Ard Wiki:Proposed article demotion/Archive 2


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

This very good article needs a serious copyediting to link all important terms, and create the missing redlinks; if that cannot be done, I propose it be demoted to good article. While we are at it, the following could/shouldin my opinion be mentioned (for comopleteness sake):

  • Mendelian laws (or the fact that about 30 years after Darwin had published his work on the origin of species that that of Gregor Mendel (an austrian monk experimenting with different kinds of peas) was rediscovered; nevertheless, mucxh of Darwin's approach is still valid even though he did not know about Mendel.
  • There is a lengthy section in the EnWP article about deistic/theistic/creationist/intelligent design views; we could perhaps extend our section a little (with references, please) to quell these doubts
  • Cp-evolution/co-operation/antagonism between species (If I am a parasite on some host, and my host evolves, I need to adapt as well); This seems to be currently researched; I am not a biologist..
  • Perhaps one or two sentences on how evolutionary thought led to Eugenic models (Fracis Galton); Social Darwinism
  • A word of how the mondel is currently applied by computzer scientists (called Genetic algorithms)

These are of course just thoughtsof mine; feel free to contribute. --Eptalon (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

18px Done The points above are settled. --Eptalon (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide

Lysergic acid diethylamide (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this is generally well-written, though has at least one single sentence paragraph. In this article, I don't think the "other websites" section really qualifies as a list of references. Hippopotamus (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support demotion - I found nearly 20 phrases (including a whole paragraph) which need simplifying - my opinion, obviously, but I've identified them on the article talk page. Also, the referencing is woeful. It needs a complete overhaul - if this is featured on the mainpage sometime soon, this Wikipedia will be a laughing stock. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It was featured on the Main Page some time last month... Chenzw  Talk  15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support demotion - The article is more suitable for doctors. In addition, there are no references (some are probably in the "Other Websites" section, but still not properly cited). Chenzw  Talk  15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has a number of issues, as discussed on its talk page; let me repeat here that it needs a thorough ocpyediting (by multiple editors, definitely). There are also no references (in the form of Publications, not Websites) to speak of. It also looks a little short to me. In short what this article needs is dedicated work of a few people; this can likely not be done in two weeks. I therefore propose to demote this article to regular status (while it is being worked on). Once we have a re-worked version we can then decide whether to nominate as GA or VGA.--Eptalon (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I support immediate demotion - it's like a quick-fail, so much to do, it's definitely not one of Simple English Wikipedia's best articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, agree with a pretty quick demotion. —Giggy 08:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Result:Demoted to regular article--Eptalon (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


Muhammad (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
    • Supprt demotion - It needs more references. There are too many non proven facts such as, "The Quraysh pagans of Mecca heard about this, and they sent a larger army numbering 1000 warriors to fight the Muslims." This is only one of many facts that should be proven in order to have good article status..--CPacker (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support demotion; the lead needs expansion and facts need inline citations. —Giggy 11:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose demotion. I'm not sure about this. The GA criteria says a list of publications is fine and I'm assuming the necessary references are in the list. Inline references would be better, but it appears they are not required. Hippopotamus (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose Demotion. It is a good article. Agree with above points to an extent, but don't think it severe enough for demotion. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 08:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Result: Kept current status (no agreement)--Eptalon (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Moulin Rouge!

Moulin Rouge! (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This really lacks references. The few that there are seem to be from IMDb, and I'm not especially convinced that it's a particularly reliable source. Hippopotamus (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree it lacks references but I think that IMDb is a reliable source, EN Wiki articles use it ALL the time from my experience. The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

But featured articles there rarely use IMDb, and it is in part community written. Just because many articles in enwiki use any particular website doesn't make it necessarily reliable. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
IMDB is not a reliable source as anybody can change the content on it. Just like Wikipedia is not a reliable source. —Giggy 06:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- I fully support demotion. Little to no references, all other which poorly formatted. Does not meet criteria. -- American Eagle (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Article demoted to a regular article. -- American Eagle (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

Cuban Missile Crisis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this could possibly be saved by editor who knows about the subject, but the article seems to have a very large number of quotations that are not Simple English. The referencing and wikiinking are also sparse. The "Krushchev's Options / The Krushchev Letters" subsection is of particular concern, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about the crisis to be able to fix it alone. Hippopotamus (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think my proposal would be to revert the "Krushchev..." section back to the version around when it was promoted, and then a copy edit may be all that is needed. Does anyone agree? Hippopotamus (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
In my book that article is fine; except perhaps for additional references (where they are needed), and that the letter from Kuschev could be formatted more nicely with {{cquote}}. Note that you cannot simplify a direct citation; if Kruschev wrote it that way, that's the way he wrote it. --Eptalon (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course you cannot simplify a direct citation, but if not in Simple English their meaning should be explained. In effect they should be treated as if they are in a different language, so imagine the section with quotations in Russian, for instance. Hippopotamus (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- Article has no need for demotion, could use work, but not required. Not Demoted -- American Eagle (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickel Creek

Nickel Creek (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not enough third-party/reliable sources; too many complex English quotations that need to explained or wikilinked. Hippopotamus (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree it needs some work on the writing (I'll do what I can) but I don't understand what's wrong with the sources. Can you clarify? —Giggy 10:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few seem to be from "Nickel Creek" themselves, so are not third-party and towards the end of the article referencing becomes sparse. Hippopotamus (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Blimey! I've not ever seen WP:PAD before: is it new? mC8 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Not unless you consider January 28, 2008 new. :) This is an okay article, but unless someone will go through and link the quotes, fix some of the references ({{cite web}} especially), and do other work, I 15px Support demotion. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll do a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
All references are {{cite web}}'ed now. On the way it revealed a missing ref so that needs help. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Can the areas which are considered too complex please be identified on the article's talkpage. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've now linked a number of the more complicated words in the quotes. Are we getting anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Much improved, I'll Oppose now. I think it's better. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

18px Done kept as a very good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


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

Readable prose is just 3.3 KB, and I think there are just too many red links in this case. Hippopotamus (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely too many red links, but the article does cover quite a lot and is only just under the required length. Could it be added too a little? - tholly --Turnip-- 07:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite possibly, but I'm afraid I don't speak a word of German. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
*Opinion* - way too many red links for GA. -- American Eagle (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
If one were to create the redlinks, would you still vote for deomtion, or would you vote to keep it? Cheers, Razorflame 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, at first I thought still demote per not complete and missing things. But looking at EN, I see it is mostly complete. I'd probably oppose demotion if it were without red links. It's very awesome having you back. Cheers -- American Eagle (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
All red links save 3 are created. I did not create the 2 year pages because of our policies on creating year pages, and that third red link, I believe, someone else can create :) Cheers, Razorflame 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, good enough for me. But what is "our policies on creating year pages?" I've created/ worked on some year pages, what is our policy against it? Thanks --American Eagle (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a policy, its' what the result of that massive deletion of year pages was about. Most likely, the 2 year pages that I would create would be full of red links, which means that they are deletable via the A1 rule for no context because that was what the decision was made for those kinds of pages :) Cheers, Razorflame 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's still on the short side and it would be good to see a Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor article created, but I'm happy enough that this has been fixed and can keep its GA status. Hippopotamus (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to do this for me as my brain is jello. I spent like 5 hours today working on Romania to get it up to GA status....and it still isn't complete yet....oh well...It will become completed soon :) Cheers, Razorflame 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- I don't think it's yet complete (too short, IMO), has red links, not enough references (3?), I must 15px Support demotion. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No more red links (btw the GA criteria allow for a minimal number of red links - "...there must not be many red links left..." - so 3 out the fifty or so is only 6% and not a valid reason for demotion really)... I'll try expanding it as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Much improved, I'll Oppose now. Good job, all! -- American Eagle (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

18px Done kept as a good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

Jimi Hendrix (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Quite a few issues for me at first glance, but probably nothing which couldn't be fixed should keen and knowledgeable editors have a few spare moments. My issues:

