Jump to content

Wikipedia:Cleanup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 143.89.88.11 (talk) at 08:21, 6 March 2007 (→‎March 2, 2007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:CU redirects here. For Check User Requests, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (WP:RCU). For information on changing your username, see Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU). For Cleanup Templates, see Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup (WP:TC).

Welcome to Wikipedia Cleanup. Please report messy articles below, and explain why it needs to be cleaned-up (ex., grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.). Any user can edit and fix any page. Please remove any entry from this page, that has already been cleaned, or if the "cleanup tag" has been removed from the page. Please feel of Wikipedia: Cleanup resources.

Anyone that wants to work on cleanup jobs, are asked to cleanup the articles on the bottom, which are the articles that have been here for the most time. Older cleanup: Category: Cleanup by month. Pages are archived by month, but are still in need of cleanup or de-listing if they have been polished.

Refer to Wikipedia: Cleanup process.

PLEASE USE THIS FORMAT: * [[The name of the document]] - Why the wiki needs to be fixed

FOR EXAMPLE:

  • wikipedia - Copied from a different page, and the spelling is really bad.

When you want to make a new line you simply add a : in front of it.

FOR EXAMPLE: :* I cleaned it up a little, but it is still a little messy.

&

  • wikipedia - Copied from a different page, and the spelling is really bad.
  • I cleaned it up a little, but it is still a little messy.

Thanks!


March 2007

March 5, 2007=

  • 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 4, 2007

  • Mario Chanes de Armas - Was originally posted by a known anti-Castro agitator and frequent defamer of current Cuban regime - I keep having to change back "dictator" to "president" - also poorly composed and uses very one-sided source-material
  • Precompiled header - Needs a grammar check, I would clean it up now, but it's a bit early in the morning for me. --Roguelazer 09:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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...
  • Jarboe - Has too few references to other pages and discography needs a major cleanup, in compliance to the standard way of mentioning a huge list of albums.
  • 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]
  • Viva Piñata (TV series) - Badly written, needs markup and source links. --treelo talk 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 3, 2007

March 2, 2007

Cleaned up now. ObtuseAngle 15:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 1, 2007

February 2007

February 28, 2007

February 27, 2007

February 26, 2007

  • MonoDevelop - The article's text seems to be lifted directly off the MonoDevelop website. Someone who is familiar with the software should probably clean it up. (I left a message on the talk page weeks ago, but no one noticed. I'm not using MonoDevelop so I really don't know anything about it.)Ubuntu Dude 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 24, 2007

February 23, 2007

February 22, 2007

  • Aviv Geffen This article contains a lot of information not relevant to an encyclopedia. Numerous style, spelling and grammar issues; would benefit from a complete rewrite.
  • Rupert Lowe This article has a lot of information, but it is poorly structured. The tone is too conversational and there are numerous uncited POV assertions.+
  • The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock - i put in a cleanup-remainder tag about halfway through the article. The first half of the article is good, but the second half needs a grammar, spelling, and style check, along with wikification. - Im.a.lumberjack 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 21, 2007

February 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.
  • Ramush Haradinaj has quite a lot of pov issues. The article reads like a glorification of his (removed quote from the article) "calming and authoritative presence", with perhaps a hint of myth-making. The article needs a lot of citations to boot. AecisBrievenbus 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 19, 2007

February 18, 2007

February 17, 2007

February 16, 2007

February 15, 2007

February 14, 2007

February 13, 2007

  • The Enemy Within (TOS episode) - Trivia section contained information from a non-canon source citing a possible explanation to a plot hole - while explaining these do require a certain degree of imagination, attempting to resolve the hole within the context of the plot should be confined to a seperate topic in the article. The trivia section should only contain information which is notable/interesting about the episode. Unknown if the article is now at an acceptable standard with this item removed.
    • Cleaned up language in trivia section and cut trivia items to specific items relating to the article itself. Didn't look at the rest of it, but given the poor use of english in the trivia section, it may need a look over. --Lendorien 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caveworld - Over wikid, no cats, no sources, + may be non-notable. --Lendorien 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wham! - Needs grammar, punctuation, complete sentence help, as well as sources.

