Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles/Archive 7

Archived Proposals

Joe Biden

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

Recent failed GA nom, but other users suggested bringing it up here instead of at GA because they thought it could be ready. If you think it it's GA, but not VGA, mention it here or kick this down to GA. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To short per our current criteria: see toolserver. Barras (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're bringing this to VGA because it failed GA? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Purplebackpack89 in the Joe Biden GA section for the conversation that led it here. Personally, I thought it should've gone back to GA, and with these comments, I suggest closing this and immediately renomming it for GA. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed and moved to GA Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

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

Recently failed VGA nom, closed since 1 or 2 concerns were waiting to be fixed. I'd like to see what is needed to take it to VGA. Pmlineditor Talk 15:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very close. I'd prefer to not see about 12 decimal places in the conversions from km to AU (in the infobox), and I'm still dubious over the reliability of some of the sources. Sure I can take NASA as reliable, but something called Astrowiki gets me suspicious immediately. And "etymonline" and "wisegeek"? But the content and presentation is generally very good so this is close. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We've got 2 weeks and I believe I can find several sources (considering that the enwp version is an FA). Pmlineditor Talk 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well why wait? Crack on with it so, like Barras, when you go to voting, there are no major issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak now.:P I'm searching for the sources. Pmlineditor Talk 16:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed AU rounded off to 4 places. Pmlineditor Talk 16:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The enwp FA has etymonline and it appears to be notable. Pmlineditor Talk 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "appears to be notable"? Prove it please, and no referring back to en.wiki - it may just be that they have a dodgy source in an FA - it has been known... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I get another source. Pmlineditor Talk 12:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Added. Pmlineditor Talk 12:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - And I removed the unneeded wisegeek source and added another source with AstroWiki. Pmlineditor Talk 16:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice looking article. I support. :) --Bsa dow ski1 08:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks fine. иιƒкч ? 08:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No reason to argue with Sadowski and Nifky Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article should become a VGA. I found it pleasent to read and thought it was very well referenced. All in all, VGA worthy. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PVGA IS NO LONGER A VOTE. PLEASE DO NOT USE COMMENTS SUCH AS "SUPPORT" OR "OPPOSE". THEY WILL NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS CLOSED. PLEASE EXPAND YOUR COMMENTS WITH REASONING AS TO WHY IT SHOULD BE A VERY GOOD ARTICLE. THANK YOU. Gob lin 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Goblin, it's kinda wrong to change the criteria in the middle of a review. There's no reason why the article can't finiish the way it started. Please stop using all caps. It's hard on the eyes. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the top clearly states "This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc." Afkatk (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't say that when the discussion started--it was changed a few days ago, hence my comment. Riding on me when I point that out is not needed. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article promotion shouldn't be decided on a "support" "oppose" basis anyway, they should meet the Criteria set. Afkatk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack, i'm going to say this bluntly. Shut the hell up moaning about the process, and either suggest some ways of further improving it or GTFO and build some wiki. I'm getting fed up of you constantly moaning and wingeing, and I won't hesitate to request a block on you for project disruption if I feel it's warranted. Understand? Now, we are getting very OT, so to continue come visit my TP. Gob lin 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

<-For clarification: BG7 cannot block you. BG, please calm down and stop attacking purple. Although users can get annoying at times, being able to keep calm in all situations is a very important asset, on wiki and off. Remember. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin, that's a threat, and is taken as such. With regard to the process, I actually liked it the way it was, and didn't like the idea of "changing horses" in midstream. The other users and I were following the rules from a few days ago when it's different; there's no reason for capitals and being blunt and GTFO. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted two minor thingson the article's talk page. Please fix this. At all, it looks fine to me. Barras (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two have been fixed. Pmlineditor Talk 08:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support: Very good article in terms Outline, text, information, infobox, reference, etc. Need a bit more development in fields of see also and categories. --Srin ivas 15:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the enwp one has 2 cats, so I think 1 is ok. :) I have expanded the Other Pages section. Pmlineditor Talk 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it will make a fine VGA. I don't have any concerns. hmwith τ 06:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Promoted; This article has received an overwhelming amount of support, and it is my pleasure to promote this article to Very Good Article status. Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work! Gob lin 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Ernst Röhm

