Address:   Home Page

Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WP:PVGOOD
WP:PVGA
WP:FA


Shortcut:
WP:PGOOD
WP:PGA
WP:GAC


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 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/voting process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for very good articles. Voting for 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 vote of support or oppose. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is voting 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.

Contents

[change] Archives

[change] Proposals for very good articles

List your proposals here, newer ones at the top. Each proposal should be in a subheading. After 2 weeks from being listed, a proposal must either be voted on, or removed from this section. If it is removed, the {{pvgood}} tag should be removed too. Articles that are ready before the 2 weeks time, can of course be voted on earlier.

[change] Nudity

Nudity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Controversial subject, article has many images; some of them show nude people. I think the images are tasteful, and generally non-pornographic. Spent quite some time trying to focus on the different aspects of nudity (also the issue of what constitutes nudity, how much of it is a taboo, and how little is needed to make that feeling go away). Article as of now, is 29k, after deductions 19k are left. Readability scores are available. No red-links. In my opinion, the article needs serious copyediting (by people other than me), and possibly more references. Just curious on your input. --Eptalon (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think this has the potential of a VGA. I think that the various aspects of nudity are well covered.

None of the images could be considered porn.

I agree that it needs a serious overwork by someone who is a native English speaker. I'm prepared to do this but it might have to wait for a while. Amandajm (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Hot chocolate

Hot chocolate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Malinaccier (talk) (review) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[change] Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Sinbad (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you fix the few red-links that remain, VGAs are not supposed ot have them? --Eptalon (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[change] United Kingdom

United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Sinbad (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This is currently a premature nomination. {{fact}} tags need fixing, and the article needs a number of reliable sources. Currently there is only one. Popping into the local library will give a whole section on the United Kingdom, and there are a number of good websites too (though be selective in your choice of websites).
  • Redlink to healthcare needs fixing.
  • A copyedit needs to be done, but the main issue currently is the referencing. With such a big topic, an expansion is feasible at best. I hope you find time to work on these points. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll agree that the article needs significant work. As PeterSymonds said, such a large topic needs substantial information, which the article currently lacks. Sourcing, context, and a copyedit are needed, as well. Juliancolton (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[change] United States

United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Sinbad (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Atleast i think that the US article is ready to be discussed.--Sinbad (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Get rid of the {{complex}} and {{unsourced}} tags and it would be ready to discuss. My issue is that there are several sections which seem pointless and oversimplified (example) and other sections which are far too complex for the average SEWP reader (another example). A throughout copyedit, removal or red links and simplification is in order. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Thats why i think people should get involved now so that we can do this article into a very good one.More suggestions?--Sinbad (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that's good thinking, but the PVGA page is for articles that are basically ready. See WP:PR for community building. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[change] Fra Angelico

  • Fra Angelico, self nomination. It's a complete rewrite in simple language of the article which I researched and wrote for enwiki. The original article has been completely stable for a long time (apart from occasional vandalism). It's the right sort of length, and is properly referenced and illustrated. Amandajm (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me; I added a link to Giorgio Vasari (with the idea of having another red link to fix), but strangely enough, you had thought about it, about half a year ago; fix the two remaining red-links (stubs should be alright), and I don't see much in the way of making it a VGA. Very good work you do. --Eptalon (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've delinked all the dates. I think dmy format is used in Europe, would you like me to change it to that? (I use a script to do this, so don't worry about the time it will take me :)
  • I think you should clarify "Early Italian" in the first sentence fixed. But how do I link to a section, rather than the whole article?
  • I'm not sure how to get rid of the defaultsort warning at the bottom....
  • I'd use a simpler word than "Nowadays" (paragraph 3 of lead, but do a Ctrl+F for it) fixed
  • simplify "he was thought to be specially blessed by God" fixed
  • "It is the custom for people to take a new name..." could be simplified fixed
  • "he seems to have been trained..." - I don't like the use of "seems to", are you really that unsure...? (also, no source?)changed
  • "which unfortunately has been damaged" - NPOV fixed
  • maybe change "a great number of artists" to "a lot of artists" No, a great number is unambiguous.
  • I'm a bit wary of the describing of paintings as beautiful... ensure NPOV...fixed
  • "(it might have been Eugenius or Pope Nichoas V)" - again, are you so unsure? response no-one knows for sure.
  • "on every artists who saw it" - fix grammar (remove s on artists), or simplify if you can... fixed

