kidzsearch.com > wiki

# KidzSearch Encyclopedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 3

## Requests

### Chris Parks

Article removed from proposed good articles 2008-08-07 -- Creol(talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have written this article and it looks like it is ready for GA but that is my opinion but I need yours. ThePageChangerTC 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a fairly good article, but it has way too many red links. A few is alright, but it just has too many. Cheers -- American Eagle (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
FIXEDThePageChangerTC 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait. The requirements say, "All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left." They still must be linked, but they must be blue (created). But that takes days to do. We can't just remove the links. -- American Eagle (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I can't fix it because I will be on vacation from tommorow until next saturday. ThePageChangerTC 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh, ThePageChanger? Your signature is the longest I've ever seen... Could you maybe me shorten it. Oh, and the colors are hurting my eyes... -- RyanCross (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
RyanCross don't pretend you don't know me. I'll change my sig. ThePageChangerTC 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Kthnxbai! ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
??? ThePageChanger! 01:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• It's a virtual copy and paste from the English wikipedia with very little simplification involved, has few citations for the amount of text put in there, and is a complete WALL OF TEXT on a few of the paragraph monsters. Definitely not ready for GA material. Cassandra 01:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) I was going to say that. If we're going to get this to GA status, more simplification is needed, and a thorough wikification of the article would be needed also, along with better and more referencing. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• I SIMPLIFIED IT THE BEST I CAN ALRIGHT THAT WAS MY FIRST ARTICLE OK???ThePageChanger! 01:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Please don't capitalize all the characters in your response, that is considered yelling. -- RyanCross (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Well SORRY but don't blame me for the article. ThePageChanger! 02:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Nobody's "blaming" you, it just needs a lot of improvement. Trust me, most of our articles need improving. -- RyanCross (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oh so should I withdraw this article? ThePageChanger! 02:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• "CHILL OUT GUYS" - and yes, I did use uppercase. He did do a lot of work on it, and it was his first article - mine was worse. Leave him alone, he did well on it. It needs work before GA, but there's nothing worth fighting over. -- American Eagle (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- Actually, I think I can wikify this article myself. Help would be very much appreciated. What needs to be simplified is the copy and paste version, which is a big portion of the article. -- RyanCross (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Well thanks American Eagle and RyanCross. See ya next week. (not yet) ThePageChanger! 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

### Scottish Premier League

It meets all the criteria, its a nice article. I have expanded it by a huge amount, and think its ready to be a GA. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are some redlinks for dates in the references. This is probably an issue with the cite web template, but it's caused by you using date=[[1999-05-03]]; you need to use date=[[3 May]] [[1999]] or something like that, I believe. —Giggy 06:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Resuilt: not promoted, too few votes--Eptalon (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

### Avril Lavigne

Now meets 5 GA criteria, now working on the remaining 4. Currently magically turning links blue. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's only one reference and it barely talks about her career. —Giggy 06:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• It's really short. Doesn't go into a lot of detail about her music career, reviews about it, how her style and voice has been judged by reviewers, etc. Cassandra 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

### Human

I think it meets most of the GA criteria. It's very much long enough, has enough links, no red links, is in the appopriate categories and had undergone extensive copyediting and a major rewrite by various users. I know the end sections aren't very long but I think its good enough for GA at least. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Grrr! I upload this proposal first it gets no comments, then minor contributer puts his up and gets a thousand comments in five minutes. Grrr. No offence Minor Contributer. ( : The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Some notes to get started on...
• "Humans have four stages in their lives. Infancy, adolesence, adulthood and old age." - can you say more about each of these?
• Check throughout for issues like this.
• The Psychology section really should be expanded a bit.
• Giggy 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well Psychology really isn'y my field of expertise to be honest. Do you know anything about it? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really. I think Eptalon has some knowledge in that field. —Giggy 08:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Eptalon is totally clueless with regards to psychology. --Eptalon (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake... I thought I vaguely recalled you starting a WikiProject or something like that in relation to those areas... evidently I was wrong. —Giggy 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I have just done quite a bit of editting on this article to bring it up to scratch, but it's not there just yet. The problems that I found included:
• Typos in significant words, such as Latin terms which required extra care.
• Red Herrings:
Details about different classifications of animal/insect social behaviour categorization. (That belongs in a different article)
A long blurb on Christian views regarding Evolution. (That belongs in a different article).
• Contradictory and/or confusing information. Quite a lot of that. Including a pic described as a "popular image, but wrong". In order to say how or why the image was wrong, the writer would need to expound upon it in quite a few paragraphs. This article is not really the right place. The article on Evolution would be more appropriate, because it discusses the theoretical nature of the theory.
• The order of the sections is illogical. The origin of humans is discussed, and from there the article goes to Civilisation and so on, and eventually gets back to Biology and Reproduction.
• The description of human biology needs rewriting.
I haven't got any further than that, but it's late here in the land of Oz. Amandajm (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

### Oklahoma

I've been working on this article for a while and I belive it meets all the GA criteria. Thanks, CPacker

• I don't think you should use "about" (eg. about 68,667) and then such a specific number. About means you're going to approximate. Either do that, or remove "about".
• Second paragraph of lead; all those terms in the first few sentences should be wikilinked.
• "It is located in three main American cultural regions." - this means nothing to me.... wikilinks/more info???
• Unless that's what the next sentence talks about. In which case, ignore.
• "Part of the Bible Belt,..." - I'd add its name to the start of the sentence. More simple.
• "Spear points from the Clovis Indians have been found near Anadarko dating back 11,000 years." - should specifically say that the Clovies Indians comes from Oklahoma
• Some dates are wikilinked. Some aren't. I say delink them all, but just need to be consistent.
• "decline in population" - a more simple word that decline?
• "1866 during treaty talks" - treaty... wikilink?

