Jump to content

Wikipedia:Cleanup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.66.92.222 (talk) at 19:03, 27 June 2007 (June 27, 2007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Cleanup section. Please report confusing/messy articles below and explain why they need to be cleaned-up (grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.), also make sure to sign your additions with the following format: --~~~~

Any user can edit or fix any page. Please remove any entry from this page after it's fixed (please do not just put a strike through it or leave it on this page), and remember to take the appropriate tag(s) off the page. Please feel free to use the Wikipedia: Cleanup resources and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, for help on posting problems with wikipedia pages, or for you to use as a guide.

Anyone who wants to work on a cleanup job is asked to start with the articles at the bottom of the list first, because they have been listed for the longest period of time (Older cleanup: Category: Cleanup by month).

Refer to Wikipedia:Cleanup process for more information.

Instructions

Please follow these instructions carefully to ensure the correct processing of your request.

  • Check that the article you are requesting requires extensive cleanup.
  • Copy the following text and paste it at the very top of the "Requests" section.
*[[The name of the article]] - Why it needs to be fixed. ~~~~

Note: This page will be archived each month.

Help Clean up Wikipedia:Cleanup!

Due to the massive backlog of listings that have ballooned this page to over 160 kilobytes in size, Wikipedia:Cleanup needs your help! We have only a few editors actively engaged in trying to clean articles listed on this page and desperately need more.

If you'd like to help, please look over the articles listed below and see if you can help us resolve some of their issues so that can be removed from this page. The articles listed towards the bottom of the page are the oldest and the most in need of attention. Your help is greatly appreciated!


June 2007

June 27, 2007

June 26, 2007

  • DreamHost - Largely written and protected by a single user with a strong POV. anthony 11:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mario Lanza - Please check the Mario Lanza page for external links to fan sites, etc. not allowed on Wikipedia?

June 25, 2007

June 24, 2007

June 23, 2007

Looks to me like a clear breach of WP:NOT#HOWTO. Done. Gordonofcartoon 03:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 23, 2007

June 22, 2007

June 21, 2007

  • Hardware - Only its meaning is displayed and no other infos are available like it's history and types etc.. The information is limited, not very brief. A turn off for Wikipedia. Little teen02 18:38, 21 June 2007 (GMT+8)

June 20, 2007

June 17, 2007

June 16, 2007

June 15, 2007

June 14, 2007

June 13, 2007

June 12, 2007

  • TV3 (Catalonia) This entry has been turned into a perfect clone of the TV3 corporate web site. It seems that Wikipedia has chosen to neuter well-documented public criticism concerning the public debates on TV3 (some of it from highly-placed individuals in Catalonia's Parliamentary Control Commission). Furthermore, the entry has been protected from any further editing except by "Andromeda" (the TV corporation's self-appointed publicist).

June 12, 2007

June 11, 2007

June 10, 2007

June 9, 2007

June 8, 2007

June 6, 2007

June 5, 2007

June 3, 2007

June 2, 2007

  • Jean-Hippolyte Flandrin - It was taken pretty much word for word from the Eleventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which was published in 1911 (it has since entered the public domain). I understand this edition Encyclopædia is frequently used as a resource, but the style of writing is outdated and is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Even though it appears there have been some changes in the past to make it sound more up-to-date, the content of the article still sounds rather archaic. The article might also need the attention of someone who knows a bit about the artist. --Neinfraulein 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lauren London - The article already has an Unreferenced tag, but could also benefit from a general cleaning up of the Early Life and Career section. Arrow 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 1, 2007

May 2007

May 31, 2007

May 30, 2007

May, 29, 2007

May 27, 2007

May 26, 2007

  • Hells Angels is really poorly written, controversy aside. There are all sorts of grammatical errors and odd syntaxes. I'd be bold, but I don't know enough abuot the subject to figure out what some of the article is trying to say --xAlpha 23:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a "subject matter expert"? What subject would that be? It may just need to be re-written - both the article and talk are a bit out of control.Lightwiki 01:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timebase correction repeats a lot of the same information and is poorly organized.
  • Multimedia Fusion has mostly bad English grammar, there are misspelled words, and it just doesn't look gay.

May 25, 2007

Very fan focused - unencyclopedic character. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 24, 2007

  • Royal visits to Australia contains incorrect links and confusing third person pronouns such as a he which can refer to a few people. It's also a long article requiring organization.