Hope these help! Giggy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Giggy!
  • The term "Early Renaissance" is one of three divisions used to describe Renaissance Painting. Early, High and Mannerist.
  • Where I have expressed uncertainty.. "He seems to have been trained....", "Eugenius or Nicholas" it is because the facts are unknown. If you take a look at the intro to the article on Giotto, which I am still simplifying, you will discover just how little can be known about a very famous person. (And even when it comes to Leonardo da Vinci, there are great gaps in our knowledge. No-one knows at what point in time he moved out of his apprenticeship and opened his own workshop. There is a gap of several years where the only piece of knowledge that we have about Leo is that the night police arrested him for sodomy, and he was cleared of the charge.)
  • Re "great number". The expression "a lot of artists from whom he could learn" doesn't say it. There was not just a lot of artists living in Florence. There was a "magnitude of extraordinary artists" living in Florence. And they continued to increase in number and excellence.
Amandajm (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Amandajm, you're welcome!
  • The Early Renaissance stuff is fine as worded now.
  • Yes, I was worried about the "he seems to have..." phrases because I wasn't sure how much is known. If you say there isn't much known I will take your word for it... just make sure you have a source there. (A source for there not much being known, if necessary.)
  • My concern with the "a great number" is that it doesn't use the simplest language possible... but if it's the only way to accurately say what you intend to say then that's fine with me.
Good luck when you take this to voting. Giggy (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[change] Gothic architecture

  • Gothic architecture is also ready to go, with no red links. It is a complete rewrite of the article I wrote for enwiki. The original is stable. The language contains a great many architectural terms, which are essential to the vocab of anyone trying to learn about the subject. Hoever, the terms are all explained and most are shown on diagrams. The language is directed at junior highschool (11-14 years). With regards to the referencing, in most cases (except quotes, opinion and very specific info which are inline referenced) most of the mmaterial contained in the article is of a broad generic nature. For this reason several references are placed at the end of each section, rather than inline. This indicates that the entire section is drawn from one or two agreeing sources.Amandajm (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  1. Gothic architecture is the result of an engineering challenge: how to span in stone ever-wider surfaces from ever-greater heights? ... From 1100 onward, architects experimented with innovations that, once properly combined, allowed the dissolution of the wall and a fluid arrangement of space.
  2. The increase in knowledge and skills acquired over the years, meant that stone was specifically cut so that it fitted next to other stone blocks with precision. Therefore, the large blocks of stone favoured by the Normans, were replaced by shaped stone
  3. Another major change was that the hollow walls used by the Normans were not used by later architects. Walls and pillars were solid and this allowed them to cope with much greater weights.
  4. pointed arches ... allowed a much greater weight to be carried when compared to a Norman rounded arch and allowed architects to raise vaults much higher than was possible with Romanesque architecture / the pointed arch, which has a lesser lateral thrust than the round arch and is easily adaptable to openings of various widths and heights.
  5. stone ribs to distribute the weight of the vault onto columns and piers all the way to the ground; the vault could now be made of lighter, thinner stone and the walls opened to accommodate ever-larger windows
  6. the article does note that flying buttresses help to hold the vault up but doesn't explain that they do so by spreading the weight - it isn't clear that they are not pushing the weight up. These external structures absorb the outward thrust of the vault at set intervals just under the roof, making it possible to reduce the building’s exterior masonry shell to a mere skeletal framework.
As a result of these engineering evolutions buildings could be larger and I think the article could bring this aspect out more
  • I am not sure how the subsection on the Church links to the topic. What you seem to have is a short history of the church at the period and then it is not clear whether church-related buildings were in the Gothic style because they were built at the period or for some other reason - for example, did the Church promote the style of architecture. My understanding is that the Church did promote the style. There are a couple of points that could be made:
  1. the Church increased its prosperity and wanted larger buildings (again ref to support is History learning Site)
  2. the article covers height but it should be in the lead as an important feature. The met's essay says for example: The typical elevation of a Gothic cathedral interior, with storey upon corresponding storey, draws the gaze to the highest point in the vault, in an irresistible upward pull symbolic of the Christian hope of leaving the terrestrial world for a heavenly realm. Such a transcendent experience of architecture is reinforced by the rich stained-glass windows, sometimes spanning the entire height of the edifice. As well as not emphasising height in the lead, I think we should bring in the heavenward aspect. It is mentioned in the section on Abbot Suger but it needs to be in the section on the chuirch and this possibly needs some rejuggling.
  • The Met essay also draw the important point of the influence of the architecture on other art: The stylistic language first formulated in stone on a monumental scale resonated in other media. ... Gothic vocabulary gradually permeated all forms of art throughout Europe.
A VGA is meant to be complete, show all sides of the story - my comments relate to some sides of the story that could be added to make the article more complete. It is a most enjoyable article to read otherwise. --Matilda (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Response I agree with your suggestions. I'll add a section on the engineering aspects. I must apologise for my apparent rudeness in ignoring your comments. I've had a lot to occupy my time in the last few weeks and haven't been on Simple Wiki at all. Amandajm (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[change] Voting

As per above; minimum 80% support, with 6 votes min.

