Jump to content

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
added Fascism, removed Depression and Manic Depression which seem to be stable and in good shape
The_ansible (talk)
added Thirteen Years War
Line 58: Line 58:


* [[Fascism]] - needs watching for NPOV
* [[Fascism]] - needs watching for NPOV

* [[Thirteen years war]] - needs editing and clarification





Revision as of 17:54, 21 January 2002

Of course, every entry on Wikipedia deserves attention. But some entries deserve tender loving attention.


If you come across a page that you think needs a lot of work, but have no idea how to approach it, list it here so that others can find it.


This page is very similar to the other pages like: Requested articles, Current events. However it is more utilitarian than those pages, being intended for the editorial community alone.


Articles that have good information, but need work for some reason

  • Alchemy - a great article, but written in an academic essay style
  • poets - not only are the page titles messed up, very possibly the page itself should be redirected to listing of poets
  • Black Sabbath - from the article: and someone else can write 1979 to date
  • Military History - should probably be moved to Military history. Also this article is badly organized, but I don't know how to fix it.
  • Wends- general re-write and information needs
  • Sigismund I Jagiello -- at present, this is just bad prosopography. Needs an infusion of context and coherence
  • Cracow - has a lot of good info, but also has some claims that fall outside the NPOV.
  • Religious aspects of marriage - Larry wanted this article, but I doubt he wanted it quite like this. (Not so bad now that the original has been replaced.)
  • Miyuki - may have violated copyright.
  • Balloon - could use some more examples.
  • PDP-11 - huh? this needs to be more easily understood
  • Kashmir - long on bathic emotion, short on facts


Articles that seem to be nothing more than definitions

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an article which simply defines a word is useless. Sometimes, those articles can turn into bona fide encyclopedic treatments of a topic; sometimes they should just be deleted.



See also Wikipedia utilities/find or fix a stub.


= Articles of dubious merit, accuracy and/or validity

  • Zarnowiec - translation problems + soem doubts about legality (need comment from someone who knows law)


See also Wikipedia utilities/Page titles to be deleted



Other Wikipedia Utilities



/Talk