May 23, 2007

  • Sacramento High School contains unencyclopedic lists that may require cleanup.Rjgodoy 07:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simon Necronomicon Tone changes between it being an ancient book translated in the 1970s, a book written on it's own merits in the 1970s, and a hoax version of the Lovecraft Necronomicon written in the 1970s. I thought I could possibly fix it, but it's just too much. Might even want to just delete the nonsense and add it as a footnote to the Necronomicon page. 69.64.10.249 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filippino Lippi: (Renaissance painter) - I'm still relatively new at all this, but it seems to me that this article is completely lacking in references. I would tag it, but am still uncomfortable with taking such liberties. There also seems to me some NPOV violations, given a lack of critical reference in such sentences as this, "His first works greatly resemble those of Botticelli's, but with less sensitivity and subtlety" and "Eventually Lippi's style evolved into a more personal and effective one...." I hope a more experienced editor might have time to take a look and decide if those issues need tagging. --Moonriddengirl 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 22, 2007

May 21, 2007

May 19, 2007

May 18, 2007

May 17, 2007

Some links in The Constitution of the United Kingdom Article are not valid anymore and need updating.

May 15, 2007

May 14, 2007

  • My heading fixes have been reverted by another editor, and are far worse, in my opinion. Each character is being considered it's own subsection currently, making the TOC inappropriately long. Main editor lacks understanding of Summary style. Article is currently only 51k, and has the longest TOC that I've ever seen on wikipedia. Nswinton\talk 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 13, 2007

May 9, 2007

May 7, 2007

May 6, 2007

May 5, 2007

May 3, 2007

May 2, 2007

  • Aeroponics - Intro very over dramatic, odd wording
  • Jarrod Saltalamacchia - too casual
  • Sean Avery - Starts to get choppy and seems be more of a day-to-day type article after that adding many things with no relevance at all and is also missing citations for a majority of the article. May be written like a fan-site, in some areas, as well, but I am not sure abudabee.

May 1, 2007

April 2007

April 30, 2007

April 29, 2007

April 28, 2007

  • Ruthless Records (Los Angeles) Need Clean Up. Basie;P
  • Eyes Wide Open - Lacks proper sources outside of the project's own page. Makes the whole thing look and read like advertising for this particular project. -- 71.246.235.137 19:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC) & Lendorien 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walter_Ostanek - New to online, and getting very sentimental about Walter Ostanek, a Grammy award winning accordianist from St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, I could only access a wikipedia article by googling. In here, it think it was my hitting add stub, that made my wordy addition spread out about three feet wide. I've been trying to edit, and contact, now, for over half an hour. Could you please reorganize my submission, because it shows a side of Walter that hasn't come through, until now. John Alexander Watt 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 27, 2007

April 26, 2007

  • Emma Goldman- I tagged the Spanish Civil War section which is currently a long list of hyperlinks with only skeletal text. Otherwise the very extensive article is excellent, so it's even more annoying. I removed the "List to Prose" tag on the Popular Culture section, as many other Wiki articles use a bulleted list for the same theme. Garydave 14:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cambridge Centre- I tagged this article since some users see that this article should be deleted. Rather than deleting the whole article, it should be cleaned up and expanded. Sasquatch4510 12:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 25, 2007

April 24, 2007

  • Well, vandelism isn't all. The introduction for this article is longer than the main body text. It rambles and lacks direction and any sourcing. It probably needs to be moved to somewhere else int he article. A former Featured Article candidate, it seems to have significantly degraded.--Lendorien 15:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh... my... god... This article desperately needs cleaning up. I have done a few basic things, but I could do with some help. Both because African-American culture is not my area of expertise, and because it's almost bedtime in this part of the world. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention, 207.75.214.177. AecisBrievenbus 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plains Indians - This article is written in a poor manner, and incorporates too many opinions and too little facts. A lot of this article has racist undertones (ie- using the term squaw), and needs to be cleaned up quickly Fortunia 22:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 23, 2007

April 22, 2007

April 21, 2007

April 20, 2007

April 19, 2007

  • Cleaned it up a bit - 27 May 2007.

April 18, 2007

April 17, 2007

April 16, 2007

  • I had a go at this, but it still needs a lot of work and a fresh pair of eyes. It looks to me like the initial work was done by an automatic internet translator, so there may be a copyright issue somewhere here...Lorangriel 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 15, 2007

  • Channel 4 programming is a new article that combines material lifted from Channel 4 (which was becoming too big) and material merged from the former List of Channel 4 television programmes. It is divided into genres of programming some of which are highly specific with others being vague and mixed-up. It also contains content from many different editors, describing specific programmes individually, which tends to make the prose seem very disjointed. It generally needs a tidier structure, but given the amount of content, is a pretty big endeavour. It is also separately tagged as requiring references. -- Fursday 00:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 14, 2007

  • Supernatural - This is an important article, but unfortunately it contains many forward claims that require attribution to reliable sources, chief among them a strong support of methodological naturalism in science. It lacks references for many of its other claims, which I have marked with "citation needed" tags. It uses numerous weasel words. "Competing Explanations and Criteria of Preference" as well as the end of "Alleged instances of supernaturalization" have a naturalistic POV and should be cut down unless reliable sources can be found to support their statements. See what I wrote under "Unsourced." Good day.Schmitty120 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 13, 2007

