Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles
Very good articles are the highest status of articles at Simple English Wikipedia. In order to become a very good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles.
This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the VGA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pvgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed very good articles.
Articles which are accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{pvgood}} tag replaced with {{vgood}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Very good articles and are placed in Category:Very good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as very good articles have their {{vgood}} tag removed.
Articles that are below the very good article criteria can be nominated to be a good article at Wikipedia:Proposed good articles.
If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for very good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comment. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.
In order to make sure the article you are proposing meets the required size, use this tool. Please notice that the text size is important, not the wikitext size.
Archives[change source]
Proposals for very good articles[change source]
To propose an article for very good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.
This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.
=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a VGA. ~~~~
Ronald Reagan[change source]
This article is my first GA nominee to become a GA and frankly seeing at the current VGA I feel this article is at a very high and well structured article for VGA. I've worked hard on it and the article is in tip top shape. Of course I believe there is adjustments to be done be make this a VGA, but seeing I have more time on my hands, I'm more than happy to tackle those suggestions to make this article a VGA. The article has been simplified during GA review, is well sourced, well formatted, has many sources and content and is a GA. I do believe this article has potential to be a VGA which is why I am nominating it for VGA status. Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the article is generally a good candidate; I have only had a quick glance. What bothers me a little is that there are many rather short sections, especially in the presidency part. We might consider regrouping these, for example add a section health, where we mention the different health issues: the hearing aid, the differnt forms of cancer, and perhaps Alzheimer's (not sure). I don't know, but I think to a certain extent it is normal that hearing gets worse with age. Most US presidents assumed their office at age 50+, or even 60+ (with the exception of Obama, and JFK, don't know of any others). Somewhat reminds me of glasses: Almost all people with a higher education wear glasses. In that context is it worth mentioning that XY wears glasses? - I leave it up to others to discuss. But as I said, I only had a quick glance, and did no in-deph analysis. --Eptalon (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also, the section on marriages shouldn't go under his acting career. Maybe a separate personal life section? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Eptalon: & @Auntof6:: So either expand (add notability) to the health section, got it! Marriage part had been added towards it's own section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Looks good. The section on marriages should be moved down after the main details of his life. Some comments about the honors section:
- The first item, about getting a Marine recruitment letter, doesn't seem like an honor, so I removed it.
- I did some simplifying.
- The term "unveil" isn't simple, but I'm not sure what to replace it with.
- --Auntof6 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6:: I simplified the honors section although I do not know where to place the marriage section. I thought before his political sections began because it would be in chronological order. Where would you exactly recommend putting it? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Probably after the death and funeral section. I noticed something else: there's a section called "Secret FBI agent". It seems like Reagan was an informant, not an agent, so that section should be renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6:: Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Looks good. The section on marriages should be moved down after the main details of his life. Some comments about the honors section:
- I created a health section down where his Alzheimer diagnosis is described. Section as is is still a little short (doesn't really solve the issue raised, but improves on the previous state). I moved the old health section there. Is there anything else that can be said about his health? --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Eptalon: I've expanded the health section. Is it good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I often find that I am repeating myself. At GA level I commented:
- "I think all the ways of representing pronunciation (such as IPA) are useless, and get in the way of the intro sentence, which affects readability. Do you see them in newspaper of magazine articles? You do not, and with good reason. If pronunciation of a name is really a problem, it could be addressed in the text. In Reagan's case there is no problem. What I mean is, a name like 'Featherstonehaugh', which is pronounced "Fanshaw", needs explaining. Reagan's does not. Intro sentences and paras are absolutely critical".
- I still think so. Now something more general. I was living in Palo Alto for a period period when he was Governor of California. He was vigorously opposed by the lefties (nothing new there!), but amazed everyone at how well he did the job. Something rather similar happened with his presidency. It was strongly opposed by the liberal elite, but he ended up, as you say, a most popular president. One of the explanations was that he had picked very good people in his governments, and let them get on with it. This dynamic of moving from being perceived as someone without the background of political experience to a widespread acknowledgement that he had something special is perhaps something which deserves more prominence in the article. I see one or two books in the En page "Bibliography of Ronald Reagan" which look promising as possible sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Macdonald-ross:: So add content in regards to his bipartisanship during his presidency despite Reagan not being liked by Liberals? I'm on it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Problem with the "short sections": We still have the issue that some sections are rather short. Is it reasonable to expect that no matter what, we do not have any sections/subsections shorter than, say 5-6 lines of text? - The ones I see as problematic are (amongst others) "President of the Screen Actors Guild","Secret FBI Agent", "Failed Presidential Campaigns", "First term, 1981-85".What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Eptalon: I've expanded the SAG section, FBI section and added more info about his 1976 and 1980 campaigns. In regards to the first terms and all the sub section, basically everything after First term, 1981-85 until Second term, 1985-89 are in regards to his first term and the events are sorted out. Of course some sections are going to be smaller because that's how it is, but they still belong within that first term. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
