Wikipedia:Peer review/vgood

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Very good article propositions

As I wrote on the Simple Talk page, I think we should start with marking articles as very good. As to the process of nominating, I think this can be done here (perhaps on a subpage, if it gets too big). As with all community efforts, I think too many rules are bad. However, I think that only named editors, which habe done a few (50) edits, should take part in this.

I have put the criteria I see on The documentation page of the vgood template. A thing that I have added (versus the version on the Simple talk page) was that at least 3 editors should agree that the proposed article is indeed a very good one.

We should have about 150 very good articles. Ideally, they should be spread equally over the main categories.

[edit] Propositions for very good articles


List your propositions here, newer ones at the top. Each proposition should be in a subheading. --Eptalon 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All the articles currently in Category:Very good articles

The 11 articles that are currently in the category seem to have been added without community discussion. I think they should have to follow the rules we now have in place for very good articles. Please make comments on whether you think they should be kept as very good articles. The 11 articles are:

· Tygartl1·talk· 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would vote to keep Bob Dylan and Equinox and remove the rest.  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are almost there (they have a few red links). As to the length I had in mind, Chocolate is almost there. It is a bit more than a page, on my screen. The language is simple, the image is good. I also removed the last remaining red link (by doing a stub on 'hot chocolate'). So of these articles, Chocolate is probably closest to what I had in mind when I came up with the very good article idea. Devon is perhaps the other end of the spectrum of these articles. There are many red links; I personally do not think SimpleWP should focus on creating all those links in the Devon article at the moment. Also, perhaps this is just me, but I think sectioning elements like titles should not contain links. Equinox is a little short, so is Bob Dylan. If he became a Christian, what was he before (unspecified)? - The other articles are certainly a good point to start, but they still have red links to fix. In my opinion, the current selection is also a good mix across different fields of study. --Eptalon 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Just sprang to my mind. The length is of course an item up for discussion; and it is of course a minimal length. There is no use in cutting away valid, perhaps even interesting info (after the copyedit-simplify process has been done). If you disagree, please say so openly. My role as an admin is limited to being able to delete articles and block users. Sometimes I need to make a judgement on what to delete, and who to block. It does not mean, that I my opinion has more weight that any of your opinions. Those rules I put up should not be cast in stone, they should adapt as a result of what the community wants. --Eptalon 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to hog the discussion, but I would chime in that I personally like the criteria. That's not to say other criteria may not be viable as well. Upon further review, I agree with your assessment on Chocolate, and would probably say that I think are Equinox and Bob Dylan are good short articles but maybe not very good articles (Both could use a little work). Of course, some topics may only need one or two paragraphs to explain them satisfactorily; so, maybe we should call them guidelines instead of rules to give us all some flexibility.  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Caffeine,Ernest Hemingway, Japanese Tea Ceremony and Malaria can develop into very good longer articles, provided the red links disappear. I have a very mixed feeling about Fencing. I think even if the article is about a page long, there is too little there to make this a very good article, without major rewriting. So to sum up the current status --Eptalon 09:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Alanis Morissette: One redlink remains, otherwise might be seen as a valid candidate.
  • Atlanta, Georgia: Three redlinks. Otherwise valid candidate.
  • Bob Dylan: Too short
  • Caffeine: Four redlinks; most of them medical terms, or words from pharmacology/chemistry. Otherwise valid candidate.
  • Chocolate: Valid candidate.
  • Devon: Over 20 redlnks in the first four sections (up to, and including Economy). This article needs a lot of work till it can even be considered a candidate. As written above, we should, in my opinion not spend our precious time on it, right now. Unless there is someone here from Devon, who takes pelasure in tyding up this article, I think we should drop it from the list.
  • Equinox: Good article, but a little short to be a very good one (should be about twice as long; perhaps add something more about cultural significance, or history of it). The bonfires lit in may and october in some parts of the world are a pagan relic to the celtic/pagan feasts of Beltane and Samhain, I think.
  • Ernest Hemingway: 24 redlinks, some of which can be redirected to wiktionary.
  • Fencing: Too little content, I would opt for dropping the article now, and re-listing, once it has been reworked.
  • Japanese Tea Ceremony: 5 redlinks, otherwise valid candidate.
  • Malaria: 6 redlinks, most are medical terms. Otherwise valid candidate.

To sum up the current status, the probably first few true very good articles could be Alanis Morisette, Atlanta, Caffeine, Chocolate,Japanese Tea Ceremony, and Malaria. This can be done with a relatively small effort. --Eptalon 09:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Japanese Tea Ceremony has only one redlink left (to Ikebana). --Eptalon 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion of a very good article would be an article that is essentially complete, an article that doesn't have much room for improvement at all. It think that when considering the length of an article that we should keep in mind the length that it could be. I feel like there is a lot more information that can be added to all of the articles. The exception to that is Malaria, which I think might need to be gone over to make sure that all the information is encyclopedic and remove/reword parts that are not (for example, the wording in the "How to prevent malaria" section could be improved.) That being said, I would say that the best articles on the list are Alanis Morisette, Caffeine, Japanese Tea Ceremony, and Malaria. Do I think that any of them are yet worthy of being marked as very good articles? I still have not decided. I really want to feel confident that we are putting our best articles on display. I will do some more thinking before giving my decision. · Tygartl1·talk· 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The problem with essentially complete to make an article very good is that knowledge about the subject the article describes is needed; I would prefer to have criteria for very good article that can be easily automated; that way, a bot could (in theory) go through all articles, and propose candidates for very good articles.--Eptalon 08:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: Removed all redlinks in Malaria, which makes it a valid candidate; however, the stubs created to do this may be hard to understand for some people (esp. the G6PD deficiency; which is a hereditary disease leading to anaemia because a certain enzyme cannot be made). --Eptalon 08:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

I propose that the following articles should keep the very good articles tag, and that it should be removed from all others:

The following articles would therefore no longer be classified as very good:

They can be re-listed once they meet the criteria. What does the community think? --Eptalon 09:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chopstick

The article on chopsticks are almost good enough to be on the "good articles" list. It still needs some information on history. Coffsneeze 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little red riding hood

There is still one redlink left --Eptalon 12:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)No redlinks left; it is a valid candidate. What does the community think? --Eptalon 06:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Much better than when I first critiqued it (oh, wait, that would be due to my re-write of it.. n/m) but still a couple small things. Image size is overpowering the article (minor fix). Removing the link to Plot (redlink) and then explaining it just to get around having a red-link - Either the word plot needs to be reworded in such a way that it is simple without linking, or the article would be needed and the link restored. Defining terms not directly tied into the article just does not seem like something a very good article would do. (and there is that missing space on the definition as well (Minor). Tales and Stories of the Past with Morals. Tales of Mother Goose should probably be linked. The article is relatively short. Shrink the image and its external links start to show on the first screen; much of its 3k total size is in its interwiki links. This could be made up in the section on meaning and adding a bit on symbology in the tale. (red cloak, rebirth, Jonah and the whale, etc.) -- Creol(talk) 07:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have made the article a little longer. I have put in adaptations (notably the opera, and the cartoon by Tex Avery). I have also put in some interpretations (suppressed Riding Hood, The Red cape being a symbol for menstruation, the story being a warning against being raped). Adds about half a screen to it. Of course, I stubbed all redlinks. --Eptalon 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)