February 12, 2007

February 11, 2007

February 10, 2007

  • Parlour music - I'm not sure this should be cleaned instead of deleted, but it has a source. It's very hard to understand even for music-knowledgeable people, and seems to be one guy's opinion, who has a single line stub for an article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]

February 9, 2007

  • Frank Stanford - Article has no headings and needs citations and references. -Cavykatie

February 8, 2007

February 6, 2007

February 5, 2007

February 4, 2007

February 3, 2007

February 2, 2007

February 1, 2007

  • Iran - The article is very long. Confusing. Many parts of it have useless information. The history section goes too much into precision for present time and talks about current events (which are not suppose to be there). Need removing many paragraphs ans adding some. And user:Cyrus111 is making it even worst. It's a whole mess. --Arad 01:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Zealand local body elections 2004 - has a list of the winner of one mayoral election, and one ward result, and the rest is a list of councils. - Kripto 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sylvia Browne - Completely biased, no neutral POV. Disorganized. Looks like propaganda rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • Scientology series information box links to doctrine are innaccessible, despite appearing blue. Also, obviously discussion page is frequently altered. Clearly, there will be possible legal implications they will pursue if you try to limit editing to registered users, but a separate page containing possible complaints about their general practice on wikipedia could be maintained, and I don't see how they could forward legal objections. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.239.145 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2007

January 31, 2007

January 30, 2007

  • Health care in Canada - The article is very difficult to follow, with grammar errors all over the place. Also, the page suffers from numerous instances of suspicious phrasing, which may or may not be POV. An example of such is the phrase "simple economics dictates that doctors within the system benefit from a shortage of supply of doctors. Therefore the payment system to doctors benefits from a doctor shortage". Whether this is true or not, I cannot check; there is no source for the claim. King Zeal 06:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garcia de Nodal expedition - Tagged for cleanup due to: run-on sentences; awkward wording; inconsistent capitalization; needs more references. --TRosenbaum 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iberian Lynx - Tagged for cleanup and spell check. There are many spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and in some sections, poor style. There are no sources cited and I have found some subjective comments. This article deserves better. --Francisco Valverde 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 29, 2007

January 28, 2007

January 26, 2007

January 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]
  • Faye Dunaway - Article is really confusing with the many large pictures between relatively little text. It doesn't seem to conform with the usual wiki standard for actress pages either. Furthermore, the pictures seem somewhat... unflattering of the actress so I can't decide whether this is trying to be "funny" or not. Opinions anyone?
  • Filter (oil) - Article needs to be cleaned up in formatting and word usage.
  • 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

January 24, 2007

  • 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 (UTC)[reply]

January 23, 2007

January 22, 2007

January 21, 2007

  • Red Baron 3D Community - It's a long article with quite a bit of POV issues, lots and lots of original research and a lot of the use of the personal pronoun I. I think there's a kernal for a good article there since the Red Baron community has been extraordinarily active, but this article definitely needs help. Unfortunately, I don't know where to start. --Lendorien 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hazing-Structure is highly erratic, at times appears to speak only of US Fraternity hazing, at times not. If the list of hazing rituals is retained, then there ought to be caveats explaining which cultural milieus they pertain to. The thing deserves to be a scholarly treatment and isn't there yet.--Duke Leto 17:44, 21 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]
  • Akkari-Laban dossier - mostly just a very long translation, perhaps a copyvio too? --SLi 18:40, 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 19, 2007

January 18, 2007

January 17, 2007

January 16, 2007


January 14, 2007

January 12, 2007

  • Agreed: it's a breach of various things such as WP:NOR and WP:RS, and I've moved it to the Talk page. It would be fine to restore ones that can be substantiated by reference to reliable sources (e.g. cookery books). Tearlach 00:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 11, 2007

January 10, 2007

  • Gordon Lish needs major wikifying for redirect loops and superfluous hyperlinks. Fannish tone suggests notability and refs need checking, and WP:COI issues could be a problem.

January 9, 2007

January 8, 2007

January 5, 2007

January 4, 2007

January 3, 2007

  • Yellow Pages - other countries and regions section needs to be cleaned up re. URLs, layout and general content.