Ernst Röhm (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: 1 October 2009, 18:00

Hello all! I want to nominate Röhm for a VGA. I think it meets our criteria and hope for a lot of input. All comments are welcome. I'll try to address all concerns as fast as even possible. Barras (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the nice comments (means no comments). It looks like the article is perfect if no-one says anything. If there are no objections, I guess we can see it as a fully community support and can promote the article to a VGA. </sarcasm> Barras (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd review this today; but couldn't get the time - so I definitely do it tomorrow. Pmlineditor^Talk 17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence where it says he discovered his homosexuality in 1924 is a little unclear. (Does it mean that he thought he was heterosexual before he discovered he was homosexual?) Bernhard Lippert (his nephew) doesn't seem notable based on the internal link and doesn't have any references. "In 1919, Rohm joined the German Worker Party (DAP)" should be German Workers' Party. It should be explained DAP is the abbreviation for the German name of German Workers' Party and that the German Workers' Party was the predecessor of the Nazi Party. Fafas (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fafas. I think I have fixed your concerns. Please have a second look and tell me if there is anything wrong with it. Barras (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You've addressed my previous concerns. Fafas (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Sorry, but I'm just too busy to fix the concerns right now. I'll fix the concerns (after my holiday) and repost the article. Barras (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portman Road

Portman Road (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

End date: 6 October 2009, 17:18

No red links, comprehensive, stable, illustrated, I think this meets everything we want in a VGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No issues that I can see at first glance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just after an overview: The last section about transport has only 3 sentences. That's not enough for an own section header. Barras (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there's not much more to say about it, and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anywhere in our MOS that says how many sentences are required for a section? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There isn't anything in our MoS, but it looks odd in comparison to the other, much longer sections. Barras (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well perhaps you can suggest where the information could be rehoused. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No bother, I've merged it with another section. Hopefully this allays your fears. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this article is great. --Bsa dow ski1 02:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deep review posted on the article's talk page. Good work at all. Barras (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deep review responded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Promoted. Really a good work. All concerns are fixed. Some users stated that this is a very good article. So far, no reason to not promoted this article. I hope for more such great articles from you TRM. Barras (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ismael

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

To the best of my knowledge, all of the concerns from the previous pvgood nomination have been addressed. It's fairly short, but there's no missing substantial information. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Too short per our current criteria. Barras (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has that changed recently...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 4.47kb and WP:RVGA says 5.0kb. Barras (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got it up to around 4.7 kb. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well to have the same standarts for all VGAs, 5 KB is required. Best Barras (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted. There is only about 4.4kb of info (5KB required). It has not been worked on in almost two weeks, and the only person that discussed this said no, unless it met 5KB. Sorry, Griffinofwales (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool tramway

Blackpool tramway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

There are a few red links that i'll be creating shortly, but other than that I think that this article is read for VGA status. Please let me know if anything needs doing. Thanks, Gob lin 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

The pictures don't seem formatted properly. Fafas (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix TRM's concerns and create the redlinks. After this ping me again for a review. Please note that I will be away between 4th evening and 9th afternoon. Barras (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All issues addressed and 2 redlinks to make. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still work being done on this one. The discussion is extended one weeks time. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moah comments await. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done :) Gob lin 14:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
Looks fine to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: All concerns have been fixed. Seeing that no more issues have been raised; I close this as promoted. Good work on the article. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 15:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune

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

Sufficiently long, has sources and is comprehensive. There used to be a complex tag and so I'd like to get a review to know how to simplify it. Only 5 redlinks and a few template errors are there which will be easy to handle. Pmlineditor^Talk 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix first the template errors and also the ones in the references. Please make sure that all refs have accessdate, publisher and so on (as usual). Also use in the other websites section the {{cite web | }} template. Please do also unlink all dates. After this, please ping me to review this article again. Barras (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be done tomorrow. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs a serious look at the complexity issues of some sentences. For instance, "Comparing its rotational speed to its degree of oblateness shows that it has its mass less concentrated towards the center unlike Uranus" is really not Simple English, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as not promoted: Apparently it's been withdrawn... Gob lin 15:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Billy Graham