April 12, 2007

  • I have done a complete revision of the text in this article, cut out some of the rambling content. Some content moved to talk page pending sourcing. Desperately needs citations and examination by an expert. --Lendorien 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 11, 2007

April 10, 2007

April 9, 2007

April 8, 2007

April 7, 2007

  • Quality control - completely uncited, seems like the bulk of the history is OR/speculation. style issues. over half the text is on quality assurance, which has its own article. (though there is a merge discussion on the two). Ripe 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 5, 2007

March 2007

March 26-30, 2007

  • I took a jab at it. A lot of the work simply required naturalization of the English grammer, so that's done. I can't say anything about the informational content itself. Still needs sourcing. --Lendorien 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 23, 2007

March 19, 2007

  • Dronfield - This article has been subject to many small, unstructured additions producing an incoherent and somewhat unintelligible read. The information in the main body is delivered in a short and almost truncated manner for the most part, explicating very little as the topics progress. Secondly, half of the text under “History” relates very loosely to history; distinct sections relating explicitly to their own content may solve this. -- Naqahdah 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Naqahdah[reply]

March 18, 2007

  • Olivia_(singer) - Proofreading for typos and general cleanup required, e.g. same facts are stated multiple times in several locations (bio, music career)
  • Erotic Lactation - Article needs general proofreading. Spelling errors, non-words, and some colloquial speech detracting from encyclopedic tone.
  • This still needs more editing. I attempted to make spelling/grammar changes, but short on time and unable to finish it now. I cannot in good conscience recommend leaving the bit about lesbians breastfeeding each other being commonplace. The citation for that bit was dated to 1934: too old for anything current and scholarly. I left it there, though. Snackar 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 17, 2007

  • Noelle Pikus Pace - This article is poorly written and from a first person perspective. The person is real and seems notable but the text of the article needs much attention. Sadly more than I hace this morning. JBEvans 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social studies - This article needs clean-up, streamlining or a complete rewrite and/or a possible merge? I tried some by correcting spelling but I do not have enough time, interest nor experience to format the layout and content. Also not sure about the validity/nobility of the subject, as it seems to be some sort of set of study hints for students; therefore un-encyclopedic? I also tried to make the layout look a bit better, it's better looking but still is a poor article in my opinion. Hopefully someone will look at this to help clean it up, expand it, merge it, or delete it. I did add a stub tag. Dunno :/ -Jeeny 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I tried to break up the material in the introduction into subsections as well as removing some redundancy and confusing sentence structure. I also rephrased the Digital Technology section to be easier to understand and to sound less like a commercial. I don't know enough about the teaching methods to know what to do with them, but I recommend perhaps just creating a new page or linking to an existing one that covers the method of teaching. The current lists are not very informative and seem more like a brochure than an encyclopedia entry. SPH. 17, March 2007.
  • General Hospital - This article is in need of some basic cleanup and reformatting. If left untended, it will essentially turn into a recap/fansite page. I don't have a problem with posting storyline-type information, but it needs to be brought up to WP Quality standards. Also, fans keep adding new couple and supercouple pages for practically every set of characters, most of which is in blatant violation of WP:NOR. I would think most of the "couple" pages are good candidates for deletion. A few, like Luke and Laura Spencer are definitely Notable for their contribution to the modern Soap Opera, but most are frivolous and unnecessary.--66.91.225.99 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 16, 2007

  • Rachel Stevens - The article seems to have too many sections, and become very messy and untidy to look at. Blacksilkandy 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spread of Islam - This article has a few passages with clearly biased points of view and should be written much more neutrally. Examples of quotes include "The infamous Hakim (Al-Hakim bi-amr-Allah, the sixth Egyptian Caliph, 996-1021, who became the god of the Druze) determined to destroy the Holy Sepulchre (In 1010.)" Infamus? God of the Druze? What?
  • Attempted to fix some of the biased phrasing. Still needs some work. --Drsexlove 16:00, 3 June, 2007 (UTC)

March 14, 2007

  • Jared Ingersoll - All the information is there, the page just needs a little formatting work.
  • Sunflower_oil - Is nearly an adveement. No NPOV, and no hear-say claims.
  • I did fix the overzealous capitalization. -- Sci girl 04 May 2007
  • Rancho San Joaquin Middle School - Seems a little one-sided, don't you think. It is only talking about one humanities teacher, Kay Gee, there are other humanities teachers and other teachers there who deserve to have their name on their as well, not just her. Please do something about it, I didn't want to touch it, but I might fix it a bit... just a bit.
  • Shorts - The section 'Motivation' is poorly worded. -- Bitbut 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but that's not the half of it. For a start, it seems to be written, without realising it, from an entirely monocultural (North American) point of view, but this is a subject on which attitudes and practice vary a lot even within the English-speaking world, never mind everywhere else. There are also a lot of terminological and definition problems. Unfortunately I know a lot about this subject, so I suppose I shall have to get down to work on it. Woblosch 22:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 8-11, 2007

