Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tropical Storm Kai-tak (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is a GA in the English Wiki, and something tells me it can also be a GA in this Wiki. I was kind of busy so I rushed this. Feel free to list something wrong :) TheNuggeteer (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer Not simplified Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, real sorry about that, I was trying to compare to another "Very good article (is this what you call it?)" page about a Tropical Storm. I tried my best to simplify it but I don't think It wasn't enough. Thanks, TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fix the errors in citations when translating from EN. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also many res links, eg templates Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's long enough for a GA? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Oppose This page is close to being deleted for A4 than GA. It's very complex, the templates and cite error from copying haven't been fixed. Red links have been removed instead of changing them to blue. I suggest removing everything and keeping the simplified part as stub and slowly expanding from there.--BRP ^ever 02:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick close. Page deleted.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Oppose per above

Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 07:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted Impossible to promote as an article that is now deleted. --Ferien (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

It is a very well written article, with relevant sources and information relating to the subject. I believe it meet the following requirements for a promotion to a good article:

1.  Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
2.  Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
3.  Y The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
4.  Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
5.  Y It has at least one interwiki link.
6.  Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
7.  Y All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
8.  Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
9.  Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

If you have any feedback to improve the article, please do not hesitate and I would try my best to solve the issue/add improvement. Thank you Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too much uncited material for a GA. There's been some simplification, but not enough to be considered a simple article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work, could you take a look. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 11:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski The entire article is now simple. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 07:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's still far too much invited, as well as some cleanup tags. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are full paragraphs that have no citations. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me work on them. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski I added some reliable sources, can you take a look? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else want to take a look? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support I will make edits that are different users. 2001:569:7C55:9000:C847:AED3:7E1E:1A2A (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Article seems to be GA-ready. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 11:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Looks good. fr33kman 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: promoted to GA, there's support in the community--Eptalon (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator is indefinitely blocked so closing as not promoted fr33kman 01:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Pakistan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe the article is almost ready for WP:GA status now. This is its second nomination. Many editors previously supported the idea of giving it GA status, also to send a strong message to that community. However, there were still several things that needed attention. I've addressed most of the issues and significantly expanded the article as well. It is fairly complete now and covers all the important topics. The concerns raised previously were:

• The article focuses on the rights, freedoms, and restrictions of LGBT people in Pakistan, not on Pakistan’s conflicts with other countries. Some parts still had non-neutral language, which needed to be cleaned up.   Done
• The language in some sections was difficult to understand and needed to be simplified for clarity. Partially   Done – I think some sections could still use further simplification.
• Wikipedia is not censored. If an image is relevant and helps illustrate the topic, don’t hesitate to use it, even if some groups find it too liberal.   Done – most of the images were already in use.
• We can use the EnWP article as inspiration.   Done – I definitely did that.
• We should aim for a good readability score, meaning clear wording, shorter sentences, and explanations where needed. Partially   Done – I've done a readability test, and the lowest score is for the introduction/Starting section (9th grade), with the highest at the 12th grade. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 13:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I've simplified the quotes and worked them into the paragraphs, but I've kept the original quotes in their more complex form as well. Should they be removed, or should they stay as they are? Like in the LGBT rights in Pakistan#History section. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 13:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nestor Makhno (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I wrote this article three months ago and think it meets the requirements for GA. It is a subject that belongs on Wikipedia; it is complete; it has received changes after comments on the talk page and simple talk; it is properly categorised; it is stable; there's only one remaining red link that could easily be turned blue; the image used is relevant; there are no cleanup tags; and it is fully referenced to chapters from three history books. If there's anything more that needs to be done, I will be happy to do it. Grnrchst (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could do with a bit more simplification. Not sure about everything being cited to one of these sources though. One red link, some complex sentences exist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAs can have a few red links. Only VGA has a requirement to have none at all. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the redlinks isn't the issue, the simplicity of grammar and sentence structure is though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Could you point out some parts you think are too complex? Examples would be helpful. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: I agree it could use a bit of simplification, although it is pretty close to being ready. This is the list of words in Simple English. Any other words will need to be linked, explained, or replaced with words from this list. You can link to Wiktionary for this purpose. In terms of sentence structure, try to avoid using too many commas, and there is almost never a good reason to use a semicolon here, since those are very complex. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: Ok, I've tried my best to make it fit more with the wordlist. I linked to words I couldn't replace (see changes here). If there's anything more I can do, please tell me. I was a bit confused by some of the wordlist. Like why are "want" and "ask" not on there, but "desire" and "request" are? Do I need a wiktionary link for such simple words as "want"? And I don't think I've used too many commas, I've kept to one per sentence. There's no semicolons anywhere in the text. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Want and ask are fine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list is definitely not great, and words like want and ask are fine. I would also say that the word "worse" is fine to use, we do not have to be too strict with the word list. We just need to worry about more complex words, like refuse and followers. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, are there any remaining complex words that I should simplify or clarify? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a month since the last comments. Is there anything else I need to do to get it over the line to GA? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: I will have a look tomorrow, when I get a moment. Yottie ^=talk= 22:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski; @QuicoleJR: This has now received two supports. Do either of you support promotion? Or is there more that needs to be done? Grnrchst (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Looks good to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, albeit a day late: Overall it reads very well. I think the content is engaging, yet simple. Some might not like the fact the sources are limited to just two books, but it is probably ok for Good Article status. Here are a few suggestions below:

• Is broke out simple? Maybe started instead.
• Is forces simple in this context? It's used in a different way to the most common meaning.
• Is establish simple?
• Is settled simple?
• Is was frequently kept in solitary confinement simple? Maybe just was often in solitary confinement?
• He was given an education by another prisoner - passive voice, could you make this active?
• But he also came to dislike intellectuals. - the flow into this sentence is odd. Is disliking intellectuals linked to getting an education? Maybe just keep it simple and say He started to dislike intellectuals.
• Makhno was welcomed back - Make this active voice.
• but they would not help him - If it's referring to the group, change to but it would not help him.
• broken up - is this phrasal verb simple enough in this context?
• Hryhoriv was killed by Makhno's adjutant - Change to active voice.
• they would keep to the agreement - Is this simple?
• In October 1920, the Insurgent Army took Huliaipole back from the Whites. Some of his forces... - It feels odd going from a plural to a singular. If you mean Makhno, refer to him by name here.
• the Red Army surprise attacked Huliaipole - Is this simple?
• withdraw - is this simple?
• Makhno co-wrote the Platform - There is no explanation as to what this is. A manifesto? A newspaper? I think it's worth expanding on this.
• It would be great to get the article for Sholem Schwarzbard written, as it's the last red link. Although not a requirement, it would look good!
• He was also concerned - Is this simple?

I hope that helps! I made a few changes myself, when I felt it was easy to fix.Yottie ^=talk= 17:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yottie: Thanks so much for the notes! Fixed the passive voice bits and simplified others. I decided to remove the bit about Schwarzbard, as it's not that important to Makhno's own biography. As for bits that I haven't changed yet: I'm not sure what would work better than "forces", but I'm open to suggestions. For "broken up", I used it to mean "dissolved"/"disbanded". I'm not sure what could be a more simple alternative. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - Well done. I have made the last few changes, mostly linking anything complex. Really good job on this one, @Grnrchst:! Yottie ^=talk= 18:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Article looks good and given the last few changes, I think it's good for GA. Side note, I think the infobox could be expanded, almost like the one at enwiki. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Definitely GA material, surprised it hasn't been promoted yet.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If no one will update the article before this weekend, I'll do it then when I have more free time :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted By User:Eptalon--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 07:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Temple of Confucius (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe this article is ready for promotion to GA status. Here's my review of it:

1.  Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
2.  Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
3.  N The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
4.  Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
5.  Y It has at least one interwiki link.
6.  Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
7.  Y All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
8.  Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
9.  Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