Billy Graham (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Meets most criteria. Sufficiently long. Sources need formatting which I'll do. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your assessment. Should be comprehensive enough and does need sources to be reformatted. Not keen on bullet point, virtually trivia based list of "other issues" - these should be merged somewhere appropriate, or the section revised into prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly deleted that section which was full of original research. Even the refs were not reliable. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting Done. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specific comments on first portion of the article added. More to follow. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specific comments on the second portion of the article added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all that relevant here but should the article be moved to avoid confusion with well-known 1970s US wrestler "Superstar" Billy Graham? Soup Dish (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought if "Superstar" had an article, we could put a note at the top of this article stating "Not to be confused with 1970s US wrestler "Superstar" Billy Graham." (I've never heard of him but I suspect that hundreds of millions of people have heard of this particularly Billy Graham...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good enough to be VGA now. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 12:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Good work with this one, it's a pleasure to promote it to Very Good Article status. Good work PM. Gob lin 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

Talyllyn Railway

Talyllyn Railway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Probably needs lots of work as it's fairly complex, and it's not quite finished yet... but I think it has VGA potential so please help :) Cheers, Gob lin 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Is it long enough? I have run the tool over it but it looks quite short? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite done yet, but does meet the minimum length. Basically, yes, lots more needs doing to it! Cheers, Gob lin 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
So let me know when you need a full review. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many redlinks that must be sorted out first. FSM ^Noodly? 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will create red links shortly. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't touch this one yet please. It's still not complete like I mentioned above. Ta, Gob lin 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

You don't own this article BG :) FSM ^Noodly? 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya. Quit with the "i'm better than you" style comments now. Be warned I won't take any shit. I never implied ownership. I don't think anyone would argue that I know the most about trains on Simple and therefore I know what links can and can't be axed. It's also "my" VGA (I nommed it and the like) and it's therefore good courtesy to ask before starting editing it. Most of the redlinks will not be needed by the time it's done. Gob lin 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

There is nothing about being better than you in FSM's comment... lets not start drama. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly is. I've been involved with WP for nearly three years, I think I know the policies surrounding WP:OWN. Oh, I wave in the direction of my talk to. Let's drama away. Gob lin 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

(Unindenting) Clearly you don't understand WP:OWN, otherwise you wouldn't have referred to the article as 'my' or asked another editor to leave it alone until you had finished with it. We're all working towards the same goal here, if PMlineditor (or any other editor) sees a problem with the article he can fix then why not? You should be happy, because the article is being improved. FSM ^Noodly? 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly do. I am trying to stop another editor from wasting time creating redlinks that do not need to be created because they may end up being deleted from the article. If it makes you happy, Withdrawn. FU. Gob lin 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

It's not up to you. If an editor wanted to create those redlinks they can do so. Advise them not to if you so wish, but don't tell people 'don't touch this article'. It's not your decision, as you don't own the article. And there's no need to withdraw it, I would like to see this as a VGA, certainly it does not make me happy you withdrawing it. Please reconsider :) FSM ^Noodly? 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I worded it wrongly then. It was meant as a "this is some advice", not "this is my article, hands off" because it isn't. But no, it's currently still withdrawn because it's still not comprehensive nor complete and there's no point it being here until it is. VGA has suddenly picked up making my pre-emptative nominations pointless. Gob lin 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Withdrawn - per Bluegoblin7's request.

Yellow (song)

Yellow (song) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I'd like to put this forward for a VGA. It's something non-transport after all! ;) Gob lin 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Ya. Get in. Comments await. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs appropriate categories but otherwise it looks good to me. Awesome song too :) FSM ^Noodly? 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cats now sorted out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like "Meaning" sections, but looks good to me.-- † CR ₉₀ 11:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many redlinks for my liking. I think VGAs should represent the VERY BEST we have to offer as a project. Other than the redlinks, it's ready to go! fr33kman ^talk 11:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments guys. I'll get working on the redlinks now, and i'll lose the navbox at the bottom for the time being - a bit pointless making that many one line redlinks! CR90: I believe that I went into stuff about the meaning in a different section, but I may be mistaken... Gob lin 11:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Promoted –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Corporation Tramways