  • Varalaru - History of Godfather - Many grammatical and clarity errors. Much of the content essential to a good article on a film is there, but it is also confusing to read. Most of the spelling errors have been addressed, but the original author(s) may not be familiar enough with English (no criticism intended). A good copy editor is essential, and familiarity with the film may be beneficial. The article will benefit from much paring of excessive detail, and significant citing. Also, many, many incidences of what appears to be original research, or at least, personal interpretation. :  Jim Dunning  talk  :  03:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 7, 2007

  • I tried to clean this up a bit. I pulled some copy vio text, reworked the intro, and added fact tags. It's somewhat suitable now though needs expansion and some sources. --Lendorien 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 6, 2007

  • Calvary - "References in popular culture" section makes up over half the article and contains a lot of non-encyclopedic content.
  • British African-Caribbean community - Is supposed to be about the African and Caribbean communities in Britain but instead is completely about the Caribbean, please clean it up. I already tried but somebody changed it back.
  • American Pie - Has words run together, misspellings of McLean's name, and far too many other errors and REALLY needs a good cleanup by someone with good grammar.
  • Praieira revolt - This article needs cleanup. Needs more context and details. It's badly in need of sourcing and a general reorginaziation of the info. It reads like a philisophical essay rather than an article and is light on any real meat. --Lendorien 00:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 5, 2007

  • Cleaned up grammer a little, but I didn't want to touch it much because I know nothing on the subject. --postofficebox

March 4, 2007

  • Ranger's Apprentice - Requires checking of detail, an info bar, a table of contents, locations, cleanup of messy character section, and better summary of the books.
  • Biotechnology - Needs a cleanup of the formatting and on the info. It is currently too messy and hard to retrieve information from...
  • Europa-Park - Added the Infobox, but will not format properly. Can somebody take a look and help out? Also the article is in need of some general reformatting to make it easier to read. Poeloq 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paleo-Paganism - One-sided information on a concept that seems redundant and invented by a single author and lacking academic consensus. The originator of the article resists any editing or labelling, as shown in the Talk page. See also Meso-Paganism. -- jofframes 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was meant to be on this project page, apparently wasn't added; so, I've updated the tag, and yes, it is in dire need of cleaning-up, what with all this POV statements, untruths, and whatnot being edited into the article. --Qwerty (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2, 2007

February 2007

February 26 - 28, 2007

  • I did a lot of copyediting and rewording for clarity, and removed some redundant text. However, this still needs a look from someone familiar with the topic. --DoorsAjar 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007 (UTC)

February 16 - 20, 2007

  • RMI-IIOP It assumes too much background knowledge. It has no general discussion about what this protocol is, what various forms it takes, what it's used for, it's history, etc. I already know a little bit about them and use them but came here to learn something more and went away without the info I was looking for. Dougher 04:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Web crawler - This page appears to have been purposefully defamed. AarrowOM 15:49, 20 February 2007
  • Geophagy - The proposed merger with Geophagia would help, but the main problems with this article remain: screwy formatting and wikification, and an over-emphasis on cultural issues at the expense of medical content.
  • Muv-Luv - This article is written in a very confusing way. The character information appears to be the central feature rather than the main story itself. Aparently, the information came from a japanese source, so it needs a cleanup to meet up the standards of an article written in english. Thank you, Minako-Chan* 14:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoodlums (Rayman) - someone recently added a load of information which is not found in game, and did not give a source. The additions are rather poorly written and have an informal tone (some of it is grammatically incorrect, too) RobbieG 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaba I - Article appears to include a lot of good information, but I can't make head or tail of it. It has been tagged for a short while. J Milburn 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 11 - 15, 2007

February 6 - 10, 2007

  • Marques Houston - Poorly written in terms of the English, and just doesn't read like an encyclopedic article. First section looks like an overview, and just generally looks untidy. Also not inparticularly thorough and has some formatting issues. Also uses the term "sophomore" a lot which I think is outlawed by the Manual of Style (due to it not being used outside of the US and Canada). Esteffect 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank Stanford - Article has no headings and needs citations and references. -Cavykatie