I welcome reviews from other editors to further improve the article. Thanks! – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 14:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of cleanup of the lede to make it a bit more simple. I do think it hits most of the items, my worry is that there is quite a few complex sentences and words that are not on the simple side. Probably just needs a copyedit though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just simplified or linked some vocabulary, but there is still vocabulary to be simplified. Sometimes there was no good link: lineage, gained prominence, commemorate. A couple new red links, (unfortunately). It's getting there, but can still be much simpler. --Gotanda (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found 6 Red links in the history section and 2 Red links in the design of temples section. Overall pretty adequate. My quick overview is that it meets most of the sections, aside from 3 and 6. I counted 5 different editors that contributed edits that weren't reverted (not including bots).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of the Red links; currently there is only one in the history section and one in the Infobox. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 20:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good effort. I have gone through the article and made some changes to make things simpler. I do think there is a little work to do, for example there are still a few red links, but I think it has the potential to be a Good Article. Yottie ^=talk= 17:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yottie, FusionSub, Gotanda, and Cyber.Eyes.2005: - hi all, this one has been open for a while now, were any of you able to come to a conclusion if you thought the article should be a GA or not? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally leaning towards the Oppose camp.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved, but I looked at the article and I think that it is currently in a very good state. I have added some further simplification and a other websites section. However, there is still some copyediting to do. There are places where the sentences do not really make sense. The redlinks are still an issue. Therefore, I am currently voting to oppose. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have simplified the article and did some copyediting. The main issue, I think, right now is the number of red links. I have fixed a couple of those as well, and the article now has about seven six links. Other than that, I think the article is good enough to be promoted to a Good Article. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 06:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support fr33kman 12:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support The only red links left are Möllendorff (which isn't important to understand the meaning of the article, it's just the name of a transliteration in the infobox; I have no idea what it meant before now and I understood everything perfectly) and Northern Wei (which is more important, but it's only one red link). I believe it meets all the criteria of a Good Article. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted by User:Eptalon--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 07:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christopher Plummer (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

In the past, I tried nominating this article for VGA and looking back at it I felt it was a bit too ambitious. Now that I have time, I'd like to nominate it for GA and perhaps work its way up to VGA status in the near future. I believe the article meets the following requirements:

1.  Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
2.  Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
3.  Y The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
4.  Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
5.  Y It has at least one interwiki link.
6.  Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
7.  Y All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
8.  Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
9.  Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

As always, I welcome thorough feedback to make this article into a good article. As I mentioned, I think I've simplified the article to the best of my ability (trying to simplify it for VGA status, but like I said, I'd like to get it to GA status first). There were some comments on the article's talk page during it's previous VGA nom, and I've addressed them all to the best of my ability. Thank you for your time. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great! I looked over it (and did some copyedits), and noticed two things:

• In the 'Television: early roles' section, it mentions Plummer having two different roles in Hamlet at Elsinore ('Gloomy Dane' & Hamlet). The sources provided only show his role as Hamlet, which is also the one he was Emmy-nominated for (while the page says otherwise).
• While doing some copyedits, I shortened a quote to help the sentence it is in flow better: "Plummer (...) said the movie was "so awful" because it was very sentimental." I wanted to mention it specifically, in case you don't agree with this change. I don't think it changes the meaning of his words.

I ran it through the readability tester, and it rated it as a 58 for Flesch reading ease (not great). However, this number is probably skewed down because many of the sentences are long lists (he acted in w, x, y, z, ...) which are not inherently complex. I think that the page is very simple despite the score. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DovahFRD: Thanks for your feedback! I fixed the Hamlet hiccup. Your copyedits have been really helpful! I wouldn't have known that the quote needed adjustment, but I'm thankful for your help! I did look at the reading score, but I think that move titles, names of awards and like you mentioned the sentences that list his roles might have skewed the score down. I don't think there's much I can simplify when it comes to movie titles/show titles, etc. which is what I suspect made the article have a 58 score. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a good look through. A few nitpicks, but I think this meets the GA criteria as it is. Good work. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good. Although most edits are made by the nominator, there are a significant portion of edits by others. I like how interesting the article and how comprehensive it is. A great job! It's a   Support from me. fr33kman 02:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - checking back in after the very small nitpicks I had. This is a great article, and it meets every requirement! 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article now has enough supports for GA - however, as I've supported, I won't be closing this discussion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Promote Article has sufficient support and no outstanding issues. Promoting to GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blood on the Clocktower (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've been doing some work on boardgame stuff recently and put this one together. I think it's now pretty simple (for what can be a very complex game), and does a good job explaining where the game came from, how it's played (to an extent, the rules are very complex, but beyond what an encyclopedia would touch) and how it's been released. I await any issues you might have with the prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see any problems with the page. The second line of the introduction where the term in game is explained as it is used is really helpful. The page can be better categorized and linked with more pages but that isn't really a big issue. BRP ^ever 14:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's borderline as an article for us, because it is so little known. Contrast, for example, what we did for chess, which is a game many readers will have some experience of. And bridge we hardly explained at all. We're missing a proper explanation of backgammon, which is featured in many newspapers. These are long-term favourites. New games are invented every year, and, yes, a few will survive! But most are dead in a year or two. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, sure. But the GA criteria is simply that an article that passes GNG could be a GA. Feel free to make good articles about more substantial topics, but that's one of the reasons why we don't have an abundance of well written articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per BrpEver and i don't see that the article do have any problem. DIVINE (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per BrpEver. Article looks good and it seems to follow the criteria for GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support looks good, easy to read. fr33kman 02:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seeing how this nom has ran for more than three weeks and has overwhelming support, perhaps it's time to promote :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I recently confirmed that there is no requirement to have higher perms to be able to promote/archive nominations, as a thread on simple talk is asking for more people to step up and do the promoting, maybe you could validate the above for a consensus on it being ready for GA Status? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Promoted - There is enough consensus here to promote this article to GA status as there's enough GA support and little to no pushback for this article to get promoted. This will be my first attempt in updating an article to GA status, so please let me know if I screwed anything up. Thanks to everyone who helped made this possible. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1st Provisional Marine Brigade (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been revised a few times, has illustrations, has actual references and is comprehensive. There's very few errors and in my opinion is GA worthy. As of now there is 116 references, and there is 6 images excluding streamers. Yodas henchman (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)<[reply]