  • Manual of style problems...
    • Citation placement (WP:CITE) 18px Done
    • Headings (over-capitalisation) (WP:HEAD) 18px Done
    • Hyphens instead of en-dash (WP:DASH) 18px Done
    • Contractions (e.g. didn't) 18px Done
  • Some sentences without reference (e.g. "He grew up without much money or attention; his parents divorced when he was nine years old, and his mother died when he was 16.", "At about the age of fourteen, Hendrix found his first guitar. It was a broken acoustic guitar with one string that had been thrown away by another boy. His first electric guitar was a white Supro Ozark that his father, Al Hendrix, had bought him. He didn’t have lessons and learned basic tunes and improvisation from watching Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley play live." etc etc) 18px Done
  • Some complex words not linked (e.g. acoustic, improvisation etc) 18px Done
  • Poor style e.g. "Jimi Hendrix was born in Seattle on November 27, 1942. He is one of the most influential guitarists in Rock history." - how odd to go from being born to the most influential guitarist in two sentences. Another e.g. "Even when he grew up, he still loved Elvis." - hey? I get it but it's poor writing 18px Done
  • Red links 18px Done
  • Is "Results" a really appropriate name for the subsection? 18px Done
  • References are poorly formatted - just look at some of the more recent VGAs to see what I'm saying 18px Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about Hendrix so I dunno how much help I can be of with regards to content. However, I've fixed the ref placement and header issues, and I think I got all the dashes and contractions too. Giggy (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added 18px Done and 17px Doing... tags above. If you notice anything else, please report it here? --Gwib -(talk)- 11:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Since all tasks are done, does it mean that this article won't be demoted? Chenzw  Talk  00:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) VGA tag replaced; definitely VGA material. --Eptalon (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Midwestern United States

Midwestern United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
  • Most of the article is unsourced, with only three individual inline citations. Of those, two are not formatted properly. There are also instances of unsourced POV, such as "Midwesterners are sometimes viewed as open, friendly, and straightforward, or sometimes stereotyped as stubborn and uncultured."
  • Numerous MoS breaches.
  • Complex words such as "dialect" and "distinctively".

Juliancolton (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support demotion, this was a proto-type version of a VGA article when the whole process started almost a year ago. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 04:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • 15px Comment - What the article needs is a peer review and a major re-write before having second chances to meet VGA guidelines. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 04:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion. This article is barely of Good article quality. All of Julian's concerns are valid and should be addressed. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion. Chenzw  Talk  11:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support seems to be unsourced for most of its assertions. fr33kman t - c 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion for the other reasons that have already been brought up. Cheers, Razorflame 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Demoted. Two weeks have passed, and community consensus is in favor of demotion. obentomusubi 07:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


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

I would like to propose the demotion of this article from VGA status to either GA status or no status because I have found that the article still needs to be copyedited completely for grammar and sentence fluidity/structure. Also, several of the sections are somewhat short and should probably be lengthened. These are things that should have been fixed before this article became a VGA. If you fix these problems, then I will withdraw my proposal for demotion. Razorflame 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose demotion until you can provide concrete evidence that this article no longer meets the requirements of a VGA. I need to know precisely where you see grammatical issues and precisely which VGA criteria the article no longer meets. The article underwent extensive review as exemplified by the discussion on the talkpage, and many editors contributed. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    Easy. There is a requirement for VGAs that reads that pages need to be in simple english and use simple sentence structures. I don't see that here. There is your concrete evidence. Cheers, Razorflame 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    If it´s so easy then please provide us with a number of examples of the structures and grammar that you so object to. That way we can attempt to fix it. Otherwise a nebulous "...needs to be copyedited..." despite being heavily copyedited before promotion reads like you just don´t like it. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

15px Comment - Doesn't look too big of a problem to warrant demotion. Maybe it needs a peer review. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 04:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No action Goblin 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne

Avril Lavigne (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I don't think this article meets the good article criteria anymore because of all the red links. Fafas (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC) *Support demotion at present. Far too many red links (including the entire "Filmography" section), messy References section and several of the sources are to "", IMDb, "", etc., of which aren't reliable sources. TheAE talk 04:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    • Many red links gone (but please see my note regarding criteria vs guidelines vs policy etc below). Dubious sources being slowly removed. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion at present. Too many redlinks. Fix this, and I will change my vote. Razorflame 05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose demotion. Red links have been fixed, as well as the other issues. Razorflame 19:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Many red links gone (but please see my note regarding criteria vs guidelines vs policy etc below). The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose demotion at present, the status of other articles, as if they exist or not, should not determine the quality of an article, if you give me a reason how a red link changes how much the viewer learns from this article, then I will change my vote. Bugboy52.40 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not just the red links, as American Eagle said some reference sources aren't reliable. The status of other articles do determine the quality of an article with internal links, because it helps the reader understand the article better. From English Wikipedia, "Items in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles which are likely to add significantly to readers' understanding of the topic." Edit: It's not how much the links help the reader "learn" from this article that matters, it's that they do... Fafas (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Too many red links. Claimgoal 08:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Many red links gone (but please see my note regarding criteria vs guidelines vs policy etc below). The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This looks horrible for a GA. No offense to anyone who wrote this:) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 07:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Many red links gone (but please see my note regarding criteria vs guidelines vs policy etc below). Also, "...looks horrible..." isn't particularly constructive. Could you be more precise in future as to exactly what you object to? I assume you meant the red links.... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 15px Support denotion - Too many redlinks, doesn't look coherent and some references either don't exist or are unreliable. FSM Noodly? 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Many red links gone (but please see my note regarding criteria vs guidelines vs policy etc below). Dubious sources being slowly removed. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment now here's something for you all to think about. If you visit the page Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles (and indeed the Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles), you may all be shocked to discover that the criteria are currently defined as a guideline and most certainly not a policy. In fact, the page even says of the criteria, "It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy". Therefore in applying the criteria to any article, it is not forbidden to break any of them if the reasoning is adequate. Therefore, once again another flaw in this process is exposed. We've all been guilty of citing red links as a reason to prevent promotion or cause demotion, but I'm afraid it's not as cut-and-dry as we all expect. For example, in the Avril Lavigne article, a good number of the red links are not necessary, and many could be easily linked to simple.wikt if required. Problem here is that far too much effort is being expended on finding reasons to demote this article than simply fixing it (and being aware of the current guidelines). The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Further comment in just one hour of editing a subject I am not familiar with nor interested in I have reduced the red links to a degree that I would consider it meets the criteria adequately (notwithstanding that the criteria are only guidelines, not policy, as discussed above). The only other valid concern is over the legitimacy of the references which I hope can be fixed. It is interesting to note that is happy to use IMDB for non-contraversial references such as appearances. Perhaps other editors could assist in future with red link concerns by actually creating some of the articles they are so concerned over. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Final comment I have tidied all references up and tried to replace inherently unreliable ones with those considered reliable for each circumstance... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose demotion; the stated problem (red-links) has been addressed; the red-links are down to an acceptable level (3, if you you do not count the discography). Consequently, I see no reason to demote this article. --Eptalon (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – more sources, fewer red links, better. Not VGA, but okay. TheAE talk 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Closed as "Not Demoted" 5/3 Oppose Demotion; In addition I feel that sufficient work has been carried out to keep the article at GA standard. Cheers, Goblin 09:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


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

Although the introduction is written brilliantly and fits my requirements for being considered as a featured (very good) article, I strongly believe this article is no longer deserving of very good article status. Aside from the introduction, the rest of the article is not extensive in its information (it's actually quite short), and has only four references.