February 1 - 5, 2007

January 2007

January 25 - 31, 2007

January 21 - 25, 2007

  • Los Angeles News Service - Article needs to be rewritten in a more consise style, with headings and proper sourcing. I've made some attempt to clean it up. There's some personal info in there about the founders. Not sure it's appropriate for the article, but the founder's article was merged with this one some time back. --Lendorien 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mystic projection - Seems to be written from premise that everything described (assorted out of body experiences) are true; popular/folk history is treated as true; historical sources are taken out of context/misundersood (e.g. Jewish mystical texts).````ykahn
  • Romance novel - This article is a little confusing - it has no introduction and kind of just jumps into some bulleted points. I'd clean it up myself but I'm not really qualified to write a good introduction to an established article in this area CredoFromStart 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bat Boy: The Musical - This article is ridiculously convoluted in its Synopsis section. It jumps in an incredibly confusing and distracting way, and in certain regions it plagiarizes directly from the blurb of the book. And frankly, being an ex-actor in this musical, I frankly don't think I'm objective enough to rewrite this. Also, might want to keep an eye on the Controversy and External Links -- far too many high schools have been advertising in there. Ryoji.kun 04:31, 25 January 2007
  • Psychological warfare- Poorly written, reads like a bad high school paper. Tagged this as suggested on the talk page.
  • Dumba - Looks like a vanity page, little encyclopedic content. Needs severe pruning. - Mike Rosoft 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex Rackley - reads like a poorly written newspaper article; needs grammar correction and general cleanup. --Matthew K 03:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green Politics - needs a complete makeover
  • Allu Arjun - needs almost complete rewrite - reads like a vanity article at this time. VirtualSteve 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comet (passenger car) — Format is highly unlike encyclopedic content; article reads like a school essay. Tone is highly informal; language is imprecise; descriptors of varieties of names for railcars cited in article are incomplete and sometimes misapplied.
  • Cyber-bullying - Badly in need of overhaul in every sense. Needs more valid, verifiable information. Lacks citations, what citations it has relate to single source, which, while valid enough, risks POV. -- Zeraeph 13:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muraqabah - Doesn't use sections, is a guide on meditating or something (possibly shouldn't be in Wikipedia?), I'm not also sure this is WP:N. Maybe someone should nominate it for deletion, but at the very least it needs substantial work. --SLi 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 16 - 20, 2007

January 6 - 15, 2007

January 1 - 5, 2007

  • Zygosity - A mess. jkhjkSomeone has combined three reasonable articles into one strange amalgam, using copy & paste rather than merging histories. This needs someone to right the wrongs who also knows enough of the science to know what they're doing. --Grutness...wha? 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006

December 2006

December 16-21

  • Considerably cleaned up now, for grammar/syntax/typos/spelling, style, tone of voice, etc. but still is missing a lot of sources and I think also a bit repetitive. Could probably be boiled down a bit.Woblosch 00:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I touched up the encyclopedic tone of the article, but it's still not what I'd call satisfactory. In my opinion, it needs more information, more references, and more relevance. --edi 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made style changes to be more consistent with the other sections of the MN Vikings article, but it's my first edit of a WP site, so please feel free to provide feedback.

December 1-15

November 2006

November 16 - 30

Done my part Dilane 05:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Multi-agent_system - The article lacks a general description. There should be a long general description of MAS, and a short concrete example (not the other way round, as it is now) --JFromm 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persepolis - A lot of good info here on one of the ancient world's most important cities, but it reads like it was written by someone who spoke a primary language other than English. The introduction is strong, but then it goes downhill. Lots of grammar and punctuation issues and some really weird syntax. Also, zero references. Dppowell 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some copyediting. Still has issues that I can't fix, mostly due to lack of familiarity with the subject and the fact that it was probably written by someone with English as a 2nd Language. I'm not familiar with the subject so someone else more familiar with ancient persia probably needs to look it over. Also, it needs citations desperately. There's a good start on a solid article here, but it needs more work.--Lendorien 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eye dialect — this article lacks sections, has bad typography, and has too large a quotations:comment ratio. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of Cuba - Cuban Rebels section has seemingly random information, and needs fluidity. Its kind of a mess, really. G.bargsnaffle 19:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chinese language - Many sections are disorganised and do not conform to the language template recommended by the Wikiproject of Languages. Also, subsections are misplaced, such as loanwords, which shouldn't be listed under morphology and the content is quite difficult to read. Another discrepany is when you search for Sinitic languages, it redirects you to the Spoken Chinese entry; however, when you type Chinese languages, it brings you to Chinese language. The section on Chinese characters is still unnecessarily long even though there is already a detailed article on Chinese characters. And the whole entry is just too long, it is 57kb in size, some of the clumsier sections should be rewritten for sub-articles. I do not understand how this article managed to become a featured article before, or maybe it was much better. Please contact me if anyone would like to work together on this Shingrila 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alice Academy - Information on the article, mostly on the characters are very confusing... -210.213.159.187
  • Aureal Semiconductor - Minor punctuation, typo, and grammar issues. At least one "editing comment" appears in the body. Structure could use a cleanup. --Dan Hendricks 02:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xine - Needs references for the "DVD Issues" section.
  • Forest_School,_Horsham - indiscrimate and redundant listing of everything associated with the school 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Edith Pringle: Aussie pol activist -- PoV pervades article, largely via activist jargon, e.g. "rights" and "progressive" reflect how i'd describe her goals to my allies, but you might use "privileges" and "radical" instead. Excessive use of hdgs suggests desire to shout, perhaps in order to exaggerate significance of her details.
    --Jerzyt 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the slightest change of two or three words (not "progressive" and "rights", though.) this will be a slightly less toned article. It seems fairly factual and straightforward, though. Editing now.Resonanteye
  • Rashied Ali - Currently a mess of unsourced, unformatted articles, including one in French (???). I didn't want to revert back to a stub, and I suspect there may some useful information in there, but I don't have time to read through a dozen pages to find it.
  • Paravas - I have been editing this page for style and general cleanup. This page also needs citations and some consolidation of information that is repeated in the article in different places. I am continuing to work on this article but I think it will benefit from multiple hands.Dalassa 13:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local area network - The referencing needs to be done better. There are references at the bottom but no in-text citation is provided.
  • I gave it a copy edit and deleted the more obvious puffery and POV. Unfortunately the school's website is so poorly designed for non-Australians not connected with the school, it would take a braver person than I to wade through it looking for information. I hope a student of the school will take this on, and invited that. Accounting4Taste 22:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 1 - 15