I'd definitely say this article is fit for GA status. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences rather long and complicated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yodas henchman: This article has too many complex words and sentences. Please fix these problems. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose I have to agree. I had a good read through, and there is just too much complex language. I don't think it would take a lot to go through and copyedit the simplification. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LGBT rights in Pakistan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I found this in Category:Pages needing to be simplified from February 2012 and I am rather impressed with it. It might need a bit of updating. Rathfelder (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be good to have a LGBT rights GA at some point. But I still don't think this is simple enough. The first paragraph is almost a copy of en with very little simplification. I also think it'd be important to note that the LGBT community can interact in secret despite these laws. --Ferien (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, getting an LGBT(IQ)-themed article among the GA's might be a strategic decision; if done right, it will send a strong signal towards that community. Nevertheless, we need to be careful:

  • Article has existed since 2011; there are many edits by IP editors.
  • We need to be careful, and remove bias; there are still terms such as 'Occupied Kashmir' in there; we know that India and Pakistan have raged wars involving Kashmir. This article is about the treatment/rights/freedoms of people in Pakistan. It is not about the wars. If there is other bias it also needs removing
  • The section LGBT-rights in Kashmir needs looking at. We are talking about Pakistan, so what they do in the Indian part is not relevant here. What they do in the Pakistani part is only relevant if it is different from the general situation.

  Eptalon (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simplified the first paragraph a good bit. My main concern right now is the sourcing. Two of the sections have several unsourced paragraphs, and the Kashmir section has no sources at all! The article is also missing several sections that the English Wikipedia has, which makes me question whether it meets the completeness criteria. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness is not an issue at GA level ... Eptalon (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon: Requirement 2 is "The article must be fairly complete." QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to the VGA criteria, and you see what I meant Eptalon (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon@Ferien@QuicoleJR@Rathfelder - FYI I just flagged it for copyvio. 50% of it was matched paragraph for paragraph or sentence for sentence on copyvio and I personally verified. I also compared it to ENWP where some was lifted from there as well. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 02:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is nowhere near ready. Lot of complex words, the intro is clearly needing work, needs better sourcing, and few paragraph look kinda not-neutral without sources. As it is, it's clearly not ready.   Oppose--BRP ^ever 12:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Going through it again, there are a lot of things that are unsourced and POV and not accurate at all. I compared this to en version and the page there is written with much more accurate content. BRP ^ever 12:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: not promoted' - Much to my dismay, I can currently not promote the article. Some people oppose promotion, so I think it is best to close this as 'not promoted' for now. It is a pity, becuse it would have been a great signal to the LGBT community. Don't be afraid to renominate, when you think most issues are fixed.--Eptalon (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peter Seah Lim Huat (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I personally feel like it has met the following requirements:

1.  Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
2.  N The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
3.  N The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
4.  Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
5.  N It has at least one interwiki link.
6.  Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
7.  Y All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
8.  Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
9.  Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