That's all I found. I think with a bit more touching up it'll be pretty close to VGA (yes I know this is GA... the criteria are rather similar). —Giggy 06:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed everything except the linked dates; are you talking about the references? Just let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks for all the comments, --CPacker (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, I was talking about the dates in the article text (though ideally they wouldn't be linked anywhere). It's optional either way. —Giggy 04:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I took care of the date links in the article, the ones in the reference section are linked automatically by the citation template so im leaving thoses alone. Thanks agian for the comments they really helped--CPacker (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm not quite sure, on second thought, if this article is "broad" enough (compare to the EnWP one), but it is looking pretty good. —Giggy 05:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

### World History

Archived as stale. Giggy (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure hat happened to the PGA voting of this article, I think it was voted up before, but it is not a GA. I would like to re-vote (if it was voted before!) this article, seems god, but a few red links so it can't be a VGA. Minor Contributer (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a red link, one left. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There's two, actually, but if you're going to fix all of them we might as well make it a VGA. Minor Contributer (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it comprehensive? - I know Cethegus wanted to work on it a little more, but he is currently pretty inactive (busy with real-life). --Eptalon (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about what happenned before. There is alot about this article being a PGA before on its talk page. I am a new user, and I do not know what happenned to its voting. Can someone enlighten me? Minor Contributer (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) It was listed as a proposed good article; but was then removed from it again; based on the following:

• There are too few references (we should have about one per section/paragraph).
• It is seen as work in progress by the main contributors to it (Cethegus and myself; Isis sometimes); all of us currently have little time to work on it.--Eptalon (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Original nomination here, also see the talk page of the article for comments.--Eptalon (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, point noted. Cethegus and Isis seem to have left, have they? I'm sorry if I offended anyone. Minor or Prime 09:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Isis is doing sportadic edits here and there, not really very active any more; Cethegus, as noted, is busy with real life. (I should be too). In short, get a few people interested, and it should not be any problem to get this to GA, or even VGA. It just needs a steady amount of work, which the main three contributors cannot do at the moment. --Eptalon (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose
This is a major generic article of great importance. It should not be proposed for a GA until it has been thoroughly researched annd carefully written.
For a major generic article to be good:
• The intro should be excellent
• The balance between the various sections should be considered to give the right weight and length to each part. A small and little-known local cultural group ought not occupy as much space as the Roman Empire.
• There should be no glaring errors or inadequacies. A ridiculous statement like "The Middle Ages was the time from the fall of the Roman empire until the middle of the 15th century. During this time, there were no great achievements" has no place in a good article.
• Every item of illustrative material needs consideration. Four very similar cave paintings and two very similar ancient figurines are quite superfluous. Each illustration needs to be chosen to illustrate something in particular.
Signing off for the night! #o yawn! Amandajm (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand both sides. Obviously there was a lot effort put into this article by Eptalon and Isis and obviously an article on world history can never be comprehensive. Therefore it could be an excellent article without meeting the requirements at this point. On the other hand it is still not excellent at all, but inconsistent in parts. - You need a lot of time to get an article that deals with such a vast subject straight. I've not got that time at the moment, but I still add an article now and then that is needed as background for world history. Maybe Amandajm can take out the pictures he thinks to be superfluous. I have still to add some content. When that is done I'll look through the article and try to get it consistent. Minor Contributer thank you very much for your positive vote, but it is still too early. --Cethegus (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

### SPL

I have re-worked it. And think it is ready for a GA. Please give your comments here, before voting oppose in two weeks. Thanks Kennedy (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Comments - SPL proposal

• I fixed a few things and noticed one unclear sentence in the 'players' section - 'Scottish teams must include three players under 21 for matches' What kind of matches? Do the players have to play or do they just have to be in the squad? It's quite an unclear sentence, and since I don't know the actual rule I didn't know how to fix it. Aside from that I saw no real problems. I will vote support I think. FSM Noodly? 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for that. I think this might be better? Kennedy (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• "for association football clubs" - can you remove the "association" or does it have any special meaning?
• Early parts of the History section are unsourced.
• "From this date, the table 'splits' in half near the end of the season" - from which date? If you're referring to 2000-01, you're going to need to clarify.
• "but still did not move up the table due to the split." - does this mean they can't make the finals or something like that? If there are connotations you may wish to say so.
• "Three players were sent off" - relevant wikilinks?
• There's a lot of random use of italics in the article. Players and club names shouldn't have italics. Please check throughout.
• "The SPL has been home to many notable events. Including when..." - poor form to start a sentence with "including". Maybe "For example, when..."?
• "The team at the top of the league, once all games are played, wins the SPL trophy." - maybe move the stuff after the first comma to the start of the sentence, so it's a bit more simple?
• "'Winter Break' forcing teams to play through January" - use proper quotation marks, and probably add a comma before "forcing".
• "and no standing room" - standing room isn't allowed, or isn't necessary? Clarify.
• "have they not both occupied the first and second spot" - could be simplified a bit

