Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/2021/2

Google

Google – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 24000 daily hits

Coming in at number 7 in VA/PP, we have Google. Despite its very high view count (over 8750000 in total) it is ranked as C-class by every Wikiproject that reviewed it. The main issue is the criticism section, which may need to be (partly) rewritten to fit with summary style. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 19:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Support. Most of it looks decent enough, but the proseline and other issues with the criticism section are enough to warrant our help, given that it's a very popular page. I wonder whether it might not be better to improve Criticism of Google and just transclude the lead of that page to Google's page with an {{Excerpt}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support There are issues that the project could help with for sure.BabbaQ (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose There is nothing in this article that needs to be changed. Koridas 📣 18:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is. The article is tagged for a reason.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Football Manager 2021

Football Manager 2021 – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 500 daily hits

Recently added article on the latest version just released. Escaped deletion on promotional grounds but still needs lots of community help to make it more encyclopaedic and less like an advert. Thanks -- Crep1711 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Support - I have to agree with nominator.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fact-checking websites

List of fact-checking websites – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 500 daily hits

JPxG recently pointed out this page. Problems are extensive and should be obvious. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is, to be blunt, not very good. While the WP:NPOV issues would be obvious on an article titled "List of correct websites" or "List of websites that post the truth", for some reason a "List of fact-checking websites" is festooned with entries cited to themselves, entries with no citation at all, or entries cited to press releases. Since there are obvious political implications to inclusion (or exclusion) of any given site, I figure that involving myself with this cleanup would be a rather strenuous process, but I think someone ought to do it. jp×g 20:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The List-article would need a review first to even see if it is useful.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Arcade

Apple Arcade – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - ~300 daily hits

(Nomination text) Sim0435 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Oppose. I made a few tiny tweaks, but apart from that, this looks like a normal start-class page on a fairly minor topic, so I don't think it's the best fit for AFI. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - good number of daily hits. Article could need projects help with some expansion, c/e.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer Rouge

Khmer Rouge – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 2,800 daily hits

This is a top-importance article in several WikiProjects but is only C-class for all of them. It's frequently visited and is one of the most vital articles on Cambodia, the Vietnam War and Southeast Asia. It does not appear to have had any talk page discussion since 2009. Although the structure seems pretty good and a lot of content is there, it needs citation checks for unverified statements, some grammatical and content edits and this could be a big job. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Oppose. This is definitely a big, important article, and the lack of any talk page activity is a little perplexing, but looking over it, I'm tempted to reassess it to B-class, as it looks pretty well-developed. I'm not sure this project could do much to help—I'd suggest perhaps requesting a peer review might be a better venue to seek review. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support- definitely enough hits each day. Formatting issues could be a project work.BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]