respects to him. Its kyiv not kiev (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I am very sorry, but is it me "Its kyiv not kiev" writing this, because there was a network error?

Hello and welcome to our Wikipedia.Very good articles are the very best articles we can produce; there are criteria to follow. In general, Very good articles also have a certin size, and they are fairly complete. The article you menttion is quite short, still. I propose you first try going for the status of Good article. Look at Ludwig van Beethoven, to have an example (good article). Also look at the requiremenrs for very good and for good articles.--Eptalon (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I took one look at the article. It's an immediate no. This doesn't follow the layout of any article, it is not particularly long, has no images, has no infobox, and it doesn't even have much information on the person. This wouldn't even come close to being a Good Article. ~Junedude433talk 15:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is very far from VGA status, or even GA status. --IWI (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

not promoted - Very far from the VGA criteria. When retried, should at least meet most of the criteria; likely try GA first...--Eptalon (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence, KansasEdit

Lawrence, Kansas (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The previous time I nominated this article to be featured never reached a conclusion, even though all responses were supportive of it. Therefore, I am resubmitting my nomination for this article to be featured. It is among the longest articles on this wiki, everything is properly sourced, linked, and written, it is comprehensive, and the layout is exactly what an article should look like. Seemingly, the only reason it did not get promoted was simply because not enough users had reviewed it, not because of any negative responses. In fact, there was not a single negative response from any of the reviewers. I think that this should not only be a featured article, but could become the gold standard of what city articles should look like. I will gladly accept any and all criticism to make this article the best it can be, if there is anything left to improve. ~Junedude433talk 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It has been some time since I wanted to do a thorough review of this article. I had done some copyedits at the time it was promoted to Good Article. However, I see it has been improved even more since that time. It is an excellent page, and frankly much more complete than many of our existing Very Good Articles. When reading the criteria at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles, I believe it meets all of them. Many of our existing Very Good Articles are out of date, having been promoted many years ago. Now they need work to get back up to date. This one would represent the wiki better, I think. I agree with promoting. After a review, I have no further edits to it at this time. I didn't even find formatting to fix. Desertborn (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Reference: Past discussion was here and included thoughts from Auntof6, MJL, and Aurora. It appears issues were addressed and consense was leaning to promote. Just not enough participation, so it got archived. Desertborn (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Peterdownunder on possible improvements are listed on the talk page of the article. Desertborn (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Not sure if this is the place to comment/valid comment but:The template at the bottom of the article has a lot of redlinks, also there seem to be some redlinked categories saying that the article is containing some cs1 errors --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the cs1 issue was resolved by Hiàn, but the template Is still my question --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: I would argue the red links there are not necessary to fill in since they themselves are not part of the article. We currently have five good articles that have a navigation box template with red links in them: City of Manchester Stadium (Template:Premier League venues), Ronald Reagan (Template:Governors of California), Bobby Robson (Template:England Squad 1958 World Cup, Template:England Squad 1962 World Cup, Template:England Squad 1986 World Cup, and Template:England Squad 1990 World Cup), Portman Road (Template:Premier League venues), and Yellow (Template:Coldplay). I included the navigation boxes there because categorically they make sense, and they follow the format of other city articles. It helps facilitate the linking of pages together quite well. However, I do not consider any of the links in the navigation boxes inherently important or intimately related to the article itself. Would imposing this requirement on any other type of article make sense either? If an article about an American vice president were to be nominated, but say we did not have some articles of some of the vice presidents already created (and appeared in a navigation box), should that inherently stop that article from being promoted? I don't think so, and the criteria listed don't explicitly say anything about navigation boxes. I think your concern would make more sense if there was a Lawrence navigation box that had red links in them since they would all be directly related to the article, but that's not the case here. ~Junedude433talk 03:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that red links in the nav box don't need to be taken care of. They are external to the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I yearn for the day that I can make a point as succinctly as you can, @Auntof6:. ~Junedude433talk 16:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Not to make a judgement one way or the other, but in the past we have required any links not be red. Navbox or not because this page will show on the front page. The way it was often fixed if a person did not want to take the time to fix the red links was to either edit the navbox to remove those links or to remove the navbox itself. -Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Its too long, has some sources that need dates and proper formatting, and uses complex words. Its almost as if the article on the Simple English wiki is longer than the one on the English wiki. Also the first sentence needs some sentence fluency fixing. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The sources is a valid matter and is easy to clean up. The article being long does not mean it is complex. IWI (chat) 03:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: Being too long is not a problem for any article here, as long as the language is simple. Indeed, one of the criteria for very good articles is that they be comprehensive, and that can require an article to be longer than our average. Just because we have many short articles here doesn't mean that we want articles to be short. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The article has lots of complex words though, I don't know if I can give examples, but I think they should be easy to spot and could be simplified down. Also, sources play a big part of the article. If sources are dead links and aren't well formatted, then there is nothing available to back up the information in the article. Thats why it shouldn't be a VGA until all sources are fixed. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: First of all, I appreciate the concerns you are laying out. I'm glad that there are more eyes on it, and I welcome the critique. That being said, I disagree that length is an issue. Perhaps if the article rambled on about things that weren't seriously related to it, I would agree; not everything is worth putting in the main article. However, I think all sections and subsections of the article is deeply related to it, and it is worth putting there. If there are any parts you think should be shortened, please specify them. Furthermore, the standard English Wikipedia's article is actually substantially longer than the Simple English Wikipedia's article. Some sentences might appear fleshed out, but this is because standard English benefits from being able to use more complex words that can specify an idea better and more concisely. If we must use simple grammar and direct, active voice, it's inevitable that there will be many more simple sentences that may seem to flesh out the length of the article.