And a good read. Hope these comments help. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Giggy, finally some pointers I can work on. I do agree with most all of them really. I'll update the article today. :) Kennedy (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
How are these changes? Kennedy (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking pretty good from here. I made a few more grammatical changes. I think if you give it another once over you could probably go for voting. Giggy (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I still need to find a source for the history section. Then will look over, and go for voting. Thanks for your help Giggy, much appreciated! Kennedy (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

### Whitey Wistert

Hello. I'd like to propose Whitey Wistert for WP:GA status. I'm still doing some work on it, but comments on improvements won't hurt at all, and can actually help the article become a Good Article. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's still a stack of issues below for Green Day... Giggy (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

### Green Day

Well, I've been working for almost 2 months on this article, creating most of the red links today, and I think this article can become a WP:GA. I checked, and I believe this article meets the GA criteria. Absolutely no red links are in the article now, and I simplified the article also. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wlinks in early sentences; you might want to link to wiktionary for "member" as the dab page is slightly confusing, and the "form" link is just plain wrong (we don't have a page on formation.... maybe just use simpler language).
• No need to overlink the instruments the members play - just link stuff once.
• "record label debut" is confusing - use more words to simplify (eg, just say it signed to a record label (+name), and then released Dookie)
• Speaking of which, why no mention in the lead of what happened before Dookie?
• "and 15 million copies sold worldwide" - grammar failure; remove the "sold" as it's said already this sentence
• "Because of that, Green Day was very credited" - not sure what you're trying to say here, and the wlink doesn't help
• "did not get as much success" - grammar; you don't get success, but you can be successful
• "for example, how Dookie gave Green Day a lot of success" - self evident
• "Green Day was still successful, reaching double platinum, double platinum, and gold status" - you mean the albums did? Make that explicit and include a "respectively" somewhere (oh, and say what the statuses mean, since you haven't done so yet)

This is just from the lead; clearly a fair bit more work is needed. —Giggy 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Slowly going through the article now and trying to clean stuff up...
• "The band started to use the name Green Day, because of they do not like marijuana" - I was sure Green Day was a reference to a day spent high on drugs. My reading of the source given agrees with this and contradicts the article. Clarify?
• The band logo image shouldn't be used so early. They only got that logo from American Idiot. And arguably, the man getting struck by lightning on Warning is their real "logo"; I've certainly seen it used more.
• The reference formatting needs a lot of work. It must be consistent.
• "making it to MTV for the videos of the songs" - needs clarification; the songs appeared on MTV, Dookie didn't. Also this paragraph could do with some sourcing for the MTV/chart stuff.
• "Insomniac was a better release for the band than the poppier Dookie" - first, what's Insomniac? No context given. Next, you can't say it was a better release, you can only say that critics did so (NPOV - Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion). Also, you can use a better word than poppier, I'm sure.
• Should the last paragraph of the Breakthrough success (1994–96) section come before the first?
• Is it possible to get any photos of the band that aren't from the American Idiot era?
• Could you get the other sections to have the same level of content as the American Idiot and renewed popularity (2003–present) section? They're relatively short.
• "even with success of the album's first single, "American Idiot."" - even with? Not seeing the contradiction. Maybe it was partially because of the single's success?
• "The Ramones had lyrical themes that were also close to Green Day's lyrics such as hysteria, alienation, girls, and drugs" - does this need to be said?

Some work to be done. Good luck! —Giggy 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, that's a lot. :/ We'll see what we can do... though, I see your editing the article also, Giggy. Have you fixed any of the above you mentioned? -- RyanCross (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm done for now. I may take another dive in at a later point, but not while you're working on it. —Giggy 05:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for your help. :-) I'm going to be busy this week... so I won't be working on it very much, or at all. I would be very happy if you could help fix these issues, since you were the one who spotted them. ;-) -- RyanCross (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well if I did that, what would the point of the review be? ;-) You have as much time as you need. —Giggy 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify this, the point of the review is to give examples. Not all of these are necessary for GA, probably, but they are examples of stuff that you need to fix before VGA. —Giggy 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have copyedited some of itself, fixed a lot a of the clunky sentences in the lead and changed the mariujana sentence. It even says in the reference that they called themeselves Green Day because they liked marijuana. FSM Noodly? 12:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• This seems inactive; does anyone plan to do any work on this, or can it be archived? Giggy (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• You may archive it. I've been too busy to do much work on this. I'll be sure to work on this later on. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

### Halo 3

I put this up before but it got no votes and no interest so now im putting up again. Did loads of work on it, think its good enough for GA. FSM Noodly? 17:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi FSM. I'll do a review and leave comments on the talkpage of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

### Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007)

Juliancolton (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• I removed the date links, please check if that broke anything.
• "that existed for several days from September 12 – September 17, 2007" - I don't think you need to say "several days" if you say the dates straight after
• "The ninth named storm of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season" - start with "It was" or similar (and then reword the next bit as well so it flows OK)
• "it developed as Tropical Depression Eight, but Tropical Depression Nine, which appeared at the same time as Eight, was much quicker to develop. Tropical Depression Nine strengthened into Humberto—the next name on the list—before Eight" - I suppose you're trying to simplify things but it really makes very little sense...
• "Strong wind shear prevented more strengthening" --> "Because of strong wind shear, it did not get stronger..." or something like that?
• "were started on the low" - what's a low?
• And for that matter, what's the "system"?
• and the storm strengthened" - strengthen is a complex verb, use something simpler (got stronger?)
• Phrasing like "Slow strengthening continued" needs smoothing out
• "Its remnants dropped rain and caused thunder to Antigua," - grammar, you don't cause thunder to a place...
• "dropped 1.5 inches (38 mm) of rain in about an hour" - drop is not being used in its conventional sense
• "and no ships saw tropical storm-force winds" - the ship can't see things, so again check conventional usages

