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 and {{FailedVGA}} placed on their talk page.

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.

Proposals for very good articles

To propose an article for Very Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. 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. ~~~~

Kansas

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

Meets all the criteria. Most of the article is based off of Oklahoma, a VGA. Albacore (talk · changes) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: would it not be better to go for GA first? --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  There's no requirement or even recommendation to go to GA before coming to VGA. Indeed, most of our VGAs have come straight here rather than going via GA. If the article's good enough go for it and avoid extra, unneeded red tape! Goblin 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

• Comment Couple of red links floating about. Automatic fail surely as the article should not have any red links according to the rules. But you could submit for GA and that should pass while you sort the red links out. KnowIG (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  The discussion will run for 3 weeks. I am quite sure the red links will have been created by then. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  I.e. if the red links are not fixed in three weeks it will automatically fail, but at the moment it does not. We state that articles must meet most of the criteria when they are nominated, but all in order for them to pass. Goblin 22:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

All the red links that are not in infoboxes are fixed, and I gave the "History" section a copy-edit. Can someone give the article a formal review? Albacore (talk · changes) 21:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I dropped in a few minor comments on the Talk page, but I'd say it looks great. Gotanda (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Gotanda and Albacore put in some great work on it. I looked at it, made and suggested a few finishing touches, and I don't see any more obstacles to promotion. I endorse this for VGA. Kansan (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This PVGA was supposed to be closed a while ago. Any comments? Albacore (talk · changes) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Extended for one week: Whilst it has got support, it is only the one support comment and it wouldn't be proper to promote based on that. So let's keep it open another week and see what happens... Goblin 18:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

Oppose. In my view this page would be hard pressed to pass GA requirements. It is not comprehensive. Paragraphs on Early history and statehood are piffling. They have plenty of refs, but huge issues are done in a single sentence. The history of Kansas is really interesting but it gets short shrift. Civil war and Post civil war also far, far too short. Poor buffalo, he might wonder why he's there. Not a word about him. Nothing on the other state symbols either. Native Americans likewise. Dust Bowl (what could be more important?) just four short sentences, and it's wrong to suggest climate was the only or main cause. Whole page is far too short, and full of statistics rather than writing (31 KB is long enough, but much of that is not prose). The infobox is an absurd size, and interferes with the reading of the Introduction. The whole article is guilty of not explaining things properly, and of thinking that statistics make a good article. Statistics are essential, of course, but they are not a substitute for a full, balanced account of the growth of the state. Not a bad article, but not one I would recommend users to read, let alone a VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles
• Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles
• Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
• Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion