Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archives/2025

< Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

Tear down this wall!

change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
Tear down this wall! (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article has been properly expanded, simplified and important terms have been linked. It's fairly complete and there's no red links. I always welcome feedback on how to improve article in terms of simplifying it a bit further :)

  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. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support This article is definitely ready to be a GA.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there is a little scope to simplify it a tad more (if you were to go to VGA) and maybe id have more points there, but I think this meets the criteria for GA status. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Support I agree with Lee Vilenski that it could be simplified more if you wanted it to become a VGA, but it fits the GA requirements as of now. ~Junedude433talk 22:43, 24 December 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.

Rock Lee‎

change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
Rock Lee (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on this page for a while. There is much to be improved, but with some effort and work based on feedback we might be able to lift it up to GA.--BRP ever 13:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there are a bit too many red links, especially near the end of the article.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will be working on those and creating a few pages to deal with that. Will probably finish by this Thursday/Friday. BRP ever 06:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FusionSub I have created a few pages and linked most of the red links. There are still few but this shouldn't be a big problem anymore. MourningRainfall also helped link/create many pages.--BRP ever 13:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 4 but that (in my opinion) is a good enough number of red links for a good article.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now there are two, which I am leaving for those that are interested. Just some character so nothing that's going to significantly affect the page. BRP ever 11:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article is well-written and detailed, it needs some simplification. Some words are complex and not linked/simplified (ex: symbol, popularity, promotional, interview, polls, demonic, etc.) You can either simplify the complex terms, link them to an article, or link them to the Simple English Wiktionary. Also, shortening complex sentences would improve the article's readability, as tests show that it is currently at a 9th to 10th-grade level. After simplification (and an attempt to remove the last two red links), this article should be ready to obtain GA status. Peterlaxamazing (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the comment. I will be working on this for the next few days and will keep you updated. BRP ever 21:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterlaxamazing I tried simplifying a bit further. If you have specific part or sentences that can be made better, please point me towards that. Most of the above words have been linked/simplified. Also, can you link me the test you are using? Since there are many terms which are from the series and games, it's difficult to get good score but I will try working on it further. BRP ever 22:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Article looks well enough for GA. It's in-depth, two red link articles (shouldn't be a dealbreaker) and the article does appear simplified enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak support I plugged the article's text into a Flesch-Kincaid reading score calculator. I realize it's not a perfect end-all-be-all measurement, but I think it's a good stand-in. It came back with the grade level being 7.5 and the reading ease score being 66; this comes out to about an 8th or 9th grade reading level. If you would like this to go further (say, a VGA nomination), I'd try to find a way to get this down to a 6th grade reading level (7th grade at a minimum), especially given the subject material. ~Junedude433talk 22:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Per TDKR. Raayaan9911 13:59, 2 January 2025 (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.

Athena

change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
Athena (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have done some work on to this article, mainly adding good sources, some copyediting (minor). I feel like it is ready to be a good article. I am open to suggestions on how to make this article better and a good article Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 04:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme Needs a bit more simplifying and breaking up sentences with coordinating conjunctions. This article has potential, but it needs minor changes. Thanks, Aster🪻 talk edits 12:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lemme work on it Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asteralee   Done Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Great job :) Aster🪻 talk edits 13:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: It's close and the expansion is good, however there's roughly 25-26 red links. I think the number of red links should be reduced a bit further. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, any suggetions. its going to take a long time Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 09:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now the page lacks any good pictures. I think the pictures could have been better explained or more pages could have been created. GA is not something we rush into. We are trying to promote the page in terms of quality and not just status here. BRP ever 10:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TDKR Chicago 101 I removd the picture, that may help Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 09:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no more red links, created 2 articles Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 10:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I feel that the article could talk more about her impact on classical/post-classical art. Maybe some more information about her mythology might be nice too. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, will add in the weekends Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 12:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think removal of infobox was a bad idea. BRP ever 10:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
added back, working on links Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 11:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 12:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting really close. I personally feel that the article just needs a bit more info about Athena and art. Maybe more info about her appearing in artwork from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries or statues of her appearing in several prominent buildings like at the Austrian Parliament Building or even at the Statue of Liberty. Like I said, it's getting pretty close, nice work on expansion though! :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... sure!! Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 08:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 09:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a good look through the article. I am a bit worried there are too many complex words being used, could do with a bit more simplifying. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski Can u show me some examples? Thankss!!! Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 08:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly good, but things like:
With the name Parthenos, she was worshiped in the festivals of the Panathenaea and Pamboeotia where both militaristic and athletic displays took place. With the name Promachos she led in battle.
ask for forgivness for accidentally breaking any of the college's numerous other traditions
Athena's most common epithet is Glaukopis. The word is a combination of glaukós and ṓps
I get that some of this is naturally difficult, but I do think it could be simplified further. Although, it's much better than it was when I read it previously. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 January 2025 (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.


Big Break

change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
Big Break (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've put some work into researching one of the most silly but also popular BBC Television shows from the 1990s. I'm happy to answer any issues you might have. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: Not a bad start! I went ahead and created the BBC Genome Project article as that was the major redlink in the ref section. Overall not bad, but I feel that the article could be expanded just a bit. Seeing the enwiki article, I see a "history" section that talks about how the idea and the show itself came to be. Perhaps something like that would benefit the article. Just a thought. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, obviously this was based on that article. I think a lot of that history is only based on this source [1], which I have no idea of the validity of. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to do some research over the week/weekend and see if I could find any reliable source to expand the article :) If not, I could change my comment to a support vote! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried doing some research, but Lee is right. Unable to find a solid reliable article to expand the article. Made the right call in not adding information with a questionable source. Overall article looks good, simple and covers the material well with good sources.   Support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Support meets the criteria for GA easily. Is simple enough, I was trying to find a replacement for contestant but can't think of a word that matches the whole thing better. Anyways, definitely qualifies for GA. BRP ever 12:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would competitor be a good replacement? Competitors are usually sportspeople, but competition is BE 850. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few commments. I do not normally review GAs, so forgiveness is requested if this is too much:
  • Compare the tense in the paragraph describing "red hot" (is, are) with the other paragraphs describing the other parts of the game. It is inconsistent.
  • There are tables for "Christmas Specials", "Stars of the Future", and "Trick Shot Specials". However, there is no in-text explanation as to what these are.
  • The Trick Shot Specials are provided in a single-column table. Consider whether a list would be more appropriate (enWP reference).
  • Lede paragraph mentions 213 episodes, the production section mentions 212 episodes?
  • Production section closely mirrors the lede paragraph. Is there a way to present the information in a different way?
Best, Griff (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for this. In my eyes the GAN process is for this - getting feedback on articles. I'll take a look at your points and get back to you. :) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted issues raised have been dealt with, consensus to promote.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:20, 12 January 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles/Archives/2025&oldid=10011971"