January 2, 2007

January 1, 2007

  • Zygosity - A mess. Someone 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]
  • Cooperative and others (many here, notably Co-operative economics and Co-operative Federalism/Cooperative federalism mess) - Mixed usage in text within most of those articles (cooperative versus co-operative) and mixed usage between articles makes for confusing in-text links. This would require someone with admin powers to complete some of the needed moves, but otherwise it just needs someone with a lot of time to comb through and correct the spellings to how the article is titled. Gave me a migraine. Buona fortuna! --Rkitko 08:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milt Bocek - Designed like a webpage, not a Wikipedia article. Contains little, if any, information regarding its encyclopedic value. Does not cite sources. Don't quite have the time to clean it up properly. Canadian Paul 05:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need help in fixing the article Medellin, Colombia. I lost part of the article during editing. I have saved the entire article here but can't seem to get it to stay in the article in its entirety. Help fix this if you can. Thanks in advance. Matt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherdmm (talkcontribs) 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC) [Unfortunate misunderstanding-related paste of entire article removed - Earle Martin [t/c] 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Cirrhosis has way too much technical jargon in it to be understandable. Perhaps someone with some knowledge on the subject could make it easier to understand?

December 2006

December 15 - 31

  • 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 - 14

November 2006

November 15 - 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]
  • By the way, the infobox lists only his former teams, so naturally the current team is excluded. Nothing wrong with that. And I don't get what you are talking about the bathroom award, since it sounds like vandalism to me. Vic226(chat) 10:03, 28 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]
  • CA Scanline- I just wrote this article but since I'm new in Wikipedia I would very much appreciate it if somebody could help me edit this aticle to improve it since I don't think it is okay yet.
  • I went in and got the wording as neutral as possible. I had to cut many entire sentences out that sounded like an ad-it could still use sources, but it's a lot easier on the eyes now.Resonanteye 09:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 1 - 14

SkierRMH 11:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mizu ni Sumu Hana is just a confusing mess. I tried to fix it myself but since I don't know anything about the series, I cannot do it accurately. What does "Rikka is hospitalized but when she finally leaves the hospital she can't move on from the trauma because she is continuously attacked in several bizarre ways involving water" mean?? Even if I can fix the grammar I can't really explain what the series is about. Devotchka 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dope Reach Squad has way to big of a picture and is very messy. It was just created as I found it under the "new" article special page. Also, because I do not know much about Bulgarian hip-hop, I cannot confirm the validity of this article. Streetsabre 08:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • England national basketball team - This page has some problems. There are several places with poor grammar, and some of it seems to have been directly copied. -- Discboy 02:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henry Ward Beecher - The article is just a continuous stream of quotes from sources, and is therefore extremely disjointed. Anchoress 03:54, 5 November 2006 (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.
  • Montreal Lacrosse Club - The first ever organized lacrosse team and the ones responsible for making the first written rules of lacrosse deserve a better article. Needs some general cleanup including just standard stuff.
  • Category of being - As a major topic in metaphysics, perhaps the biggest, it strikes me how poor this page is. It is clearly a mish-mash of different writers using inconsistent terminology (the poor quality is even reflected in the article's title: the article is called "category of being," even though the bolded word in the opening sentence is "categories of being." Before I added it, searching for "ontological scheme" did not even redirect there. I think an expert should rewrite the whole thing, starting off by giving the goal (to create a minimal, exhaustive, and exclusive list of all the fundamental kinds (no universal negative categories, or disjunctive categories) of things that exist) - i.e. a category has to "earn" a place on the list by proving itself to be irreducible to other categories, or capable of being eliminated entirely. In the second part, s/he should then list the categories that have been argued to exist (be generous in this part, since reductive/eliminative arguments will come next). And in the third part, s/he should discuss arguments for/against certain categories e.g. Hume argued that space and time don't "deserve" a category on the list because they are only constructs of the human mind.
  • Mechanics lien - This article could use some section headings to differentiate the subject matter of each paragraph.
  • Resveratrol - The subject of this article has been frontpage news world wide as a result of the release of results from a 'fat mice' experiment at Harvard (Dr Sinclair) suggesting that there is a possible escape from the generally undesirable consequences (liver, heart, arterial, metabolic disease, including diabetes mellitus) of over indulgence. This article does not do WP justice in that it is full of suggestive allusions, including to this (these) compound(s)'s use in the diet supplement industry, particulalry the unusual US version of it due to Congress having 'saved' the vitamin industry in the early '90s. Improvement can't be limited to textual review as some of the technical material also requires review. Given the news coverage, improvement is somewhat urgent. See Talk. ww 17:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three articles herd behavior, herding instinct and herd need cleaned up and, likely, merged into two. There is already a (lightly attended) merge discussion going on relative to herd behavior and herding instinct, at Talk:Herd behavior. Then, just recently, I discovered a third article (arguably better written) at herd. We could really use a few more eyes on this with ideas on how to straighten it out. N2e 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