Giggy (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure I got it all. Thanks for the comments, Juliancolton (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Dissipated is a little complex for simple. Why not became weaker and died out? Malinaccier P. (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

### Anne Frank

The well-known Anne Frank diaries has been in 20 languages and I believe that the writer, Anne Frank deserves the title of Good Article.24.1.4.241 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's not a single in-line citation. alexandra (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• It would deserve to be a good article if it met the Good Article criteria. This does not. Please familiarise yourself with them. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Im quite positive towards this article.--Sinbad (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

### France

Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(From the France talk page)

Hi. I wish to make a note here that while I agree basically with the nomination of this article to Good Article Status, there are some things which need changing on it, or pages creating explaining what these things are. Many users expecting simple English, are going to have difficulty working out what an "arondissement" is without a page explaining it (as has been done with Cantons and Communes), likewise with régions and départements as has been already mentioned, and the description of Corsica as a "collectivité territoriale".

Some of the language requires simplification, even though it is in English already; Monarchy, regime, metropolitan, moralists, prolific, varied and sovereignty are just some of those needing doing.

Also, some of the words have more than one meaning and these need disambiguating (splitting up into different descriptions to make them clearer.) Words like "Suspended", "Executed" and "influenced".

If these issues can be addressed, I believe this article stands a good chance of making it to GA.

Iceflow (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - I've linked the necessary words, and I'm in the process of simplying the article. Yotcmdr (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the language issues note above by Iceflow, there are issues with referencing - I think we need to have more references which link to current data. The section on religion for example has assertions with no citations and a reference to a 2005 poll leads to a dead link. --Matilda (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The link seems good to me, it isn't dead. I'm looking for more references to put on now. Yotcmdr (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

### Scottish Premier League

It meets all criteria, all suggestions that were given have been corrected. I belive it to be a GA. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

#### Oppose

Weak oppose Sorry, but I am going to have to oppose this one from becoming a good article at this time. This article is not ready to become a good article yet. There are some thigns that need to be worked on before I can make this a support vote:

First, you need to simply some of the more complex words. Phrases and terms such as per capita, and some of the others words used in this article are a tad complex for this Wikipedia. You also need to go through and do a bit more copyediting.

Second, you need to work on some of the sentences in this article. There are sentences in this article that are too long, there are sentences in this article that lack the fluidity needed for an encyclopedic article, and mostly, you need to shorten up some of the sentences, as some of them go on too long. You need to work on getting the fluidity of the sentences to work (make them flow together).

Third, the Records section of this article has a trivia feel to it, and trivia is never a good thing for an encyclopedia. I would suggest that you work on this section to make it sound less like a trivia section and more like an encyclopedia.

Hope this helps :) Cheers, Razorflame 11:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't contest your first two points, but I don't understand the third one; there is no way of presenting data except in a list or table. It is currently an OK list - I'd prefer a table but it's not a big deal. That doesn't make it trivia-ish per se; I suggest you read the English Wikipedia's trivia page. —Giggy 03:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
While the records section under notable facts is probably fine in its current state (I see no reason against it..), the trades and events sections do seem that they could use some work. Mainly this is most noticable in in renaming comment (under Events). As this is already stated in a section of its own in the article, there doesn't seem a reason to include the information again. This leaves only one point under the heading. If the comment is that important it probably could be fit into the main body of the article rather than just a bulleted blurb (also, I am not entirely certain what "relegated" means in this context.. that may be a pretty good indication that this is not SE). The entire notable trades section could also be re-writen into a section of its own with little extra work to appear more as a prose section than just a couple listed facts. That would just leave a renaming of the header to records, which for all normal purposes would/should likely remain a list. Also, as writen, the headers seem to get a little screwy in that section as we have "Notable Events" as the main and "Events" as the sub. As the main is Notable events, wouldn't all the things under that header fall into the category "Events that are notable" and hence "Events" be redundant? Saying those two items are Events seems to imply that the others are not events. -- Creol(talk) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have worked the Events and Records section into the article, and removed them from the Notable events part. Could someone give me examples of the big long sentences and complex words? Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 08:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose It's doing pretty good, but I do see a lot of complex issues. There is also quite a bit of overlinking that need to be fixed. I already did some delinking, I'll be happy to do some more. Thanks, Ryan†Cross (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overlinking? In what way? Too many links? The important terms must be linked though... ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Look at this good article, every second word is a link. Whats the difference? ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 15:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Looking at the history, Billy Graham has gained quite a few links since it was promoted. Hippopotamus (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't currently see what's wrong with the linking; it seems all appropriate terms are linked, and there really isn't that much blue. Plus linking is good on this Wikipedia; it's important to ensure words that could confuse readers are linked. —Giggy 03:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose There really needs to be more prose and fewer lists. It starts off well, but I think the only list that is really merited is the table of current teams. That's purely a personal opinion, of course, though. Hippopotamus (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fix the references to it doesn't say "2008-03-22." -- American Eagle (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done