Southampton Corporation Tramways (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Needs some work doing to it, but by the time someone reviews it it will be done ;) I think this will meet all the VGA criteria :) Gob lin 11:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

And work is done to it... but please, comments for moar work! :) Gob lin 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

As ever your humble PVGA servant, comments await. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a first glance, I'd say the lead needs to be expanded to at least a full para. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a Southampton resident, most of the article makes no sense to me. It talks about arcane stops, and tram jargon that isn't always understandable. British and Foreign Tramway Company is some random company -- who are they? There are place names that I have never heard of. A picture of the Bargate is on Commons. It reads more like facts & figures than an encyclopaedia article in places. There is inconsistency through out the article, World War 2 and World War II, for example. For the record, Above Bar is the main shopping street, merging into the High Street. It needs different references, as 4 is not enough, and 2 is overused. The article reads like it is about [[Southampton Trams]] and not [[Southampton Corporation Tramways]]. Message ends. —MC8 (b · t) 16:49, Monday November 9 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw Ya. Your concerns are valid and not ones that I can fix easily without investing in some more Comprehensive Tramway Literature. Thanks nonetheless. Gob lin 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Scottish Premier League

Scottish Premier League (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Sufficiently long, several refs. It's a GA already and can be a good enough for VGA. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoots. I've left a bunch of preliminary comments on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll fix them soon. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Not Promoted: There's no consensus for a promote, nor has any work been done on the article for several days. Therefore closing as not promoted. Gob lin 10:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Tropical Storm Gabrielle (2007)

Tropical Storm Gabrielle (2007) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Simplified and rewritten. Should be good to go now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, I don't bite. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you do ;) You're the next on my list. Not sure if tomorrow, but soon :) --Barras (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed. --Barras (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me now. Well done. --Barras (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Good work on this one, pleased to promote it up to VGA status. Well done! Gob lin 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

Kingsway tramway subway

Kingsway tramway subway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It does need some more work, and is not quite complete, but I believe that it has the potential to be a VGA and so am nomnomnoming it. Comments please. Gob lin 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

The first sentence leaves me (a native English speaker...) confused and unsure of the article's subject. Perhaps the redlinks could be created or the jargon explained a bit? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JC, the sentence means that the subway was built using the "cut and cover" method, where a hole is dug and then a roof placed on top, and that it is a Grade II listed building, meaning that it's extremely unlikely that it can be altered and it cannot be demolished/destroyed. Perhaps the redlinks will make that clearer. Cheers, Gob lin 09:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Alright, the rest looks good to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) Done all redlinks and things commented now, but can do more if required :) Gob lin 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Looks fine to me. All my concerns on the talk page are fixed. Well done. --Barras (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. ^_^ Pmlineditor ∞ 09:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as promoted: Good job on the article! Yotcmdr ^=talk= 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

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

Needs a bit more work, but otherwise, it is still one of the best articles that I think we have to offer. There are five redlinks left, and some references could be found with more sourcing, but other than that, this article is extremely long with 83(!) references, so I think it is a definite VGA candidate. It was a VGA before, but I added in the Government section, which added more redlinks. They are now being phased out, which will make them gone fairly shortly. Razor flame 13:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The refs need to be formatted properly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are, I thought. Razor flame 05:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, refs 1, 31, 32, 33, 75, 76, 77, and 78 are bare links, while dozens more are missing author info, publisher info, date of retrieval, or a combination of all three. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a good reference person, so I can't really help with the clean up of those references, but I can still work on filling in those redlinks :). Cheers, Razor flame 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes it could be, but we need to work on those missing redlinked pages. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 08:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Not Promoted: Sorry, there are still loads of outstanding issues with this article, and no support for a promotion at this time. Work on the comments and come back soon! Gob lin 10:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Epping Ongar Railway

Epping Ongar Railway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Another transport article i'm afraid, here's my latest offering for VGA (Yes, I know about the redlinks...) Cheers, Gob lin 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