[change] Hot chocolate

Hot chocolate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Malinaccier (talk) (review) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Fra Angelico

Fra Angelico (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
  • Oppose for now, I think there needs to be some simplification and more terms being linked (especially here). --Gwib -(talk)- 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More simplification and linkage needed before this article will be ready for VGA status. Razorflame 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Response
  • I don't believe that this article requires more simplification. It has been written for an average reading age of 10 to 12 years, and could be easily read by an intelligent 8 year old. Any difficulties (eg "beatification") are explained within the text (eg "this means he is on the way to becoming a saint"). We are not writing for very young kids. We are writing here for people who are likely to take a real interest in the subjects we are presenting.
  • The important concepts are all linked. You can add hundreds of links to any article, but this adds confusion rather than help. It is the significant terms that add to an understanding of the article like Renaissance, Florence, altarpiece, patronage and fresco that require links. Amandajm (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Whilst I agree that the article is simple, there are too many ambiguous words in various sections. To give you an example, "rich patrons ... liked to show off their wealth by ordering paintings that had lots of bright colour" - show off their wealth is ambiguous, did they show it to everyone before they ordered paintings? Did they boast about it? Maybe a better wording could be "rich patrons liked to display their wealth ...."? --Gwib -(talk)- 12:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Response "Show off" is obviously an easier term than "display". It is the term that children use. It says "show of their wealth by ordering paintings ...." This indicates that it was the ordering of such a painting that displayed their wealth. No, Gwib, it doesn't suggest that they flashed their money around before ordering. And as for boasting... they probably did just that! "Have you seen the painting I ordered for Santa Maria? I paid 200 ducats for the gold alone!"
Gwib, I wouldn't even bother to get started with your pseudo-innocent nit-picking, if I were you. It falls into the same category as your deliberately procative proposals for GAs, and your continuous repetition of the same theme at the Jesus page. If this was a different site, I would refer to some of your behaviour as trolling, but because it is wikipedia, I am supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt. You, Gwib, are merely "Glib" with a cute little speech impediment. Amandajm (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I did some copyediting on the article; very small changes here and there. I also linked some of the words. The only thing that remains a mystery to me is the Carmine Friary Angelico supposedly Joined in 1417. Taking the Italian article on him, they say that he took the vows in the convent San Domenico in Fiesole, in 1418; he joined a sub-group of the Dominicans, the Dominicani osservanti (observant Dominicans?) which follow a stricter rule than the rest. But more to the point, a lot of work has been put into the article, and I think it deserves the tag. --Eptalon (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Response Thank you Eptalon. Your changes were good. I've further improved a couple of them. Will look into the Carmine thing. I think he started off in a Carmine Convent which was nearer, before joining the Dominicans. He seems to have kept himself out of the less-than-pleasant activities of the "Watch Dogs of Heaven"! Amandajm (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
My comment was less about his activities, but more about the fact that Carmine should probably be linked to some religious order (the Carmelites)? - As i said, I didn't find anything on Carmine relating to a religious order or place name in the region; all I got was a tint of red. --Eptalon (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Response OK! I have no idea where the Carmine quote comes from, but it is interesting, particularly as it gives a specific date. I suspect it might be the old Britannica. I now have an entirely different date for his birth, about 10 years earlier, from a very recent and reliable publication, and supported (broadly) by others. Konig gives the date of his entry into the Doinican friary as 1407 (when he must have been about 20-22) But he didn't take orders till much later. However, he did do a lot of artworks, particularly towards the end of his novitiate. Thjis makes me suspect that he may have worked far more on those illuminated manuscripts than is generally acknowledged.
The only explanation that I can see for his specifically dated presence in a Carmine friary rather than the Domincan one is that there was recurrent outbreaks of plague, and at various times the monks took refuge in Cortona and other such places that were at a higher altitute than Fiesole. There was also a suppression of the so-called "Observant" branches of the Dominicans. It could be that for either of these reasons Fra Angelico spent some brief time with the Carmini. Either way, I can't verify it, and the information is not of broad significance to his artistic career (as far as I can understand) so I have deleted it, and included instead the new referenced dates that I have found. Amandajm (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
At the moment I see the warning Warning: Default sort key "Angelico, Fra" overrides earlier default sort key "Fra Angelico". One should get rid of it in any case. --Cethegus (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Response I don't know what one does about that Amandajm (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Gothic architecture

Gothic architecture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
  • Weak Support. Very good article, could use a bit more simplifying but it's decent as is. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 22:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Gwib -(talk)- 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good quality article. --Eptalon (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Meets all of the criteria for VGAs; this would be a great addition to our collection of VGAs. Razorflame 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - wow, it has finally made it. I remember working on this article months ago. ;) American Eagle (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Mal. Synergy 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
  • Oppose - complex, red links. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gwib. Complex+red links = not ready. Razorflame 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Red links, complex, does not meet criteria --Eptalon (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] United Kingdom

United Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
  • Oppose - "The UK Parliament remains sovereign and it could end the devolved administrations at any time." Seriously? --Gwib -(talk)- 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - article is still too complex to become a VGA. Sentences need restructuring and simplfication. Razorflame 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[change] United States

United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
  • Oppose - has Wikification tags at the top (violating rules). --Gwib -(talk)- 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gwib. Nothing else to say; Gwib has already said it all. Razorflame 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Needs references. There are none in the article. Chenzw  Talk  02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] See also

Retrieved from "http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles"
Your Ad Here