• The Events section doesn't have any citations. Cassandra 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done

• Is "per capita" Simple English? Similarly "dominant", "naming rights", and others. Also needs a good copyedit, e.g. "qualifys" -> "qualifies", "stadium size criteria" -> "stadium-size criteria", etc. Hippopotamus (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Done (mostly) - I have corrected my speeling, and have changed "dominant" -> "strong" and "naming rights" -> "sell the name of the league" - I can't think of another word for per capita, and have misplaced my thesaurus. Any ideas? ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Since "per capita" mean "average per person", "Scotland has a larger percentage of its population watch than any other country in Europe." would be a true statement. "The average person in Scotland is more likely to watch than the average person in any other European county" would also be true and a more direct translation, but more clunky. -- Creol(talk) 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Fantastic eh? No-one comments for days while its only a suggestion, but as soon as it comes to voting everyone just Opposes - Its rediculous! ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - indeed. The system is broken. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - don't worry, just read the opposes, improve the article accordingly and try again. That's basically what opposes are for. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - it's no coincidence that comments (negative ones) don't arrive until the voting starts is it? This system and PVGA is inherently flawed and that's why so few people can be bothered to use it, and hence why this Wikipedia has so few decent quality articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - People should have commented on it before voting. No suggestions or comments made me think there was no real problems. As soon as it comes to voting everyone finds problems. Its a farce. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fix the references to it doesn't say "2008-03-22." -- American Eagle (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done

• The Events section doesn't have any citations. Cassandra 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done

• Is "per capita" Simple English? Similarly "dominant", "naming rights", and others. Also needs a good copyedit, e.g. "qualifys" -> "qualifies", "stadium size criteria" -> "stadium-size criteria", etc. Hippopotamus (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Done (mostly) - I have corrected my speeling, and have changed "dominant" -> "strong" and "naming rights" -> "sell the name of the league" - I can't think of another word for per capita, and have misplaced my thesaurus. Any ideas? ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Since "per capita" mean "average per person", "Scotland has a larger percentage of its population watch than any other country in Europe." would be a true statement. "The average person in Scotland is more likely to watch than the average person in any other European county" would also be true and a more direct translation, but more clunky. -- Creol(talk) 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Fantastic eh? No-one comments for days while its only a suggestion, but as soon as it comes to voting everyone just Opposes - Its rediculous! ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - indeed. The system is broken. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - don't worry, just read the opposes, improve the article accordingly and try again. That's basically what opposes are for. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - it's no coincidence that comments (negative ones) don't arrive until the voting starts is it? This system and PVGA is inherently flawed and that's why so few people can be bothered to use it, and hence why this Wikipedia has so few decent quality articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the article was moved to vote after just four days of the two week discussion period, so some people may have missed it there. Negative comments are always more likely to arrive once voting starts. It's really no different in the real world outside Simple Wikipedia. Hippopotamus (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
'Result: Failed with too few votes (3); 5 would have been needed--Eptalon (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

### Avril Lavigne

Vote started 17th August - vote ends 24th August

Result 1 Support 1 oppose, not enough votes. Fail F S M 13:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Support. I've done most of the work here. Most of whats left is pretty petty. --  Da Punk '08  talk  21:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Just generally not good enough for GA in my opinion. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 14:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Could you use the 'citeweb' template on the references? That would improve the overall appearance of the article. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

### Jupiter

- Same reasons I put it up for VGA but it seemed to be failing there so I moved it here. I definetly think its good enough for GA, if it doesn't pass I will retire. :D Joke. FSM Noodly? 10:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Support

• Support - per nominator. FSM Noodly? 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support on the assumption that CPacker's issue below will be fixed. —Giggy 07:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - No problems Kennedy (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Support--CPacker (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - It is not ready for VGA, but I have no major issues with it. -- American Eagle (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Oppose

I know its not required but the 2nd paragraph in the "What it is made of" section needs to be referenced. Other than that I like it. I'll support it if that info is backed up, --CPacker (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done FSM Noodly? 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

### Result

Closed early with 5 support 0 oppose and 1 day remaining FSM Noodly? 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

### Halo 3

Vote unsuccessful. Giggy (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

- Did a massive re-write expansion of this, been working on it for a while in my sandbox. Think it meets all the criteria. FSM Noodly? 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Oppose

• References need publishers, access dates, author info, stuff like that. Good citation practice. —Giggy 10:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

### Human

Vote unsuccessful. Giggy (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

- Very core article, I think it meets all the criteria. FSM Noodly? 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Comments for article Human

• I do not understand in the lead where it says Humans are part of the species Homo sapiens ... - are there any members of the species Homo sapiens who are not human? If there are not we need to change the sentence. I think there are not.
I am also concerned about the sentence which says Humans are now the dominant species on planet Earth with over 6.7 billion people as of 2008. I am sure there are more members of some other species - ants for example. The citation supports the number of people in the world but not whether they are the dominant species. Dominance is a tricky concept and not neutral. I think this may breach our policy on Neutral point of view. Certainly at the very least such a strong statement needs to be supported by a reference and it needs to be clear what "dominant species" means.
--Matilda (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There are sub species of Homo sapiens - ie see en:Homo sapiens idaltu who are extinct - but they are still regarded as humans - eg this reference from Berkely says
the researchers placed the fossils in the same genus and species as modern humans but appended a subspecies name - Homo sapiens idaltu -to differentiate them from contemporary humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.
I think on the basis of this reference it is OK to say Humans are members of the species Homo sapiens . The older sub-species were humans too but there are some differences which is why the subspecies are differentiated. --Matilda (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Readability in my view is important for Simple English wikipedia. A check of the readability statistics show that the statistics are quite good for this article. There are few spelling or grammar errors. --Matilda (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