No. I do not believe that this article is good enough to become a VGA. Many sentences sound clunky and are grammatically incorrect; sentence fluidity is at an all-time low, the categorization of the page is a mess and isn't simple, and the references could use a little cleanup. Furthermore, there are unreferenced claims in the article that need more referencing, and the article length itself is quite short as compared to some of the other VGAs. I don't think that this article should be a VGA. Cheers, Razor flame 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, saying 'blah blah blah it shouldn't be an VGA because I say so' isn't terribly useful. Perhaps give me, like, a full talk page full of comments as to what needs changing. Length also is not an issue. Oh, and it's not a vote. Gob lin 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

I know that this is not a vote, however, I am merely expressing my opinion. I expressed clearly why this shouldn't be a VGA and I will stick to that. I do still believe that length is an issue because the length of the article is short compared to some of the other ones. I, unlike TRM, don't have the time to provide an in-depth explanation of everything, so I just give the main points that need to be fixed. Razor flame 05:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say that. Clean up the references, add some more, sort out the categories, and ask for clarification on the other issues. No need to be blunt about it. Majorly talk 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The length of an article is irrelevant to its quality, as demonstrated by the recent changes to the VGA criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of redlinks, redlinked categories, and the template that stretches the page (the one at the bottom), I don't think this is ready for VGA yet. TheWeakWilled (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't useful. I'm aware the redlinks need to be done and they will be done last - let's get the textual issues sorted out first. Ta, Gob lin 11:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Not promoted This PVGA is closed as not promoted since very few concerns have been fixed and the article, in the present state, is not VGA standard, and it hasn't been edited for nearly a week now. I'll encourage Goblin to attend the issues and propose this for VGA. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 12:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florence and the Machine

Florence and the Machine (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Still some work to be done - as well as redlinks - but I believe that this article is in VGA shape. And it's not transport related! Gob lin 23:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Redlinks == instant fail for me, regardless of policy. — μ 13:17, Sunday January 10 2010 (UTC)

I agree... and they are policy. Getting to them later today/tomorrow. Gob lin 13:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

VGA status for this article.--Sinbad (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say that when there are clearly many red links in the article and a maintenance tag is sitting at the top of the page? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the red-links are often considered bad by wikipedians.. but seriously here on simple english Wikipedia that rule shouldnt and can not be applied as it is a wikipedia in its early stages still. When we are over a 100.000 articles that rule could start to apply. And by the way that can always be fixed by the nominator or someone else interested.--Sinbad (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why i stick to promoting this to VGA status.--Sinbad (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get the current criteria changed then as this blatantly fails. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

´This is one persons personal opinion. Dont take it that hard my friend.--Sinbad (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'm not taking anything hard. Redlinks aren't allowed in VGAs. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are still too many red links. A few here and there could be ignored, but there are too much of them. Classical Esther 07:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted - Several redlinks and issues with the article and hence, this is not promoted. Please address the concerns. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 11:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Premier League

Scottish Premier League (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Previously failed to become a VGA due to outstanding concerns. I've fixed most of the concerns and referenced the article. Few redlinks remain to be created. However, the rest is done. Comments are welcome. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im in support of this article becoming a VGA status article.--Sinbad (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red links and MOS issues (in particular the use of hyphen rather than the approved en-dash for scorelines, and the overuse of bold in the "records" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These will be fixed within the next week.

Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a very little more work, I think this would qualify as a VGA. Classical Esther 07:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues and redlinks fixed. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. Nifky^{^} 12:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still see a few redlinks in the references section. I oppose it becoming a VGA till those are blue.-- † CR ₉₀ 05:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks obliterated. Pmlineditor ∞ 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as I mentioned on IRC, it could use more images, but it's good to become a VGA by me now. :) -- † CR ₉₀ 05:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article, the requirements again to make sure and all the comments and changes from here and the talk page I think I'm comfortable that the article is clearly ready to gain VGA status so: Closed as promoted James (T C) 11:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epping Ongar Railway

Epping Ongar Railway (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Bringing this back to PVGA now that i've done some more work on it and done all the redlinks. Comments please! Gob lin 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Comments on the article's talk page. --Barras ^talk 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Gob lin 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Think it is good enough for VGA. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need to fix the things TRM pointed out. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Looks fine to me now. Well done. -Barras ^talk 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Promote anyone? —§ stay (sic)! 04:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me also, I'll promote :D FSM ^Noodly? 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, please wait. I'm awaiting a final review, and I object to someone voting and closing. Gob lin 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