  • Support demotion since it is woefully under-referenced, and I am uncertain as the reliability of those references which are provided. A shame it's on the mainpage at such a worrying time for this Wikipedia as an example of our finest work. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    Just to mention re: it's Main Page-ness, if we launch the new system soon then it should be removed from the page for just short of a month - currently it is there as the current very good article... Goblin 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion. The article severely lacks citations, and the ones which are provided are not formatted properly. I haven't yet read the article, but at a first glance, I'd say its well below the current VGA standards. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above, doesn't meet criteria, poorly sourced. TheAE talk 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 15px Comment - This demotion request may be closed as "no consensus" if there are not enough votes. Chenzw  Talk  01:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 15px Comment Can you tell me where it states how many votes are required? This seems to be the one (anamolous) process which (correctly) works by consensus here. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Closed as Demoted 3 editors are in support, per consensus. Goblin 18:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Joss Whedon

Joss Whedon (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Since this article's promotion in February 2008, I think our standards for good articles have improved significantly. I believe that for this to keep its GA tag we need to address the following issues:

  1. Lead needs expansion for an article of this size from its current one paragraph.
  2. While MOS isn't required, we need to look at grammar, i.e. incomplete sentences here which have full stops, complete sentences which don't have one, or have two..., references should be placed after punctuation, not before it.
  3. Referencing is very weak indeed. For the whole of the "Television work" section, we have just one reference.
  4. We have temporal issues, e.g. "Dollhouse is currently expected to be shown on television in the fall of 2008." - well, we're now Spring 2009...
  5. Far too many really short paragraphs. It looks like a list of trivia.
  6. References section needs separation into general and specific, and I can see that at least one accessdate is missing, and reliability of, say, "" and "Ain't It Cool News" is questionable.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give this a couple more days before demoting in case someone wishes to do anything about it. It has been listed here for 18 days already. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: Demoted - no effort made to fix the numerous issues described above after 20 days. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

Cuban Missile Crisis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Many, many issues here. See the article talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support demotion. Lots of problems pointed out by TRM on the talk page of the article. Malinaccier (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion. Article is not neutral (mainly due to choice of words and phrasing) and the lack of references have caused this article to lose its credibility. Chenzw  Talk  11:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have started to work on the article. I try to bring in new references, based on text of the EnWP article. I would really love it other people could help, esp. at simplifying. Please remember, I am not a native English speaker. --Eptalon (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Left a few comments on the talk page, after a lot of work, mainly on the intro (and the political background in Cuba). Still needs more work though.--Eptalon (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Closed as demoted: several outstanding issues that haven't been seen too. Article has been demoted to regular article status. Goblin 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mouthpiece (brass)

Mouthpiece (brass) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Many issues once again, most notably that virtually all references are now dead. I have left an extensive list of the minimum required to save this GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I currently do see little hope for this article. If GAs require valid third-party refs, I think this article should be demoted. I am not a musicologist, and the sources I have access to do not provide sufficient references. I can contribute my knowledge as a trumpet player, but this will not lead to third-party refs. So I guess we need to demote this article. --Eptalon (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion unless it is saved by completing all the tasks outlined on its' talk page. Razorflame 13:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion per TRM's comments. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support demotion - also per TRM. Barras (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: Article demoted. Chenzw  Talk  08:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Recently promoted during my long-term absence, I've finally had a chance to review the article. I'm 2/3 of the way through the review and have spotted well over 50 issues that I think must be resolved before this should stay as one of our good articles. I've made extensive notes on the talk page. If anyone shows any interest in saving it from demotion, I'll happily review the remaining 1/3 of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support demotion unless it is saved by completing all the tasks outlined on its' talk page. Will change my vote to an oppose demotion vote if the problems outlined on the talk page are dealth with before the deadline elapses. Razorflame 13:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose demotion while Script error: No such module "user". is working to improve the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose demotion - Done most of the first 2/3rds of the article. Can definitely be done to save it. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 18:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose demotion - Yotcmdr works on it. I think a demotion is not needed at the moment. Barras (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment more comments added. I am happy to continue this PAD as long as required since Yotcmdr is making a great effort in addressing my comments. For anyone else interested, please see the recent set of new comments I've posted on the remaining 1/3 of the article I have just finished reviewing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Important note - this article completely overlooks World War I and World War II in the history section. This is a glaring oversight and without remedy is, in my opinion, sufficient to demote the article alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • 15px Comment - The second half of the issues on the talk page have not been resolved yet. Chenzw  Talk  14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strogly support demotion - per the concerns. There are still too many issues until now. Barras (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Closed as demoted: Still many outstanding issues, I asked Yot yesterday and he has not worked on it. It can always be worked on and then re-promoted. Goblin 18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Barry (2007)