It contains many reliable sources and references as well as relevant context to the main topic addressed. Thus, I feel this should be promoted to a good article and thus I am nominating it. I will be willing to work on it based on your comment/s. Thank you for your time. CactusMunch ^{Yum o.o} 04:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is identical to the page of the same name on English Wikipedia. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As enwiki states, I think this article does contain some original research and sounds a bit "resume like" IMO. Not to mention it's barely thoroughly covers the subject of the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the English version CactusMunch ^{Yum o.o} 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully sourced, not particularly well written. Not simplified. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Failed - Nominator has withdrawn. There is currently no consensus to promote the article and issues mentioned above have not been resolved. Peterlaxamazing (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Olivia Rodrigo (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have worked on expanding this article as of late. I tried my best to make sure the article has been simplified/written in Simple English and covers the subject of the article with in-depth detail with reliable sources. I believe the article meets the following requirements:

1.  Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
2.  Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
3.  Y The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
4.  Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
5.  Y It has at least one interwiki link.
6.  Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
7.  Y All important terms are linked, and there are only two remaining red links.
8.  Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
9.  Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

As always, I welcome thorough feedback to make this article into a good article. I'll be giving it several glances tomorrow and the day after to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I think the article is pretty good. Thank you for your time. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate there's been some simplification, just in the lede we have terms like: "television programs", "released the single", "debut single", "received positive reviews from critics", "music focused in heartache, mental health, and sadness", "focuses on raising awareness for women's education and health", "curing rare diseases, abortion access and education programs". These sorts of terms could be simplified. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Perfect, thank you for this feedback! I thought single was a simplified term but I went further with "song". I think I was able to effectively simplify the rest of the article based on this feedback. I was wondering if audience/audience member was simplified enough or could it be simplified further with "her fans" (not sure if this is a good approach, wanted some feedback on this). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably use "crowd" rather than "audience", but sure, "fans" would work. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was struggling with that. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Some may even argue that this article is worthy of VGA status. Either way, my support still stands. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support I looked through the article and it looks very well and complete. 84Swagahh (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Looks ready to be a good article in my opinion.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at simplifying further and copyediting where required. I think it's a good article. Maybe still some work to do for Very Good status, but in its current state, I'm happy to   Support. Well done, nice work. --Yottie ^=talk= 23:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support After reading through the article and fixing some grammar errors, I also argue that this article meets Good Article criteria. It is well written, comprehensive, well sourced, and written in Simple English. Great work to all who worked hard on improving this article! Peterlaxamazing (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - I'm now happy to support this after a second look over. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this article good to get promoted? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: promoted - There's ample support in the community to promote, so I promoted the article; congrats to all who helped... --Eptalon (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I've not done one of these before, but I am very intertested in the GA criteria. I've written most of this from scratch for simplewiki, if you've got any thoughts or additions, please let me know, I'm happy to work through whatever. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support I do not see any issues that would make it fail any of the criteria. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Question: How to clearly differentiate the two circular motions roll and turn as in, "The bowls are heavier on one side, so that they turn when being rolled." The difference between turn and roll may not be clear to some readers. If I understand this correctly, "The bowls are heavier on one side, so that as they roll forward, their path may turn left or right." Is that correct? --Gotanda (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• that's exactly what happens. Actually, there's no may about it, they will turn towards the bias. I did originally use the word "arc", but that's probably a bit too complicated. Maybe "The bowls are heavier on one side. The heavier side is known as the bias. When rolled forward, the bowl will turn left or right towards the bias." or similar.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds good. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like you've made the change. Seems fine to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Very clear and simple. Looks good! Ready to Support. --Gotanda (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support: No issues. Article looks quite clear and meets the good article requirements. JustarandomamericanALT (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support fr33kman 15:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Promoted to good article - Congrats everyone...--Eptalon (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I've neatened up this article to the point that I believe that it is good enough to become a GA. It has sources for every claim, no maintenance tags. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK but not exceptional. Not GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? The article meets every single requirement. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 17:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the criteria doesn't suggest it needs to be complete, this article barely covers the topic. I'd argue that considering there's a whole section unsourced it doesn't meet the tagging criteria as it should be ^[source?]. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The criteria does not say it must cover everything, but I don't think this even counts as fairly complete for the purposes of GA. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that I can do to make it eligible for GA status? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 13:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this article to the one at the English Wikipedia. This one has a lot less information. Please add some of that information to this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor 118,784: You will need to add more information to the article for it to become a GA. Also, the Health section is not worded neutrally, so an NPOV tag could arguably be added to the page. Compare that section to the equivalent section on enwiki, Nutrition, and you will see what I mean. Do you plan on continuing this nomination? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time. I revoke my nomination. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 19:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: FAILED Nominator has withdrawn. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The article became much better than previous nomination' version. Sections are longer, language is more accessible for teenagers and students. But maybe there is need to fix redlinks.