### SPL

Vote successful. Giggy (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think it is a good article now. Kennedy (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Support - SPL

1. Support as nom Kennedy (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
2. I believe it meets the criteria per my comments above. Giggy (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - I made a comprehensive copyedit for style and made a few changes - hope you're okay with them, but now I feel this meets the criteria for good articles. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. ~~ ĈĠ en 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - Copyedits by Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:UserLinks/shared' not found. have made a difference and article was almost good even prior to that. fr33kman t - c 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

### Whitey Wistert

No consensus for this to be a GA. Giggy (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think this can become a WP:GA. Meets all of the good article criteria. If there's anything that needs fixing, I'll be happy to do it. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Support - Whitey Wistert

1. Support assuming response to my comments. Kennedy (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support still have reservations about orphaned status, but the article is GA otherwise. Non-free image is not good fr33kman t - c 23:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not an orphan any more and hasn't been for a few days - check it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Better. Promethean (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

# Support - after about 4 hours of copy-editing it, it's really good. Still has a few red links (which somehow were not there a few hours ago!), but otherwise it is really nice. Per the comments by Giggy, it has too much work to do. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Oppose - Whitey Wistert

1. Oppose - too many of my issues currently outstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed some of the issues. I'm also going to have a think about some of the awkward wording you raised. fr33kman t - c 00:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a read through later on. Interestingly enough, if the votes stay this way, the article gets promoted. If I withdraw my oppose the article doesn't get promoted. But then Ryan could vote for his own article to get promoted and it does get promoted. What a curious system. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL, then you must stick to your guns TRM! :-) fr33kman t - c 13:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Note; fixed formatting. Giggy (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Not ready yet. See comments below. Giggy (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

#### Comments - Whitey Wistert

• The article is an orphan. To me that kinda prevents it from being considered, doesn't it? (no "vote" yet, just a comment.) fr33kman t - c 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Some of our GAs are actually orphaned (I think). I don't think it matters much for a small wiki like ours. -- RyanCross (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If nobody is going to read the article, what's the point in having it? I don't think an orphaned article should be a GA. Giggy (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Kinda agree. I know it's harsh for such a small wiki, but orphaned, to me at least, means little or no interest in it. Still, does that prevent it from reaching GA? Tough one! fr33kman t - c 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - "Wistert had a short cup of coffee in Major League Baseball" - Needs clarifying. I know nothing about baseball, and didn't know what that ment. I know its linked, but its still confusing, did he drink a small cup off coffee? Thats what it implies. "He was also Big Ten MVP" - No idea what that means either. You spell out "MVP" later in the article, but the first times its mentioned its abreviatted. Also, Big Ten can be explained. Kennedy (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies yet again for not reviewing this in time before the voting started. Bad TRM. Secondly, some things to work on...