October 15 - 30

Couldn't find a version to revert to without losing significant amounts of new content, but cleaned up by hand. Seraphimblade 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 1 - 14

  • St. Johnsbury Academy - Contains personal references to staff and facilities. No or unclear elaboration in certain areas of article.

Requires rewritting Rajrajmarley 19:28, 14 October 2006 (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]
  • Inocente de Ti - looks like copyvio. Not encyclopedic. Very long plot synopsis, long list of credits and very badly formatted. Mona-Lynn 06:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harry Baron(60-something Israeli sculptor) - wikify; prosify; rescale photos; probable self promotion, so check notability; format reeks of being prepared for another medium, so do further copyvio checks.Jerzyt
    • This article needs help. I worked on prosing out the list in the first section and added an artist infobox. The artist style section is full of buzzwords and makes little sense. It reads like something from a resume. Sources needed as well as more details to make it worth anything. --Lendorien 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • José Rizal(Philippine nationalist activist, writer, martyr) - de-PoV, esp. de-hagiographify; condense or split; state early and clearly what his notability is, beyond the (non-verified (and AFAI could stand to read, inexplicable) worship of him by Ph. or Malay nationalists.Jerzyt
    • This article has been extensively edited since it was placed here. The issues may have been resolved, but it's hard to tell. See talk page for details. --Lendorien 02:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006

  • 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.
  • 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
  • Gaudiya Vaishnavism - General structure and details needed. Ekantik 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC2)
  • Incubus (demon) - As it stands now, this article is somewhat of a mess. Certainly there shouldn't be so many see also links, nor that bulleted list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did what I could. Rewrote part. Made bullet points into paragraphs. Removed extraneous links. If it's not germane, it's not germane. If in text, no need in links section. Incorporated and expanded some internal links into paragraph. Still needs proofing. Needs sources. :) Dlohcierekim 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempted more editing. Moved sectiosn about a bit, but the article lacks details and is in serious need of sourcing. The "origin of the Legend" section probably could be culled, being mostly POV speculation. --Lendorien 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006

July 2006

  • Vril - unencyclopedic, messy, confusing.
  • Intro is too long. Article still needs reorganizing.

--Lendorien 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on it some today. ObtuseAngle 03:08, 6 March 2007 (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]
  • This article looks to have been somewhat worked over, but it still needs work. The intro doesn't sumerize the article well at all and the rest of the organization is a bit dodgey. --Lendorien 16:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problems with this article go beyound needing wiki links. It's taken from the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia and reads like an essay. It's also extremely long and contains no headings. It also deviates from the topic matter and appears to have become an article on Christianity in Athens rather than Hierotheos. Desperately needs attention from someone with an interest or knowledge of the subject. --Lendorien 19:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've deleted tons of irrelevant material, but it still reads more like a history of the bishops of Athens rather than specifically about Hierotheos. In my opinion most of the rest should go too, but that would take it to nearly nothing, and that's scary for me as a relatively inexperienced editor. I think I'm going to leave the rest to someone else. --edi 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fisherian runaway - This article is somewhat confusing and could also use some citations.
  • Attempted to clean up a bit. Still needs sources and some of the text would be hard for the layman to understand. I expanded the intro to help a bit and put in propper cats, but biology is not my forte. --Lendorien 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some more clean-up, editing to the intro and minor formatting. The article has been rewritten, but now it consists mostly of regimental unit lists that are longer than the short article itself. Not sure how to fix this, but I'd suggest cutting out the regimental stuff completely. --Lendorien 22:29, 1 March 2007 (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]

May 2006