• There is definitely a need to fix redlinks in the infobox and the history section. Also, please remember to put ~~~~ at the end of your posts to sign them. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For me, there are far too many red links in the article, I counted over 20 redlinks in the page, primarily in the history sections but also a good few in other sections.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The red links, as the other users above mentioned are an issue I agree with. Also, source 5 has an cite error too. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: FAILED. No supports and last comment was in December. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

This is one for all those who enjoy looking at naked people.... No seriously, also one of the oldest articles we have. A lot of work has been put into it over the years, it was completely changed once or twice. I know that at currently 84k it is one of the longer ones we have; and I also know that currently there is a tag that the text needs proofreading/fixing. Other than that, the current version has been fairly stable. A bit over 1400 edits by 204 editors. With a bit over 3.000 page views in October 2023, this likely also is one of the top viewed articles here, so spending time improving it, is probably worthwile. The EnWp version is a good article, and slighlty bigger than our version. It got 73.000 views in October. Honestly, other than the proofreading, I see little work needed to be done to the article. What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I wrote most of the text that is currently in the article, and also most of the en.WP article on nudity, which became a GA last month with me and a reviewer working together. As the author, I cannot review or proofread my own work, but can answer any questions and respond to any suggestions that a reviewer may have. My method for simplification was to keep within the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist except for necessary terms that have their own article that I can link to, such as Evolution. Perhaps it remains too technical, but my goal is to present nudity as an important topic that is often misunderstood. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have decided to go through and make changes now that I have not done anything for some time, but I cannot do the GA checklist.WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•   Oppose As much as the writing here is excellent and the simplification of serious topics is well done, it is too centered on European and American concepts and is literally othering to cultures outside the Anglosphere. See: "In Western cultures, women often want to be thinner, men more muscular. In non-western cultures, body image has a different meaning." No explanation, just there are these specifics in Western culture, but other cultures are different. Section 7 is almost entirely US / UK with a very brief smattering of others which have some issues (Japan mentions are not great/misleading). For example, the entire sub section, Male nudity in swim class, is entirely about the US. Private nudity section only surveyed the US and UK. Even the Cultural Differences section continues to focus on Anglo Eurosphere which are longer and mainly show the rest of the world in reference to Anglo-European culture and colonialism. Was there no nudity or clothing before colonization? And, even here, we see a gallery of Nudity in European art only, but is there no nudity in Australian, South American, African, or Asian art? Sorry. This is great writing, but is is Nudity in the West with a coda, not Nudity writ large. --Gotanda (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, agree with above. And even in Europe it doesn't cover the range of behaviours. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC) talk 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: failed: There simply isn't a consensus to promote this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

