Wikipedia talk:Very good articles
From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change
Just a thought: What will this page look like with 25 VGAs, with 50, with 250? --Eptalon 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- When that glorious day comes (and let's hope it does real soon! ;) it may be time to break the page into subsections by area, ie. History, Culture, Biographies, Weather, etc. However, I'm reluctant to even think about it until we have a significantly larger number of VG articles, no less than 30, I'd dare to day. Phaedriel - 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[change] My latest changes
I updated the page, changing its layout, and letting it show only a few of the VGAs (the most recently selected ones). I also sorted the VGAs here by date of promotion to VGA status. - Huji reply 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Whilst the formatting of the table is good, I do not support displaying only the most recent promoted very good articles. It may mean we are just throwing away all the links of other very good articles, which are all just as good as the newest ones. I believe each article should receive equal recognition in this page. I do like to suggest adding the newest few articles in a small table somewhere (perhaps at the top) to keep a close track of the new articles. I roughly based this idea from English wiki's good articles. RaNdOm26 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I was planned to add a full list down there again, as soon as we have a couple more VGAs. The box below would show them categorized by subject. On the other hand, maintaining the "by date" list is a little hard. May be we should wait and see what others think. - Huji reply 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a list of these articles by addition date is quite useless. What I could imagine now is an alphabetical index; once we grow beyond about 20-25 VGAs, we could classify them by "Knowledge groups" (before the alphabetical index). Like with classification by category, this only makes sense, if we can come up with 3-5 articles for a certain knowledge group (as stated before 3-5 knowledge groups, 3-5 articles = 25 VGAs). Unfortunately, our VGAs are not evenly distributed over all knowledge groups. At the moment, they reflect the fields of interest of the (most active) editors. This means we only create the knowledge group section once we have 3 articles for it. --Eptalon 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think recording the VGA additions by date is not totally useless, because it gives us a measure of how we improve (or vice versa) in finding and/or making VGAs. However, it doesn't necessarily need to be the way I created there (with all those details, and DIFF links). About the knowledge groups, I'm in total agreement with you that (1) each should be created when we have at least three articles in it, and (2) our VGAs are not very well distributed according to the area of knowledge they belong to. Indeed, one of the reasons for me to focus on Voltmeter was to let us have a different type of VGA, if accepted. - Huji reply 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Knowing which ones were added when would actually be very handy when it comes to coding up the pages and replacing older entries in the rotation to prevent duplication when displayed on the main page. Currently Articles 5 through 7 can be replaced in the rotation with the next three VGA's to keep us at a 70 day full rotation (as opposed to increasing the number of articles which could eventually get out of hand but is a functional option). Either way, knowing which articles are the newest additions to the list would eliminate having to search the category regularly to add in new articles. It would only be required to check for new entries on the list and start from the last article added.-- Creol(talk) 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Not exactly certain I understood the question either, but here is an overkill thought on the matter:
-
-
-
- To be able to refer directly to the precise version which was selected as VGA we could do something along the lines of this (it uses a variation of the {{Click}} template modified to use external addresses but shows as plain links - A template could easily be created to simplify the process to require just the article name and revision number with a work-around for the problem of needing underscores ( _ ) for spaces in the link - template has been created for use in this example.):
-
-
-
- The article links to the current version and the star links to the version which was first tagged with the {{vgood}} template. The copy used for the Article of the week text probably should be taken directly from the originally tagged revision although major revisions may need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. If it has changed so much that it does not resemble the voted-on revision, it may be needed to reassess it's status. -- Creol(talk) 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
[change] Poland
I think this article can be a very good articles. Last! 12:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think some of the vocabulary in this page is too difficult. The words I think can be easily made easier in bold:
Very good articles are the best articles in the Simple English Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our very good article criteria.
Currently, there are 19 very good articles, from of a total of 25,966 articles on Simple English Wikipedia. Thus, about one in 1,360 articles is listed here. Articles that no longer meet the criteria can be proposed for improvement or removal at Wikipedia:Peer review.
All very good articles come with a template
which is located on the center front of that article. It also shows that the article is a very good article in the Simple English Wikipedia.
