Jump to content

Wikipedia:Cleanup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.245.43.252 (talk) at 20:44, 30 March 2007 (→‎March 30, 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 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), see WP:CU (disambiguation).
Shortcut

Welcome to the Wikipedia Cleanup section! Please report messy articles below, and explain why it needs to be cleaned-up (ex. grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.). Please be sure to sign your addition by using the following format: --~~~~

Any user can edit and fix any page. Please remove any entry from this page after it is fixed (do not just put a strike through it, or leave it), and remember to take the appropriate tag (or any other tag) off the page, once it is done. Please feel free to use the Wikipedia: Cleanup resources, to post what you think needs to be cleaned-up, or for you to use as a guide.

Refer to Wikipedia:Cleanup process for more information.

Cleanup instructions

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

FOR EXAMPLE:

  • wikipedia - Copied from a different page, and the spelling is not used in correct grammar or wrong.

When you want to make a new line, for example you want to add a note, you simply add a : in front of the star. If there is already a note, then just add another : in-front of the star, etc.

PLEASE USE THIS FORMAT:  :*I cleaned it up a little, but it is still a little messy.

FOR EXAMPLE:

  • 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.

Please be sure to sign your additions by using signature button in the toolbar or by typing the following (two dashes and four tildes): --~~~~

Thanks!

March 2007

March 30, 2007

  • Azeri - the first picture on the left is misleading and inappropriate.

March 29, 2007

  • Ear piercing instrument The page seems to be a few different sides of an argument bickering, and it shows in the text.
  • Robertino Loreti The grammar is a mess; the research inaccurate. Even his name was misspelled; I moved the page to the correctly spelled version.
  • Sir William Borlase's Grammar School - A part of the article has been copied from the school website, also the pink tower section needs cleanup (probably no more than just a brief mention that pranksters had painted it pink on their school-leaving day and that the school had it painted white again - if we need it at all). I have cut out the rest of the pranks etc. - Mike Rosoft 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at cleaning it up, namely reducing the size of the mention and removing the unsourced statement. Wintermut3 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 28, 2007

March 27, 2007

March 25, 2007

  • Avia (shoes) - Some confounding grammatical and syntax errors.
  • United News of India - This article is a complete mess, It is not format correctly and information is all over the place, Wikilinks and External URL addresses are not formated correctly so they are clickable. I would like to see someone work on this and fix this article to a better standard.

March 24, 2007

  • List of Colombians - It's overloaded with colombian personalities which aren't "important enough" to feature on this list. To much information to describe each person (needs sumary of each description). Information is not well organized and seems traduced badly (directly from spanish), and it has been vandalized before -- Minako-Chan* 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 23, 2007

March 22, 2007

Attempted clean-up. I attempted to break some of the larger sentances, and changed imprecise wording (its, ect.) to more accurately specify which noun to which it referred. Also broke one of the larger paragraphs. Expert attention and sources still likely needed. Wintermut3 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 21, 2007

March 20, 2007

Transcluded quote removed in favor of a wikilink, I also added a 'see also' link to graphing calculator, which contains the section in question. For future reference, it's not out of line to be bold and remove obviously innapropriate material, especially stuff like that, given that it's a likely self-reference issue. Wintermut3 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 19, 2007

  • Looks like someone did try to change the formatting, in turn screwing up the placement of everything after Crawford and before LaSalle. Those County1s are what is left of those counties. Ksabato 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 18, 2007

  • Yale University - a mess on many levels, I'd call this high priority given the prestige of the institution. Way too many external links, way too long - break out sections into their own articles; not many reverences. For starters. Maybe the "village idiot" wrote this one?
  • Video camera - article is unclear and needs an editor with some knowledge of the subject to check it.
  • 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.
  • Non statutory female on male rape - This article is wrought with original research, grammar/spelling errors, uncited claims, etc. Every section I begin to rewrite leaves me thinking that the information that needs restating is OR anyway. Any thoughts? -Etafly 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I felt I could see a contentious process through, I'd nominate this for deletion. It's possible a good article could be written on the topic, but it would bear little resemblance to the jumbled mess that is there now. Good catch, and good luck with the cleanup! -Pete 01:57, 19 March 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)
    • they love pie 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

  • All Saints' Academy - Much of this article has been taken directly from the school's website and is therefore un-encyclopedic. Additionally, students from the school seem to have added irrelevant/nonsensical material and (later deleted) vandalism - see "Latin" section. The article needs to either be cleaned up/streamlined to look like an encyclopedia article or deleted. --207.119.34.65 23:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Islam Spread - 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?

"Yet, in spite of all, Christianity failed, and Islam succeeded in gaining the Iranian race." I think there is a much better way of saying that. --213.174.190.59 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 15, 2007

  • Morgellons - This article is full of confirmation bias. When I attempted to challenge the logic of those posting a very biased, anti-Morgellons article, I was told I didn't have any knowledge of the disorder by Chairboy. In fact, I have considerable knowledge of the disorder and I am challenging their posting of the research. There is no way to edit this article neutrally as it is not a neutral article. Those who are writing it want it to be against Morgellons, therefore, this entire article should be flagged as so and it should be deleted in its entirety. Chairboy does not have the credential to determine who is presenting valid research and who is not presenting valid research. He also believes that research that has been presented and dissed by some is also not challengeable. Their is no consensus (except the anti-Morgellons view) by any of the writers of this article and it is very, vividly apparent that those who try to put in balancing statements will have their statements deleted. The anti-More will not allow any discussion presenting any cause as credible even if there are thousands of pages of research supporting the discussion. This article is junk scholarship and for that reason alone, this article MUST be deleted by Wikipedia if Wikipedia is to maintain their credibility as a place for neutrality and good scholarship.RamyB777 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization and presentation of the information gives an unclear picture as to what Morgellons actually is supposed to be, which to say that the article fails to give a cohesive picture of the supposed disorder.

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.
  • 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]

March 11, 2007

  • Juiced 2 - Uses current tense for a non-released game, has poor grammar, and no internal links. As noted at the top of the article, the article also provides insufficient context for those who know nothing of the subjsect matter.
  • Popular music - Many weasel words, many statements needing citations, general cleanup needed, check for grammatical consistency needed.
  • Intermolecular force - Citations need to be added.

March 10, 2007

  • I'll Sue Ya - For one thing, people keep editing it with incorrect lyrics (the lyrics can be found here, it's an unofficial site, but it's reputable, and it's the fourth link on the official site's links page). Also, it has been made clear that the video for the song is not recent, but some editors just don't get it. The video was released with the album, on the DVD side which had animated videos for all the original songs, but it was only recently added to his MySpace page. In general, the article seems to be sloppy since so few editors are paying attention. I was trying to help maintain it, but I'm starting lose my patience with it. If it gets nominated for deletion, I'll probably support the nomination if it can't be cleaned up soon. - Ugliness Man 04:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 9, 2007

  • Fettes College - The reference to this Scottish school is now not worthy of Wikipedia as it is not objectivce and it is fairely obviious someone is taking advantage of Wikipedia's openess and writing about events which probably occur in most educationaL establishments ( scandal) and which do not add very much to WIKIPEDIA over the passage of time. Therefore I have deleted large sectiions and will delete the same should they appear. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noremacnomis (talk • contribs)
  • 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 8, 2007

  • Cars Diecast Line - Confusion as to what material should be included or not. Organization could be lots better also. Lots of new information being added seems outside the scope of the article, and I'm beginning to doubt whether it was worth keeping when it was nominated for deletion. --Rick Beckman 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rodney Mullen - Massive spelling and grammatical errors, in addition to many unsourced statements and statements that may not even be true, such as "he inspired all the little kids to begin skateboarding. I believe that it had been vandalized recently, and many of the errors may be due to the vandalism. As I don't think anything said in this article is accurate, I suggest it be cleaned up or rewritten.

March 7, 2007

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...
  • 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]

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

March 1, 2007

February 2007

February 28, 2007

February 27, 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 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]
  • Roman Catholic Diocese of Bergamo - Copying this from another article description below: "Numerous style, spelling and grammar issues; would benefit from a complete rewrite." Difficult to extract meaning from the many sentence fragments. This probably requires someone familiar with the subject in order to understand what's going on. -Cue the Strings 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Libertà condizionata - Same as above. Both articles were created by the same user, and are plagued with basic structural problems. Appears to be talking about the parole system in Italy - someone with knowledge of that would have an easier time cleaning this up. -Cue the Strings 17:23, 26 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 is contained with durt 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 dunt 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

  • Dennis Gabor - article is disjoint, repetitious, and has a single multiply-referenced source. algocu 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

February 5, 2007

  • Senate is done. House list still needs to be checked.

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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.
    --Jerzy•t 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

  • 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]
    • I did some editing of this article. I added an artist infobox, wiki-liks and corrected grammar and style. It still has the references issue listed above, but the rest is fixed. --Lendorien 15:56, 16 March 2007 (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.
    • Still is suffering from some issues. There's a section floating out there that seems not to have any relevance tot he subject matter. Otherwise, the article would probably be ok, if short. --Lendorien 18:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 scope of this clean-up request is far too technical for anyone but an expert. The cleanup tag has been removed and there have been many edits since this was posted, so it may no longer be entirely relevant. Hard to know.--Lendorien 18:31, 20 March 2007 (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

  • 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 love for someone else to have a look and see what I've missed; I think after it goes past a few sets of eyes it might actually be a decent article. Most importantly, it still needs several citations (some places tagged, some not).--edi 07:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Driving on the left or right - this article has little sourcing, citing, etc. It is a little confusing in some places --FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.Jerzy•t
  • 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]
  • Globalization - it seriously harms the information in the article.
  • 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]

  • 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.Jerzy•t
  • 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.Jerzy•t
  • 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

  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.Jerzy•t
  • Much cleanup has been done since first posted. I did some more wiki work, npov work here and there, as well as sourced a couple items. It still needs sourcing overall. Implementing an infobox would be good too, but I'm not sure of which one to use. --Lendorien 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heim (onomastics) I have never encountered a messier article in my entire time here and Ive been here a while. I don't even know where to start on this one. Tobyk777 05:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently this article was subjected to possible deletion with the decision being keep as it also serves as a disambig page. Best solution is to contact some of the editors involved in Onomastics to deal with it. The average user will be unable to help without making it worse. Unless they seek help and guidance on what to do to fix it. --Lendorien 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scary Movie - the description of the plot is way too long, more of a book report summary, and much longer than necessary. JPG-GR 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't seen the movie myself, but part of the problem is the movie has a very weak storyline that serves as a vehicle for various gags. I'm not sure how to edit this without more or less cutting most of it out completely. Help? --Lendorien 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006

  • Vril - The article Unencyclopedic, messy, confusing.
  • Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi - This article is too long and in places badly written - perhaps it should be split into several articles
  • Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi - Needs some work by someone knowledgable in Afghani history and politics. --Lendorien
  • The twelve pyramids - This page is an organizational mess with subjective use of language. It desperately needs to be cleaned up and rewritten. The boxes with the single links in them simply have to go. I don't know where to begin on editing this. I do not have the background to do a good job here. Expert attention needed. -- Lendorien & Timwi 14:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a fair bit of reworking. The formatting is much better now, and I've deleted a lot of nonsense and added some useful information from the CNPP website, but the article could still use some work for sure. I'll come back to it if I have time, but I'd be happy to see someone else take a shot at it too. --edi 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has spelling and grammar issues, confusing, lack of context, uses lots of big words that explain little and just generally needs help. Needs someone whith knowledge of the subject to look it over. It currently has 8 tags on it. Ouch. --Lendorien 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polish Catholic Church - The article appears to be a machine assisted translation of the Polish Wikipedia page, and need significant attention from someone who speaks the lanugage, or is aware of its context.
  • This page was definately pulled from the Polish page. I've done what I can to fix the intro and make sense of things, but most of the page is a mess beyond a non-expert or non-polish speaker's help. Does anyone know any polish speakers we could ask who could go through it and fix the translation? As it stands it's utterly incoherant. --Lendorien 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Polish wikipedian helped out here on February 25th, 2007 and did some translation. I normalized his translation a bit. 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. --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]
  • 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 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]
  1. ^ [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_of_Romania]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cleanup&oldid=119122938"