• "He and his brothers..." - his two brothers?
• program - what do you mean by this? Not simple.
• By repeated - do you mean in a row? it's not 100% clear to me.
• MVP - firstly it leads to a dab page, secondly, spell it out before using the abbreviation.
• "later played Cincinnati Reds of Major League Baseball." - ...played for' the Cincinnati Reds?
• " from 1931-1933." - I would say "He attended... from 1931 to 1933 where he was ...."
• Changed to "1931, 1932, and 1933." -- American Eagle (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The Wistert brothers of Michigan" - just "Wistert brothers of Michigan" if we follow en wiki en:WP:HEAD
• You have three subsections at at level 2 but each in different level 1 sections - are any of them really necessary?
• You can't link All-Americans to American - what does the phrase mean?
• Complex words in the quotes which need linking...
• annals
• unprecedented
• tackle
• Anglicized
• "and was a consensus All-American in 1933" - this isn't clear to me at all.
• Michiganensian - perhaps this should be in italics/quotes to make it clear it's a publication?
• " had the following quote from Grantland Rice"- not good - maybe, "Grantland Rice said about him..."
• key is not used in its simplest form in the quote - consider linking.
• maneuvers should be linked.
• offensive "line"? you need to help us out with line there.
• 7-0-1 - what is this? it needs en-dash but to non-experts in US football it's meaningless.
• tie should be linked.
• Why is the baseball infobox in the football section?
• Baseball infobox needs en-dash instead of hyphen for the records.
• "4-0 shutout " - en-dash, not hyphen, and what's a shutout?
• "four-hitter " - forget simple english - I don't get it.
• " a short cup of coffee in" - it just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me.
• "plate appearances, he went hitless and struck out twice" - expertise required to understand this.
• "Although he only played at the major league level," - what's wrong with that? only? sounds good to me.
• "inducted" needs linking/explanation.
• Some of the accessdate are in ISO format rather than English.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the ones above. I'll try to get to the others shortly. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've done some interwiki'ing and rewording. Could folk kindly review? Thanks fr33kman t - c 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - "When the article meets all nine of the criteria, it can be voted on." - The article fails criteria 4, 5 and 6. It does not meet the criteria for voting to be taking place at all. -- Creol(talk) 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
What now does it not meet? I have turned all links blue, added the only other appropriate category, and all my changes have been link-fixing and copy-editing. What else needs to be done? -- American Eagle (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
4: Correct category - Bio articles should be covered by four distinct areas, this one only covers 3.
5: Last few edits should be minor (spellchecking and such): This article has gone through 22 revisions, increaded in size by 1K and had its references nearly completely changed after the vote started. This is hardly minor.
6: All important words linking. University of Michigan, Michigan Wolverines and Michigan Wolverine football all get linked, but Michigan itself is ignored. College football gets linked, but college does not. "Big Ten football Championship"... aside from the missing link, can we decide how to capitalize it? Either use its correct title "Big Ten National Championship" (in football) or Big Ten football championship. - thats just the first paragraph after all the fixes have taken place after it was put up for voting. Prior to the 22nd, this was even farther away from meeting Criteria 6.
All articles must meet all 9 criteria before voting - that is part of the criteria. No matter the outcome of the vote, this article should never have gotten to a vote as it failed to meet criteria. Voting is not peer review. This is the source of one of the major issues TRM keeps going on about - successful vote when the article is obviously flawed. If the article does not pass all 9, it should not be voted on. The fact that four people voted that this is a GA makes me wonder if people actually understand what the criteria are. -- Creol(talk) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies:
4: Okay, two "from" categories added, whole new area.
5: Oh my goodness. You'd oppose an article only based upon that it's been improved since being proposed? If it's good enough now, it should become Good, that's all I follow. It's just another aspect of our broken system.
6: I have fixed all the linking problems you said, and they were very minor. Remember that this is not VGA, this is for good articles. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember - This is the Simple English Wikipedia, articles should be writing in Simple English. How many good articles on the French or German wikipedias just got lazy and decided to use English words? A good article on any wiki should be writen in the language of the wiki. This is even more important when one of the main writers (yourself) claims to write in perfect Simple English. One of the main "breaks" in our system is that people are not following the guidelines of the system. I point out 5 because the guideline states what should happen. People ignore the criteria and vote willy nilly and then complain the system doesn't work.. How would anyone know it doesn't work if people never bother to actually use it as written and ignore parts of it? Most systems do not work when people arbitrarily skip steps.
This is a GA and not a VGA; this is shown in the criteria. Each has different criteria, but that criteria must be met to qualify. This article failed to meet the criteria for voting for GA status.
Also, as far as I can see, the subject is both an American baseball and basketball player.. Proper categories. Creol(talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "was an American football and baseball player" - he's categorised as a basketball, baseball, and football player. Which is correct?
•  Fixed. Accidental typo on my part. -- American Eagle (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Article is in Category:College Football Hall of Fame (that's fine), but is there a football equivalent to Category:American baseball players that it could also go in?
• I believe we don't wikilink dates, as they do nothing positive and only confuse readers.
• In fact, I managed to get the enwp script working here, so I did it myself - revert if you disagree.
• "He was added into the College Football Hall of Fame after he was elected to it in 1967." - could probably be trimmed a bit; you don't need both verbs. Maybe something like "After an election in 1967 he became a College Football Hall of Fame member" - does that sound better?
• "uniform numbers retired" - jargon, Retirement doesn't really help clarify what this means (I have no idea)
• I don't see the point of the Michigan Wolverines football article. In this case I think you should change "by Michigan Wolverines football." to "by the Michigan Wolverines." and delink.
• The lead's order is all over the place. It mentions a 1967 election, then a 1931 championship, etc. If you're going to start with the really broad stuff, you need two paragraphs with the more detailed stuff in the second. At the moment it's confusing.
• The image probably isn't free. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Whitey Wistert.JPG.
• "He attended the University of Michigan where he was an athlete in both football and baseball in 1931, 1932, and 1933." - rather than a complex word, why not just "He went to..."? "An athlete in..." could be "where he played" (or something like that). Also, why not use "from 1931 to 1933"?
• "Brother Alvin Wistert said that their father, "was born Casmir Vistertus and he Anglicized it when he came to America to Wistert." - the quote is anything but simple. Better to do it in your own words.
• "Whitey's Carl Schurz High School school-mate" - last section, you gave the school a different name (no Carl)
• I think schoolmate is one word. (It is in Australian English, dunno about American.)
• "At the time, Whitey Wistert "was working in a factory building Majestic radios."" - why does this need to be quoted?
• "Kowalik took Whitey with him on his visit Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Alvin Wistert later said, "that's how it started: the Wisterts of Michigan."" - on his visit to Ann Arbor...? And I don't understand the second part of the sentence... that's how what started? How did it start? That's the problem with quoting stuff.
• Make sure the section is written in chronological order, too...