  • Article (especially in the introduction) needs to be rewritten to make it more accessable to the layman. No-one but major computer geeks will ever really know what the heck it's talking about as it currently stands. I can't help because I'm one of the laymen.--Lendorien 23:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sport in Canada - Information just thrown together. It has some good information but needs a bit of rewritting.
  • Origins of Santa Claus - This article seems to need cleanup for several reasons. See its discussion page for more information.
  • Contemporary Art - although listed as a "project" this article has not been improved recently, it is still poorly organized, lacks any citations, is missing much essential information, and has a glut of irrelevant details. This is a true shame, as this is a topic on which many people have expert opinions.
  • Appears to have been significantly cleaned up. It's now more of a gateway article to other topics. Still lacks sourcing, but is definately servicable now. --Lendorien 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mechanics lien - This article could use some section headings to differentiate the subject matter of each paragraph.

October 2006

  • Reverse mortgage has a tag saying that it's been labeled for cleanup since October 2006. I've worked on it but it still needs a good bit of help (mostly citations and a look from someone who understands the topic better than I do), so I'm sliding it back into the queue.--edi 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of PlayStation 1 games - needs references for every game listed. Each game is also missing the entries for it's developer, publisher, and release date. Ceros 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word Of Life - this article is not written in the expected tone of an encyclopedia article. The information seems to have a POV, and some poor grammar (I didn't know the past tense of add was adden!) It also needs to be linked with other Wikipedia articles (I've only had time to internally links a few things). -- 5ptcalvinistMy friends call me "Cal"
  • hard to know where to begin on this one. The article is huge, but it's not set up like a normal religious denomination article. The language in it needs to be cleaned up as it's very POV and non-encyclopaedic. It also needs reorganization and perhaps some culling. -- Lendorien 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworked the entire article, trying to give it NPOV, remove unnecessary information, make it encyclopedic, rearrange to a more logical order, add a few links, and just generally polish up the writing. I'd |FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal')]] 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • History of the United States (1988–present) - This article needs more external sourcing. It also has some formatting errors (including overlap at the bottom of the page). This article should also include a little more information about this time period (demographic trends, economic trends, important issues, etc ((which can possibly become separate articles in the future)) ) 5ptcalvinist T.u.L.i.P
  • Era & ERA - (1st is organized w/ emphasis on etymology, usage, and near-obsolete calendar systems; 2nd is Dab) Era (geology) (which probably should be Geological era) has its lk buried in Era & is unmentioned on ERA. General disfunctionality & probable WP:MOS violations.Jerzyt
  • Hard to know what this entry is referring to. Took a look. ERA is a disambig page now. Seems ok. Era still has cleanup tag and probably could use some working over. --Lendorien 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is pretty clean now. It no longer has any refs to the company, reads wella nd looks good. Just needs sources. I put the Business and economic wikiproject tag on the talk page so hopefully someone fromt here will stumble on it eventually. --Lendorien 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Podiatrist Introduction is not bad, but the rest of the article needs a lot of work. The sections for the various countries are particularly hard to follow and repetitive, and have no wiki markup. The list of conditions(?) also seems unnecessary, although some items could be incorporated into a more informative section on the work of a Podiatrist. I also get the feeling, from many parts of the article, that the text has just been copied from another source. —anskas 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issues remain outstanding. The article is still in need of editing and wikifying. It seems to jump around a bit and doesn't flow very well at all. I would do it myself, but I don't feel comfortable with my lack of knowledge of the subject. --Lendorien 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to solve this. there are a lot of experiments that are listed that do not have entries behind them. Perhaps it could be culled down to notable or seen on screen experiments? Either way, there seems to be a lot of discussion going on currently int he talk page about this issue, so maybe it'll soon be resolved. --Lendorien 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Futures exchange - is extremely confusing; I've taken macroeconomics (and garnered a 4.0, harrumph), always read the newspaper, and was totally confused about this article. It needs a good one-over by an economist.