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

Sorry, I know this was just promoted, but it fails criteria #7. I don't want to see this demoted, but the redlinks need to be created or the article should be rightly demoted as it blatantly fails criteria 7. For everyone's convenience, here are the pages that need to be created in order to fulfill the criteria:

Like I mentioned during voting, I'd be happy to help with formatting at SE Wikt if you're not familiar. · <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 19:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Would it not be more in keeping with the spirit of SE to just create the pages rather than demote the article? fr33kman talk 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, let's create a bunch more useless, one-line stubs just to avoid an arbitrary criteria. Good idea! :) –Juliancolton | Talk 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No need for them to be one line stubs. There's not many to create, shouldn't be hard to create descent articles that are fairly comprehensive. I think you need a cup of tea JC; and a massage! :) fr33kman talk 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with Wiktionary, so I can't create the majority of the items listed. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • To Fr33kman: if you read my statement, I don't really want it demoted, I want those pages created so that it can rightly be declared a VGA. I just don't have the time/energy to do it all myself. The "spirit" of this wiki involves having some quality standards for our VGAs. That's why the criteria exist in the first place.
  • To Julian: ummm, if you feel the criteria are useless, I'm not sure you should be participating in this process. To be declared a VGA, an article must meet all criteria. Period. Currently this one does not. I tried to get people to create the pages before it was promoted, but it didn't happen. Frankly, it shouldn't have been promoted until this issue was taken care of, but since that happened, it needs to be taken care of ASAP. I understand your annoyance, but what else do you propose I should have done? Ignored the fact that it doesn't meet all VGA criteria? Do it all myself? (I would have if I had the time and energy to take it on. I just don't right now.) Post this elsewhere? I did what I thought was best.

1 WP and 5 WKT entries should be easy to do if people work together. My hope is that these will be created quickly and the article won't have to be demoted. And I repeat for the 3rd time (2nd time here): I will help format if someone creates the bones at SE Wikt. · <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want this article demoted, you shouldn't have brought it here. Did you try posting at the article's talk page? Did you ask me personally to try to address the issues? Demotion should be the last resort. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Internal redlink fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You say, that you don't want the demotion of this article, but why are you here and start this proposal for demotion??? Wouldn't it be easier to talk to JC on his talk page? Do we really need this discussion? I think we don't need. Please go to JC's talk page and discuss there or better go on and help to create the articles instead of discussing here pointles. Thanks Barras (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know Julian owned the article. one owns any article. I posted this in common space according to the rules when discovering an article doesn't meet the VGA criteria. Just as I'm supposed to. · <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! @Tygrrr; I did read your comments; I just believe in fixing what's broke, especially if it's only a few easy creations. fr33kman talk 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Exactly! I'm posting it here so it can be fixed! · <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I fully support your right to bring it here; I'd have just made the fixes personally. Anywho, I'm outta this discussion. Good luck! :) fr33kman talk 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Or you could have posted at the article's talk page, which would have avoided unnecessary discussion. This borders on process wonkery IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Or I could follow the process listed above and re-quoted by me below. Or we could all go back in time and take care of this when I first brought it up before it was promoted. Or you could list more things we could have done, wasting further time that could be used for creating articles. What I did was a valid solution to the issue. If you don't agree with it, that isn't really my problem. · <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I've already fixed the sole redlink. What Simple Wiktionary has/doesn't have is irrelevant to this article. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, that stub says nothing the intext link "Pinar del Río, Cuba" doesn't say. I hope that someone, if not you, will take some time to expand it. As it stands, I think it is a lame way to skirt the intent behind criteria #7, as is your assertion that not having those pages at simple:wikt has no effect on the reading of the article. It's truly a shame that this is what the VGA process has come down to. People doing the bare minimum to meet the requirement instead of actually caring about the readability of the article. Criteria #7 is a very important one, imho, because it greatly improves the readability when we have to rely on technical words that can't be replaced with something simpler. · <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You've precisely described my thoughts, I'm afraid. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding??