I'm now up to the Football section. I'm going to keep adding comments, but I think you should withdraw this PGA for now. Giggy (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "played for National Championship teams that never lost a game in 1932 and 1933" - he played for two different teams in those two years? That's what it's (pretty much) saying at the moment.
• "Wistert earned varsity letters in baseball three years." - grammar
• "Although Whitey Wistert walked four men, he more than off-set this by striking out nine of the Maroons to face him." - jargon, needs links
• "Wistert, still being a minor league baseball player, played for a short while in Major League Baseball, playing in three games for the Cincinnati Reds between September 11, 1934 and September 25, 1934." - change the start to something like "While still a minor league baseball player, Wistert also played...", maybe
• "Fellow 1933 Michigan Wolverines football All-American, Ted Petoskey also debuted for the Reds in September 1934" - not really relevant

Giggy (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from MC8

The image on this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons, as it does not come under public domain or Creative Commons. A free licence picture needs to be found. Sorry, Ryan. Didn't check. Microchip  talk 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

### Halo 3

1 for, 4 against. Fail -- American Eagle (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I put this up before but it got no votes and no interest so now im putting up again. Did loads of work on it, think its good enough for GA. FSM Noodly? 17:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

#### Support

1. SupportThis is the most popular game of today, so we should have it as a very good article. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
And if the popularity of the topic had anything at all to do with the quality of the article, that comment might actually be important. This is dealing with whether the article is of good quality as stated in the criteria not the importance of the topic. -- Creol(talk) 02:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

#### Oppose

1. Oppose - plenty of outstanding issues on the talk page before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose – Per The Rambling Man because of the issues still not resolved here. – RyanCross (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Per above....I have somethings that need to be solved that I will list on it's talk page.--   ChristianMan16  05:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Sorry. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, not all of TRM's comments have been looked into, from what I can see from the talk page. Fix those issues and I'll vote on it. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I must have fixed at least 80% now, just went through and did some more. FSM Noodly? 20:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
100% would be more appropriate. Just a quick look at the introduction shows me the words: "universal acclaim". It's even on the talk page as being too complex! These issues have to be resolved. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Right I fixed almost all of the issues on the talk page now, the only exception being access dates for the references which I am not sure how you do with the Cite Web template. Now they are all done can you support now? FSM Noodly? 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
|accessdate=2008-10-18 for pages accessed today (change date as necessary). Giggy (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

### Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007)

Promoted. Giggy (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

### Support

• Support per my comments above which are all resolved. Giggy (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Answered my one comment. Good job overall! Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Don't see any problems. BG7even 13:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support, looks good. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support – Very well-written article. No problems here. — RyanCross (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per above. -- American Eagle (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

### Oppose

The sentence structure throught the article tends to be long and flowing rather than short and precise. Too many of them need to be split into separate sentences. Also, what is a tropical storm? the term is used in the first sentence, but not linked/defined. Tropical Depression Eight is the same system as Tropical Storm Ingrid. The name should be bolded. -- Creol(talk) 07:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bolded and linked. I gave the prose another pass over too. Giggy (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the article is long enough. 3.5 kilobytes are required, but this [1] says only 3.11 KB. Yotcmdr (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Now 3.68 kb. Juliancolton (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

### 1997 Pacific hurricane season

Evan (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose -- too complex an article. It also resembles a simple list of statistics rather than an article. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose — Still complex. – RyanCross (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted: failed to get 5 votes--Eptalon (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

### France

Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• I will support if you fix the redlinks in the references section. Other than that, it looks good. Malinaccier (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Done - Yotcmdr (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bon! Malinaccier (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Compare the enwp version's table of contents to this one. There's still quite a lot of content that isn't discussed at all in this article. Giggy (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say, we're not at EN wiki. Take the SPL or Jupiter or even Red Hot Chili Peppers articles, which I believe meet the criteria for GA or VGA. I then looked at the english equivalent, and I saw that lots of things were missing too. But it doesn't matter, we're at SEWP! The Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007) article is quite short (so is the En version), but it's prooved that an article doesn't need to be long to be a GA. Tell me what's missing and I'll consider adding it. But if you want as much content than on en wiki, I'll just copy-paste it, and simplify it.(no personnal attacks are meant. This includes people that created, contributed and voted on these articles, as well as Giggy).. Thanks. Yotcmdr (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I will be more specific. A few things I think need to be mentioned are;
• History before the Revolution
• A bit about the country's name
• Information on foreign relations/military/government (can merge with administrative divisions)/economy/culture
I hope this helps and I look forward to supporting soon. Giggy (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll start working on it now!Yotcmdr (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Done except the bit about french history prior to the revolution (which i'll do tonight). Yotcmdr (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you please also expand the lead after you've done that. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Done - I expanded the history section and the lead as you requested. I think it's finally ready now. Yotcmdr (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me.--Sinbad (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - article looks messy (too many pictures), some structure issues and information is missing. --Gwib -(talk)- 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Made less messy, extra information coming soon. Please specify the structure issues so that I can change them. Yotcmdr (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Too many images! Just remove a few and place those that stay, you didn't have to simply revert yourself...
Sections you could add:
Other sections (public health, transportation etc) not as important as culture or law sections. No spelling or structure needed though, that's all good. Other websites look good as well. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks (actually, culture in France is getting poorer and poorer!). Yotcmdr (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
HAHA! True! I hate the Tektonik music and style so much... Still, there's always Marseilles :P --Gwib -(talk)- 20:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I really hate "TCK" as they call it, as well. France will catch up in 30 years. Yotcmdr (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be picky, but (regardless of how bad it is!) the culture section could do with discussion of music, cuisine (which is quite good!), art... basically, the stuff listed here. They don't all need their own articles but a bit of basic information wouldn't go astray for a GA (and more information would be needed for VGA, I think). Great work so far! Giggy (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I knew you'd ask for more! I guess I'll have to do that now. Yotcmdr (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Promoted; 71% support--Eptalon (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)