  • There is a general need for cleanup on this article. As it stands right now it needs heavy reoranization to make the information flow more coherantly. I've changed some headings and moved information around, but it needs a second look. The article seems to contain link spam as the list of links at the bottom seems overly large and has no descriptions as to what they refer to or why they are significant. Article also needs sourcing. Would someone with some background give it a look over? --Lendorien 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given it a bit of an overhaul: cleaned up weak writing, tightened the language to be more encyclopedic, rearranged to provide more logical flow, removed some irrelevant and redundant material, fixed a couple of links, etc. However, it still needs work, most desperately with links and references. There are only a few actual tags, but there is lots of unsupported information that needs to have references cited. Also the list of external links is completely ridiculous and needs desperately to be culled. And finally, I'm still getting a handle on Wikipedia's preferred formatting (section headings, etc) so that probably needs to be touched up as well. I may be back after I cleanse my mental palate, but for now I've done all I can with it. --edi 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requires rewritting Rajrajmarley 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that some editing seems to have occurred since the above note was posted. I reorganized the alumni section chronologically and suggested that someone connected with the school elaborate on the content-free entries under "tradition", or else they would be removed. The entries about the school buildings read as though they're referencing a map which isn't present, and non-students will find them incomprehensible. Accounting4Taste 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Igarassu - has been tagged for cleanup since November 17, 2005. It still needs a lot of work, so I'm bringing it up here, so that someone who knows the city may have a go at cleaning this up. I'm too naive. 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done significant editing to give it better context based on info from other articles and what little I've been able to glean fromt he net. I think it works better now, though it still needs sources. --Lendorien 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006

  • I have attempted to do some cleanup work on this. It needs to be pared down drastically, but I've never read the book so I don't feel comfortable editing anything out or writing a new synopsis. I added categories and the novel infobox and did a bit of organizational edting, but it still needs loads of work. --Lendorien 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Communication - Very poorly written, and may need expert attention on the subject.
  • There appears to be active discussion on this subject, but they lack guidance of how to organize the article. I think it would really help if someone knowledgable in general article organization could step in and offer advice. --Lendorien 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some editing and culling of sections in the article. See talk page for details. A lot of the content was very vague and completely unreferenced. It still needs sources. --Lendorien 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rights of Man The article is extremely cluttered and lacking of any sources. It could be divided into subsections and some parts removed or merged into other wikipedia articles.
A little better than it was orginally, but it still needs some work to make it more coherant. The various sections do not segway into one another very well. I would work on it, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. --Lendorien 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magnetic moment - There's a problem here and elsewhere with "magnetic poles," which are discussed as if they were magnetic monopoles. The magnetic moment is first defined as the pole strength times the separation. The correct definition (current times area) is given later in the article, but the earlier reference to poles is both confusing and wrong. The initial discussion of diamagnetism on this page is also confusing. --Bjheiden, 11:25 PM (EDT), 13 September 2006
  • Egyptian burial - Poor grammar in several sections, and the section on The Indestructibles completely neglects the precession of the equinoxes, although the full article on the indestructibles is a bit more informative.
  • have tried the obvious grammar/spelling/undisclosed conspiracy theories, but needs the attention of an Egyptologist (amateur or otherwise) to be truly cleaned. --Callix 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006

  • John Stafford (US politician)(born abt 1940, military lawyer)- No sense, no chrono flow, excessive admiration, PoV about how he almost stopped Vietnam War & unverifiable & PoV "faithful Catholic". Continue wikification.Jerzyt
  • This article smacks of having original research. There are a lot of subjective comments in it(Especially in Exploring Fantasy of Love, Spring and Island) that need to be weeded out. Also, the introduction needs to be expanded to include a very brief overview of what the series covers. The quote at the beginning should probably be removed as well as using it as an intro is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I'd do it, but I'm lazy right now. :D --Lendorien 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006