Demotion of a GA or VGA can be done in this way:
  1. A named editor notices that the article no longer meets the GA or VGA criteria.
  2. The editor lists the article on this page and adds {{pvgademotion}} (for VGAs) or {{pgademotion}} (for GAs) to the article's page to show that it is currently being reviewed and improved.
  3. For two weeks following the discovery, the article can be fixed to again meet the criteria. If there is agreement that the problem has been fixed during this time, there does not need to be a re-vote; a named editor can remove the tag from the article, and put the {{vgood}} or {{good}} tag back.
  4. If the problem is not fixed, the article will lose its status after the two week period. When the article once again meets the criteria, it can be re-nominated for GA or VGA status and will follow the full promotion process from beginning to end.

· <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 20:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose demotion. It meets the criteria. It's not up to this article to ensure all stubs are "worthy". If someone has a problem with the criteria, take it up in a discussion to change the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how you define the term redlink. If you define it literally as "a red link", then yes I suppose it does, although as someone who helped write the criteria, I don't feel that's the intent of the term redlink. If you define it as "a link that leads to a page that doesn't exist", then no this article does not meet all the criteria. Perhaps we need to discuss how to deal with this kind of situation. There obviously isn't consensus on how to handle links to wktionary entries that haven't been created. And we should know how to proceed if and when this situation comes up again.· <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 20:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no definitive way of dealing with wikt links. If I were you, I'd initiate a general discussion to deal with this anomalous situation. And perhaps throw in the concept of dodgy stubs too, just to satisfy the criterion. Good luck, I'll be happy to contribute. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All "redlinks" removed. As for "skirting the intent of criteria 7", well you need to fix the criteria if you are likely to start opposing on the existence of short stubs as well as redlinks. JC and I (and others) participate in the VGA process with good faith. We never said the criteria were correct, in fact I've been a strong opponent of the pointless creation of red linked stub just to satisfy criterion 7. Indeed, one of the words Tygrrr had originally complained about (squall) had the following text just after "(sudden, violent storms with wind and rain)" - perhaps the link to the non-existent wikt article just needed to be removed altogether?

Take a look back over the most recent candidates for demotion, e.g. Cuba Missile Crisis - generally there are dozens of different issues that need to be addressed, not just a couple of minor fixes. This could all have been fixed if these really minor points could have been sorted out with resorting to this heavy-handed approach. We all have talk pages and goodness knows, JC was hardly likely to let this VGA be demoted for the sake of a couple of really minor rewords and links. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but what are you talking about? Please click these links: wikt:wildfire, wikt:squall, wikt:elongation. There isn't anything there. I'm not saying these pages are stubs. They. do. not. exist. Please don't criticize me for something I'm not doing. Also, as far as addressing the wording of the criteria, it says "Red links point to articles that do not exist yet." Non-existant pages at se:wikt do not show as red, they show as light blue, but per that definition, it can be considered a "red link". You've worked around it and found a solution--great! Seriously! That was the goal all along--to get this article to not have redlinks. I'm not the one who made this so complicated. I merely pointed out that there were a number of redlinks, making this article not a legitimate VGA. I cannot understand for the life of me why everyone blew up, argued pointless points, criticized me for bringing up a valid point, and in general wasted a bunch of time. No offense, but why couldn't people just fix the links in combination the way we did in the end? Why does everything have to be a big accusational hate-fest? It just really makes me remember why I quit spending much time here. · <b style="color:#C41E3A">Tygrrr...</b> 13:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No offence taken. Counterwise, no offence but why do we need this officious approach to a very simple to fix problem when a note on a user's talkpage would have been more than sufficient? Just because the process exists, it doesn't mean you have to use it in all circumstances. All this for six words. Wow. As Fr33kman said at the start of this... "Would it not be more in keeping with the spirit of SE to just create the pages rather than demote the article?"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. All this could have been avoided with a simple note on the talk page, but instead we put an entire article up for demotion for the sake of a few links. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me... –Juliancolton | Talk 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Clear result: Promblems are solved. Not demoted! We don't need more drama! --Barras (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Complex tag and multiple redlinks. I don't think it's in VGA shape anymore. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 19:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to improve this article and creat the redlinks, because he haven't a lot of VGAs. But I understand the concerns. Barras (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any redlinks, except one for Tracheotomy. I just created an article for that, so there are no longer any redlinks. However, it's still tagged as complex. hmwithτ 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I really thought there were more redlinks, when I wrote my comment, but I am not sure. The next problem is, that there are some "needs proving" tags. Seems to be a lot of work to fix that all. Barras (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • All needs proving tags are fixed. I added some references. Barras (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Closed as demoted: This article really isn't in VGA shape anymore and as a result i'm afraid i'm closing this as a demote. Now then, whether it should be a demote to GA or demote to regular article or not is another thing... i'll think on this one and make a choice shortly (if that's ok) or if not someone else can just jump in :). Goblin 08:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
Just my opinion but I'd go back to regular article and then allow it to go through the PGA process to ensure that it meets our current standards for a good article. That way there can be no complaints, it just means we'd have to wait three weeks before it gets its green cross. I'd initiate the PGA right away. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeh that sounds good. The complex tag was leaning me towards RA with a suggestion to go straight to PGA, so i'll close it as that and initiate the PGA. So, it's a close as demote to regular article status. Regards, Goblin 08:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