On the subject of simplification, I am aware that not every word is inherently simple. There are many proper nouns and some technical terms, for sure. The way around this is to have a link to another article for a more complex term. That way, if someone were confused, they could simply view the article for that word and see a simple explanation of what it is. If we didn't have this workaround, articles would be unnecessarily long due to the sheer amount of short explanations needed, and that would also hurt the flow of the article. Instead of saying "I think they should be easy to spot," perhaps you could point these out? I would be particularly concerned if it were in a section in which it would be subject to copying and pasting to other articles (i.e. the People section about the census data). I want this to become the standard for city articles, so I want to make sure it is as easy to read and use as a template as possible.
As for sources, I fail to see where there are any issues. I have personally reviewed many of the sources, and I cannot remember any that were dead that were not already archived, and they are all formatted properly. I understand some of them don't have the publisher nor the author, but that was because that information did not appear in the source (e.g. no author was cited in a newspaper article, there isn't an author for the profile of a state legislator on the legislature's official roster, etc.). Since you noticed this issue, can you point out any specific sources that are problematic? I would love to fix them, but I don't see any problems, so I need another pair of eyes on it to specify them. Also, in the interest of not crowding this page, perhaps it would be a good idea to include any specific criticisms in the talk page of the article. Ping me so I know you posted. ~Junedude433talk 18:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Here is my view on this page (I should note that I talked about this with the nominator off-wiki, but all opinions are mine). I personally think it passes all ten of the VGA criteria. Criterion number 7 should be satisfied because the navboxes are not included within the article itself. Otherwise, it's easy to read when compared with BE 1500. The only non-BE words I can see in this article are proper names or extremely specialized terms. Sources are well formatted, images are properly captioned and relevant, and the article is comprehensive with many revisions. Epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support promotion. Uses simple English, everything is cited, and it meets the criteria for VGA. The article is very good. I see no reason looking through the article to not promote it. I haven't had chance to read through it in full but I will do later. If there are any issues, I will highlight them. IWI (chat) 17:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Almost there - I think the article is in good shape. I have posted a review on the article's talk page with a number of issues I would like to see addressed before this article is promoted. Once this has been done, I am happy for us to promote. --Yottie =talk= 21:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    The issues I pointed out have been fixed. I can now support this nomination for promotion to VGA. --Yottie =talk= 18:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As of now, supporters for the promotion are Yottie, IWI, Epicgenius, and Desertborn. If we include the archived post (which was only archived due to lack of discussion, not due to problems with the article), supporters include Auntof6, MJL, and Aurora. This brings the total amount to 7, which is more than the required amount. @Auntof6: does this qualify to be promoted now? ~Junedude433talk 15:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Promoted to VGA. The article in its present state represents the culmination of a year's worth of effort and the tireless review work across two nomination attempts. The article will be featured on the main page's daily rotation in 11 days, so please look forward to it. Congratulations. Chenzw  Talk  15:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I appreciate everyone's work in helping promote this article (especially Yottie's very in-depth review). It means more to me than anyone could imagine. Thank you, everyone! ~Junedude433talk 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not to comment on the decision, but to say: quantity and length of prose does certainly affect the poorer reader. I know that in reading Spanish I constantly have to check words with the dictionary, and figure out the (for me) complicated Spanish verb tense system. It is slow going, and hence the length of an article does have its effect. This page is over 137,000 bytes. I would not entirely agree with Aunt's comment on length not being a problem. It is certainly not listed as a problem in our criteria for VGA, and so the promotion is quite proper. We are all happy to add to our list of VGAs! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Coming back to this after a time, I still feel the same way. Overlong articles are contra-indicated with our readership, and if 137,000 bytes is not overlong, then what is? Try it out on kids and find out. I think it's outrageous to have such long pages on a wiki meant not only for young people, but also for ESN readers. The whole procedure of adding more so it looks more complete is a desertion of our basic remit: to write simple pages which can be understood by children and by people whose native language is not English. In this way the whole idea of GAs and VGAs is undermined by their being less readable by virtue of their length. In effect, I am replying to Aunt when she says "length is not a problem here" by saying "that's only because it is not listed here". Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Totally understand your point of view. But one of our key tenets here is that we don't remove information to be simple, we just use simple language. That being said there are guidelines for the wiki in general on how big is too big. They say 100k+ of readable prose then the article should be split up into multiple articles. 60k of readable prose and you should start considering a split. That being said readable prose is not the entire page size, it is the size of the page minus templates, tables, references and wiki markup etc. So I haven't run one of the tools that exist to seee how much readable prose there is, but I am guessing its probably around the 60-70k mark. So this article is probably right on the very edge of what we consider the right size to split it up into multiple articles. That being said, we would have to figure out what would be best split if we wanted to do so. I am of the opinion that this isn't an issue for this article since it is split up into sensible sections so the reader doesn't have to read that whole page in one go. -Djsasso (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Related pagesEdit