  • Vril - The article Unencyclopedic, messy, confusing.
  • Polish Catholic Church - A Polish wikipedian on February 25th, 2007 did some translation. He did not do all of the text, but a significant part was taken care of. Some additional translation of the portions near the end after the fall of communism would be useful to round out the article as it currently ends in 1951. Sources needed as well. --Lendorien 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomad - This entry gives the impression that nomadism and pastoralism are the same thing. Pastoralism or animal husbandry is a subsistence method, and nomadism is not, although the term is sometimes used as shorthand for pastoralism. However, any society which does not remain sedentary for a significant length of time is considered nomadic. This includes most hunter-gatherers, but the entry makes no indication of this. Also there is no logical organization of the information that is presented. An expert's contribution would be best.--LC | Talk 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2006

  • Banasthali Vidyapith - Marking as an article which reads like an advertisement, particularly since it is -- it's based (with apparent permission) off the school's promotional brochure. Also, it has no links and is missing much of the standard information (like quality information on academic programs) one would expect from a university article. Likely needs someone from India or who is personally familiar with the institution to tackle it. - Beginning 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lalitaditya Muktapida - This article needs just some general editing (i.e. correction of spelling/grammatical errors) and also perhaps more research (Only one page out of one history book is cited).
  • Apparently this has had some editing to improve it, but it's not entirely thematically coherant at the moment. It needs to be reviewed by someone with a background in the subject to straighten things out. --Lendorien 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005

October 2005

October 21-30

  • Appears mostly untouched since listed. Needs sections, and the expansion mentioned above. Probably ultimately needs expert attention as the field of need is to narrow for the typical editor. --Lendorien 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a servicable stub now. Did some work on it. Needs some verification and sources. Unfortunately, most available sources are in Spanish and my 13 year old highschool spanish just doesn't cut it. --Lendorien 15:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a little better, but lacks sources. May have some tonal issues. I added an infobox. Underground culture stub, may need an expert's attention. --Lendorien 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments for and against drug prohibition - reads like a debate, some arguments are very weak e.g. The charge of "immorality" is subjective, and can be defined differently according to different perspectives and beliefs, all of which may be valid. Thus, with such conflicting views, a law based on "morality" cannot be fairly applied to any population. Needs to be gone over for NPOV, and probably merged somewhere. Pakaran 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be fairly fair in its overview of arguments now. But there are serious sourcing issues. The article uses three different methods of sourcing. Needs to be converted to footnote intext references for entirety of article. --Lendorien 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup of POV, but I don't really know much about Australian politics so I don't know how much of a help I am. It really needs someone with some knowledge about the topic. ryright 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article reads ok now, but lacks any sourcing. Probably needs help from someone who's native to Hungary where the organization is based and speaks the language to find applicable sources. --Lendorien 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 1-20

  • TK Maxx - I have done a bit of adding to it as part of a UK project. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to clean-up it and I prefer to let others pick up my mistakes, one is less likely to pick up one's own mistakes! Wikification would also be nice. Cheers! --Chazz88 23:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quarantine - Pre-ToC section is too long and a jumble of half-cited assertions, while the rest is typical 1911 EB: out of date, Anglo-centric, and with overlong paragraphs. This article may well become quite important over the next year or two, so current information would be great. -- Mpt 03:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suwannaphum needs to be NPOV'ed ("highly conjectural", "responsible modern scholarship", "attempts ... flounders on the simple fact that", "if the myth were true") by someone who knows the subject. This article also borders on original research. Aecis 11:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the right place for such a debate, but for info I have merged the final and first paragraphs to make it clear that both terms are used (and there is a redirect from one page to the other so the page name is not very important). Andreww 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pallava: Organization is poor. English is muddled. There seems to be some original research mixed in there, although that might just be an artifact of poor composition. Probably needs a solid fact-check. Justin Bacon 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick Blinko: (UK rocker) PoV, wikify, keep focused, cnv Amazon template to ISBN one.Jerzyt

September 2005

  • Direct-to-video - Poorly written, lack of info, badly designed and senseless.
  • Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor is in need of some reorganization. Various sections could probably be subcategorized (for example: 'Virginia', 'New York' and 'England' — although I'm not sure what heading they could fall under; also, 'Parliament' and 'The House doesn't miss anybody' should probably go together). jareha 05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a very minor copy edit of this, but frankly I don't understand what's being said well enough to edit it sensibly. It seems as though the author under discussion has defined words in a very specific way to contribute to his argument and the argument seems to be a tautological circle. If A = B = C = A, it's very difficult to find a place to start. I suspect that this would be most valuably edited by someone who both understands the argument and disagrees with it. Accounting4Taste 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some background in the subject but it's not really my specialty. I did some work on it and I think I improved it, but it still needs work, most significantly references.--edi 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]