That wasn't my vote, I was explaining why I had come to the decision to promote. And something needs to be done at PGA and PVGA - discussions go on for weeks with no definite or obvious outcome. It's stagnating. FSM ^Noodly? 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's extremely untrue. (V)GAs never last more than three weeks unless it's a lack of input, and no (V)GA goes un-promoted if it truly deserves it. On a system that's had so much controversy and discussion on recent months, any changes should be proposed... and that includes "bold" closures such as this one and the others you seem intent on making. Please pay more attention to the finer points of the process before making outlandish claims - and before you say anything, yes, I know what i'm on about, i've closed pretty much every request/promote. (Except my own) Gob lin 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

(unindent) So you are allowed to make bold closures and no-one else is? This system needs voting, not in the 'x support votes = promotion' way but an easier way for people to tell when to promote and when to not, without pointless and nigh on endless discussions. The reason you have closed pretty much every request/promote is because no-one else is doing so. Like I said it's stagnating. FSM ^Noodly? 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never made bold closures - and certainly not ones that have run for around a week. My personal view is that articles should be listed for at least two weeks before any closures can take place to allow everyone to comment. The system has been working even better since we removed voting, and more GAs and VGAs have been promoted - on average - than when we had voting. The process is very much not stagnating - I think PGA shows this. Gob lin 22:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

I'd like to see my comments at least responded to before this is promoted. Notes on the talkpage. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
VGA ready according to me.--Sinbad (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Please deal with the notes on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's very neatly done, but I wish it was less complex. Why don't we simplify it a bit more and see Rambling Man's comments first? Classical Esther 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extended for a week: While there is general consensus to promote this, there are still unattended comments in the talk page. I think we should give the nominator more time to work on this, and thus, I extend this by a week. This will now be closed on 2nd February 2010. Ta, Pmlineditor ∞ 11:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful article. No red links and has good length. A bit more references and it would be perfect. I-on talk sign! 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke my 'support' from above. As long as TRM's concerns aren't fixed, there is no reason for me to say yes here. -Barras ^talk 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not promoted: The concerns haven't been fixed yet; thus not promoted. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth characters

Middle-earth characters (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Informative about the characters from Tolkiens books. Perhaps only people who actually has read the books should comment on this article. Sinbad (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but I can't support this unless it has 20 additional references, and perhaps an image or two. Fix that, then we can discuss content Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not comprehensive. Tons to add here; let alone the refs. I want a page for each notable character. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a list of characters with a little bit of info on them for each one without any individual articles. Needs refs and images badly. Nifky^{^} 07:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not ready for VGA, not a single reference. Perhaps you should revisit the criteria for what makes a VGA? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very welel aware of the criterias. But i am aware about the source issue but still it is a good article when considering. Still I hav eno problem taking in suggestions and other peoples opinions ofcourse. Its for all of the wikipedians actually to help articles on the way. if this shouldnt be VGA approved this time. I stick by my nomination.--Sinbad (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article like this needs to be a GA before it can be a VGA, in my opinion: it's barely up to scratch. — μ 19:26, Monday January 18 2010 (UTC)
Not one ref. Definitely not ready for VGA status right now. Megan|^talk_changes 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No refs. Not yet ready for being VGA. -Barras ^talk 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune

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

Well referenced, informative, reasonably long. You really get to know everything about the planet Neptune.Sinbad (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to heavily contribute to this article many months ago. My opinion may be biased, but the article is in strong VGA quality. —§ stay (sic)! 18:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you i might be biased to but.. i see this article as VGA status ready.--Sinbad (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who nominated this article for VGA few months back, I confess that this is far away from VGA state. Lots of work to do, excessively complex. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS work needs to be done, and a lot of complex terms/words which either need simplification or linking, and that's just in a quick glance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with the two previous entries here. I think neptune is VGA ready and very good article.--Sinbad (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this and our comments before deciding whether an article is VGA standard or not. No article is perfect and they all need work to become VGAs. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was more neatly arranged and much more simplified - as Pmlineditor pointed out, it really is too complex still - it would qualify better as a VGA, I believe. Classical Esther 07:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Just by scrolling-down I found redlinks. Not simple enough as stated above. -Barras ^talk 12:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

