KidzSearch Wiki

Proposed very good articles/Archive 13

Template:Atop

Conservative Revolution

Conservative Revolution (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A very complete article, full of references, with a simple language. Jon Gua (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

oppose the prose in this article is far, far to complex. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you help me improve the article then, please? --Jon Gua (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
this is basically an exact copy of the enwiki article. This is the simple wiki, we require things to be written in simple language. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The article is no where near being able to be a VGA as it's far, far too complex and is very confusing to read. It wouldn't even make a GA. I'm even thinking that it could be deleted as too complex. fr33kman 20:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Template:O per above, far too complex and similar to enwiki for me to consider this worthy of VGA status.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
It is a nice idea, and an interesting (and likely important) subject. In the case of the current article, you should try with shorter sentences. You should also try getting it to GA first. As it is now, there likely is quite a bit of work left Eptalon (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Template:O Far Too complex in this article, I think is non-simple article. Raayaan9911 18:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Template:O This isn't even remotely close to being a GA. ~Junedude433talk 22:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Can this just be closed now? I can't see anybody supporting the pages promotion and the discussion has been open for over 3 weeks.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
despite the fact I've !voted, I'm happy to close this as WP:SNOW, if no one has any objections. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No objections from me.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
not passed - WP:SNOW closure Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Abot

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

Dog

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

Promoted to GA a year ago. Meets all the requirments for a very good article Made some changes, feel like its ready for very good article status. Open to comments Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 09:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose – It does look good and simple but unfortunately I don't think I can put it at very good just yet. It doesn't seem to be comprehensive enough. Look at the simple wikipedia article on Neptune which is also a very good article and you would see what I mean. I do feel like I am being a bit to harsh here but very good articles should be comprehensive as possible while remaining simple. I would have offered to help get it up to higher standards but I am currently trapped working on the simple Wikipedia page on water. But good luck to you. Maybe somebody else would help or you could argue on why it should be very good. The choice is yours. Cracktastic Science (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Can you give me some suggestions? Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 10:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article lacks substantional information. Just picked the section anatomy. There's nothing about the dog's senses. There is nothing about dog health etc. Also it misses key information about reproduction and much more. -Barras talk 11:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Withdraw--Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 11:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Section resolved/standard module

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

Olivia Rodrigo

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

The article passed the GA test with a good amount of votes. The article has been a GA for over a year and since then it has been worked on by other editors and kept up to date. The article is still well sourced with up to date sources and is still rather simple. I've done some light simplification work and updates in recent edits to keep the article up to shape. There's no redlinks and some of the tricky words (few in my opinion) have been linked ti wikitionary or have blue links directing them to articles here. The article is fleshed out and covers the subject in great detail. Here's a run through of the requirements for an article to be a very good article:

  • The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia. There is no use improving articles that do not belong here, and better fit another wiki, like Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wiktionary, etc. YesY
  • The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is one which does not miss any major facts and details. YesY
  • The article should be several kilobytes long, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. However, this is not a strict rule. YesY
  • The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles. YesY (Note: I've done a few revisions lately but as noted, they were simple updates/replacing dead sources)
  • The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link. YesY
  • The article should be stable. It should not have many recent big changes or any current change wars. YesY
  • All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left. Red links point to articles that do not exist yet. Usually the important word or phrase is only linked the first time it occurs. YesY
  • If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled. YesY
  • There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. These templates include {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them. YesY
  • Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of publications. For articles that have references or external links on the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one in the Simple English article as well. YesY

I am always open for feedback and ways to improve the article of VGA status. As stated, I've simplified the article over the years an done my best to link/simplify complex words but if there's any suggestions to simplify the article further, please let me know as I value all your feedback :) Thank you for your consideration and sorry for the long nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Support Really enjoyed reading the article. It seems very complete and I couldn't find anything that needs to be changed or fixed. I think it'd make a great VGA fr33kman 20:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Support, I also have no objections, the article is well sourced and written, we can grant it VGA. BZPN (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Eptalon: & @Barras: Is this article officially VGA? Wanted to make sure before proceeding to create Wikipedia:Very good articles/Olivia Rodrigo. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, yes it is I promoted it yesterday. It was sitting here for a month without comments, and in my opinion it is. Things to look at is creating the teaser that appears in the main page, and likely removing the GA banner (all VGAs are GAs) Eptalon (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I just created the teaser for the main page. Could someone double check if everything's good such as if her main page teaser is all queued up for the main page whenever it's her turn? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't check out here. I only noticed this on RC and thought I just fix it a bit. -Barras talk 08:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Section resolved/standard module

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

Luis Suárez Miramontes

Luis Suárez Miramontes (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • YesY Subject that does belong on Wikipedia (Spanish footballer from the 1950s/60s, who is considered both one of the best midfielders and best Spanish players of all time).
  • YesY The article is comprehensive.
  • YesY I'm seeing 9.8KB on my end, which I'd say fits the definition of "several kilobytes"
  • YesY Although not by different editors, has gone through several revisions, with feedback made by both fr33kman and Auntof6 (any changes done prior to October 1st was made in this sandbox).
  • YesY The article is in the appropriate categories, with (as of October 27, 2025) 45 interwiki links.
  • YesY No change wars, no big changes, and the article is stable.
  • YesY No red links (created the final few missing articles today)
  • YesY Images on the article are all related and properly labelled.
  • YesY No improvement templates on the article.
  • YesY Everything (at least to my knowledge) is properly referenced.

I've been working on both simplifying the article and creating articles for it for the past two months. I now feel confident enough to consider listing it here for nomination. ShadowBallX (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Provided feedback at the talk page of the article. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's definitely close. The article is overall well sourced, well written, simplified pretty well (I did some simplifying in the death section) and it's entire blue links (no red links) which is nice. There's just one sentence in the managerial career "He also worked as the manager of Cagliari, SPAL and Como in Italy, and Deportivo La Coruña and Albacete in Spain" that is unsourced. Once this is sourced with a reliable reference, the article should be good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    Just added a source to that part. ShadowBallX (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    Support Article looks in good shape for VGA status. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support I am happy with this. The main advice I would give is that there seem to be quite a lot of complex sentences with subordinate clauses. This is the main thing that I think needs to be worked on. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 12:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support I think the article is very good. I also added more related websites. — Raayaan9911 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
I also improved and simplified you. Do we close? — Raayaan9911 18:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
It's been a month, and still no update. Normally, I'd assume it'd have to do with it not having the six minimum votes needed, but the Olivia Rodrigo PVGA closed a few months ago with only two. ShadowBallX (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Section resolved/standard module

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.kidzsearch.com/w/index.php?title=Proposed_very_good_articles/Archive_13&oldid=6867605"