hello, I think this page meets requirements 1 (it is a movie) 2 (I have finished the page) 4 (it has different categories and 5 language links) 5 () 6 (I have linked important and removed other) 7 (there are 2 images I cant upload any more because of image policy) 8 (no templates) 9 (I have added references) ஃ (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is 8 requirements so I have added it here ஃ (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend changing the selected article to Chandralekha as the article you've given is a redirect that includes unneeded disambiguation and could probably be QD'd.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok I have done this ஃ (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better, I will probably   Support this proposal now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is far too long and complex for this wiki. It should not be considered for G or even less VG. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got to be honest, I would oppose this without further simplification. Whilst there's clearly some effort to make things simple, there's far too many complex sentences. The quote is pretty large and just seems to complicated in general. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ஃ: The article needs simplification, and there are a few people opposed because of that. Would you be willing to work on simplifying it a bit more? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Result: Not Promoted. No more changes have come, the nominator is inactive, and several people have opposed. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've been working for this article for many days, and i think this article needs to be good article, it's because i added many sources, no red links, three images only, and also good grammar. If you notice a problem, i will fix it. Bakhos2010 (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of unsourced paragraphs. Please fix that. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright i fixed it Bakhos2010 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhos2010: I tagged the page as too complex. Words like ancient, according, occurring, and basaltic are not simple enough. Please make the article more simple. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR Done, it's simpler now? Bakhos2010 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting and placed an {{explain}} tag next to a gas burner sentence that needs explaining fr33kman 19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman done, fixed, now theres another a problem? Bakhos2010 (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did more copyediting and one more {{explain}} tag. fr33kman 10:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, i think it's fixed now. Also you gonna support now? Bakhos2010 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support I can't see what else needs doing fr33kman 13:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It looks ready to be a Good Article.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my issues have been fixed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet The writing needs a careful review. Take these sentences for instance, the second of which is not simple or grammatical: "Reports from Iowa and Missouri describe fallen plaster in Dubuque, shaking buildings in Des Moines, and cracked plaster in Chillicothe. Dubuque, Iowa had three shocks, during which gas burners shook, there was panic among residents, rattled windows, shaken chairs, newspaper cases, and even made holes in brick walls." This sentence is vague, "A study discovered over 100 earthquakes on the Richter scale between December 1977 and June 1989 using a seismograph network." Where were they found? And why is this number neaningful? Is it high, low, or typical? Check for contractions such as "that's." There is some jargon and sentences like "Nemaha Ridge, which is a long, folded rock structure with some surrounding faults" which are not simple. "Fault" is never defined or even linked. Finally, the article is quite short. There is not a lot of substance. For example the Reaction subsection is just two sentences long, and they both repeat the same content in different terms. The length is padded out with a Future Threats section which is not very relevant because of the very low chance of a quake indicated on the hazard map. --Gotanda (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, infrequently used vocabulary which should be simplified and if it cannot be simplified, should be linked: rift, rumble, plaster, casualty. --Gotanda (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda I fixed and expanded this page a little bit, because it's hard to fix, and it gonna waste time or something. If there are still wrong, would you help me to fix? By the way, can you talk simpler? Bakhos2010 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll break it down with the first issue: "Fault" is never defined or even linked. This is key to understanding the article. It is not a simple word. --Gotanda (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next: This sentence: "They described it as sudden and said that it scared everyone because earthquakes were not common in the past." means the same thing as this one, "The earthquake was a complete surprise." Therefore it is very repetitive. Two sentences with basically the same ideas do not make a good paragraph. --Gotanda (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotanda is quite right. Because good articles attract attention, they must be well and simply written. People saying "promote it!, promote it it's all done!" are generally not good judges of their own work Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, then how can i make simply words, can you just help me about simply words. Also can you talk simpler please Bakhos Let's talk! 05:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that makes it clear that your command of the English language is not adequate. That means you are dependent upon other editors to re-write the article. I'm guessing of course, but I don't think that's going to happen. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Under "Damage and casualties" towards the end is the phrase "knocked many horses" which I'm sure can be improved. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not Promoted Nominator withdrew on Simple Talk. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I believe that the article "Pakistan" fits the criteria for Good Article status. Firstly, there are no outstanding maintenance tags, indicating that the content is robust and doesn't require major improvements. The subject matter is undoubtedly relevant to Wikipedia, and the article has undergone continuous edits dating back to 13 August 2004‎ according to the revision history. This extended period of engagement demonstrates the sustained effort by various contributors to refine and enhance the article. I invite feedback and discussion from the community to further assess its readiness for Good Article status. What are your thoughts on this nomination? Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see alot of errors and redlinks in the article, its a bit complex too. Editing history isn't the only thing that makes an Article a Good one per se. RiggedMint 19:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyber.Eyes.2005: I just tagged a lot of sourcing issues. Please fix them. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think it is complete enough, since the lack of a Culture section is a major oversight, and a Military section should probably also exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we also need to point out (yes, some of the issues may be problematic):

• Since the partition of India (in the 1940s), there were I think three wars with India.
• The importance of religion has changed; I think Islam is more present; Islamic law has replaced secular (British) Common Law in many parts.
• Without being a Muslim, perhaps even belonging to only one of the two main "sections", you won't do any politics at all.
• Parts of the county ("the Federally-Administered-tribal areas", no idea if that name is current seem to have a law system based on customs and elders passing verdicts), which is indpendent from the other parts of the country
• Readability is a big concern. Make. Shorter. Sentences.
• At least in recent times it is one of the countries where climate change is most apparent. Large floods,...
• At least in some countries there's a touch of "religious fundamentalism" when you speak about Pakistan.

But yes, the article has been around a long time, and many people worked on it. There's a lot of work, and big question is: what do we want for GA level? Eptalon (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've fixed many red links since I nominated the article for GA, I still think it needs a lot of work. I'll continue to improve it and nominate it again. Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not Promoted Nobody is ready to promote and author has withdrawn. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.