Wernher Von Braun

Wernher Von Braun (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Articles that have been up for GA and are longer than this have been accused of being uncomprehensive. Also, only has ten references. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed as no action taken: This is clearly a WP:POINT and a "getback" nomination, and holds no weight at all. Length does not matter, the amount of information contained does. Certain people need more than others to make it comprehensive. Goblin 20:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
100% case of WP:POINT. Please........ The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And thanks for the quick closure, BG7. Also thanks to Purplebackpack89 for informing me. Barras (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


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

Not enough content, incomplete article. No longer GA worthy. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I support the demotion of this article. It's no longer a GA. Our standarts are now higher. There are too many weblinks and too less references. I didn't read it complete, but I don't feel that it looks like a GA anymore. Barras (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I also think this fails to step up to our current GA standards. The lead is very weak, the referencing is almost non-existent. We have a number of sections which are simply bullet point lists. It needs a lot of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It doesn't meet today's GA standards, but hopefully we can work it back up to GA status in the near future. It's not too far off. hmwithτ 23:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Demote. Has three references. Nuff said. Not GA Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Demote to regular status as it no longer meets the GA requirements. Razorflame 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Demoted. The article does not meet criteria. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


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

I would like to demote Romania to GA status while I fix up some of the red links that were created from the new section that I added. However, I need the consensus from the community first. Razorflame 19:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • RF, as you know, I was always concerned over referencing. You don't need it to be demoted, but I respect your decision to come here to reduce its visibility while you work on it. Support demotion for maintenance purposes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Good thinking, yes.--Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    If you're going to fix it, then no, there's no point. Just get on with it and fix it. If you're not, then support demotion. Goblin 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
  • I agree with the above comments. I think this should be withdrawn and the article just fixed. fr33kman talk 23:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Close as demoted: Seems that there have been no edits to this article since the nomination was made, and none from the nominator in ten days. Despite my above comments, it seems fairly clear that this isn't going to be fixed, so I've demoted it until such a time as when it can be re-nominated. Cheers, Goblin 18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!


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

Has the length, does not have the references. Half the article is un- or poorly referenced Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I'm surprised it passed in this state. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Idem as Griffin. --MisterWiki (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Was thinking of asking for a demotion of this. Not a GA in this state. Pmlineditor  07:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Demote - only certain parts of the article are sourced. Nifky^ 07:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with above. —§ stay (sic)! 17:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Not good enough for today's GA standards. It passed two years ago so this isn't surprising. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Justement. It's very nicely written, but does not have the necessary references. Classical Esther 08:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Demoted - The article is far away from our current standards -Barras talk 17:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)