Elizabeth II (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Good references, very interesting reading, good length, quality article. --Sinbad (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great length, 37 references (wow), and as far as I can see, there are no red links. 110% support! I-on talk sign! 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are MoS issues. Example: sentence._[ref] Needs to be changed to sentence.[ref]. -Barras ^talk 21:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a minor issue.--Sinbad (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful article. A last proofreading, just one or two more references on certain sentences, a little - a very little - more simplifying, and I think it'll be fine. Nice length, too. Classical Esther 02:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any MoS problems (unless they were fixed and I missed them in the article history). But the article needs more references. Almost the entire introduction has no refs. Some of the other paragraphs have the same problem. Unless this is fixed, I say no for VGA. Megan|^talk_changes 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues (dash problems, reference problems, reference placement issues, misuse of bold), referencing problems (many, many paras without a single ref), POV issues ("fabulous", "The celebrations were not so big as 25 years earlier, because the Queen's mother and sister had both died that year.", "The Queen is very rarely sick") - nowhere near good enough yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the following points are POV. POV is "Point of View" and indicates that the writer is stating their own opinion.

"The celebrations were not as big...because the Queen's mother and sister had both died" is not a POV issue. It is a fact. The celebrations were scaled back specifically because of the deaths of the Queen Mother and Princess. It can probably be referenced.
That the queen is "very rarely sick" is also "fact", not POV. It can also probably be referenced in a reliable biography.

Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence, these are both "somebody's point of view", that's really very straightforward. If you provide refs then great, until then, POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note, there are vast swaths of this article which are completely unreferenced, and that itself makes this unacceptable for becoming one of our very best articles. The refs that do exist need to be formatted and filled in correctly. There are still MOS issues, there's still a redlink, the table seems to be malformed, the "other websites" are just an arbitrary bunch of semi-relevant links. This has a way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted There are still outstanding issues on the article and I hardly see any attempt in fixing them. Sorry, but the article is not ready yet. -Barras ^talk 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xena: Warrior Princess

Xena: Warrior Princess (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Many references, coverage of all aspects of the TV-series, good length. --Sinbad (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some opinions please?--Sinbad (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good length and well referenced, but it seems too complex. I tried to simplify the introduction, but I'm not sure I did a good enough job. Megan|^talk_changes 22:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS problems (placement of references, overuse of bold, incorrect use of hyphens, mixture of date formats in refs, periods in captions with incomplete sentences), red links in the references, several debatable "reliable" sources, three non-existent categories, actually terrible English e.g. "We continue to Kevin Tod Smith with 31 appearances, Hudson Leick and Karl Urban with 12 and Alexandra Tydings with 11. In the last episode, the eastern star Michelle Ang playing Akemi. t", this is absolute opposition in no uncertain terms to this being promoted. A massive amount of work to be done. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Production", there is very few links. Just to name some of them that could be linked are:New Zealand, American, Actress, Bruce Campbell, Lyrics, Series, and much much more. Combined with TRM comments, this article needs loads and loads of work. Do not worry about the link problem, I will fix that one myself. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted: Several unattended comments and MOS issues. No consensus to promote this at this point in time. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid belt

Asteroid belt (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this is a very well-written article that explains the subject clearly without being boring. --WanderNauta (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced; reads like a "how to" page; original research. Also, not enough information. I suggest you review this before submitting articles at PVGA. Nevertheless, your contributions are appreciated. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that one. Sorry to waste your time. -- WanderNauta (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too short, needs to at least triple in size.
References?
Poorly written. Guide your reader. Also Sentences like That's just what planets look like! are probably unencyclopedic.
Go for Good Article first, that flag is easier to obtain. --Eptalon (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted Well, I speedily close this now as not promoteds. Please follow Pmlineditor's advice and review our standards for VGAs. I don't think it is possible to get this done and make a VGA in the next time out of it. However, you're welcome to re-propose this article when you worked on it. Barras ^talk 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]