User talk:Extraordinary Writ/sandbox

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
43	Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi (talk)	Add sources
2	Vovk (river) (talk)	Add sources
136	Hyacinthus orientalis (talk)	Add sources
77	National Biodiversity Network (talk)	Add sources
75	Al-Qa'qa' ibn Amr al-Tamimi (talk)	Add sources
365	Indian Creek, Florida (talk)	Add sources
313	Prunus avium (talk)	Cleanup
17	Rust v. Sullivan (talk)	Cleanup
859	Pear (talk)	Cleanup
171	Tsuga canadensis (talk)	Expand
74	Phormium tenax (talk)	Expand
63,663	Wikipedia (talk)	Expand
214	Imminent lawless action (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
19	National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
627	Separate but equal (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
689	Stew (talk)	Merge
1,185	Tristan and Iseult (talk)	Merge
37	Tucker Act (talk)	Merge
19	Grooving plane (talk)	Wikify
189	Variegation (talk)	Wikify
36	CongressEdits (talk)	Wikify
2	Perumkunnil Junction (talk)	Orphan
5	Saramsa Garden (talk)	Orphan
3	Mentha longifolia var. asiatica (talk)	Orphan
14	Lathyrus vernus (talk)	Stub
33	State Herbarium of South Australia (talk)	Stub
7	Tom Delahanty (talk)	Stub
71	Plants of the World Online (talk)	Stub
14	Erica lusitanica (talk)	Stub
3	Jaanika (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discontent Content Issue 3[edit]

Discontent Content Issue #3

Welcome, subscribers, to the third Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Gambling in Nevada: An unusual move -- a redirect? But if you look at the history, you'll see why. This sweeping and expansive topic about the home of Reno and Las Vegas was recently converted to a redirect due to its almost complete lack of useful content. Nonetheless, this subject is bursting with potential and can have a full article written about it.
SpongeBob SquarePants: Original Theme Highlights: This recent AfD survivor was the first soundtrack written for the popular series. More unorthodox, for a children's animation album, it features songs by Pantera and Ween and was given a vinyl re-release in 2016 for the...ironic market? Certainly some market. There's a fair amount of coverage here to write a solid article on.
Death by misadventure: A surprisingly major topic to be a one-paragraph stub, this is a legal and colloquial term both. The article is currently sourced in whole to a single page in a single book!

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

Rope (film): Hitchcock's classic attempt to shoot an entire film in a single shot, Rope is both a significant note in cinematic history and, in recent years, conceptualized as an important piece of Hays Code-era gay cinema. It's a good watch, and the article should be just as solid. Currently it's a C-class with some unsourced content and an overreliance on block quotes.
Rachel Pollack: One of the major occult writers of the 20th and 21st centuries (a book of hers is prominently involved in my quixotic "bring the Major Arcana to FT" plan), not to mention a significant fiction and comics writer collaborating with names such as Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison, Pollack's article has quite a bit of room for improvement to quality-assessed levels. Though her article's lead is short and the work as a whole underreferenced, plenty of opportunities exist to improve it.
Narrative paradigm: Despite this article's High or Top importance across multiple wikiprojects, it's in a sorry state. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was subjected to a WikiEd course some time back. Significant potential lies within the idea that all human communication is narrative; the article must be accordingly strong.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

Jaime King: This GA on a famous model of the 1990s has been recommended for GAR. Unreferenced sections and low-quality references are a problem for this BLP.
Dartmouth College: This FA is at FARC and on the brink of delisting, but the issues mentioned -- accessibility, WP:LEADCITE compliance, and overreliance on primary sources -- are far from insurmountable, and an editor could certainly polish off this star.
Tamil language: Another FARC, this is the native language of 75 million people (including my own stepmother) and the language of one of the world's great classical traditions. It's afflicted by a lack of sourcing and particularly issues with inline citations.

Letter from the Editor

This issue's subscriber suggestion, again from BOZ, is:

Dice: This former GA was delisted in 2009. It's a big topic to a lot of different subjects, and deserves a top-quality article.

This is ridiculously late, and I apologise -- I've been writing articles :) I've also, excitingly, landed a couple 'real publishing' writing gigs, which I'll be plenty excited to talk about when they're published. Due to the current increased amount of writing I have to do on a regular basis both on- and off-wiki, I'm planning to drop this down to monthly so I can spread out my responsibilities a bit.
Vaticidalprophet 09:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.

Discontent Content Issue 4[edit]

Discontent Content Issue #4

Welcome, subscribers, to the fourth Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Lineage (anthropology): A shocking subject to be a sourceless stub, this Vital 4 obviously has so much more to write about than its three sentences. In this state, even a basic improvement would do a ton.
Police memorabilia collecting: Survived AfD not long ago, with plenty of sources given in the discussion to use in the article. "Further reading" may in particular be of use.
Koror City: Palau may be a small island nation, but having its largest city by far be a stub is unacceptable. (We've managed to write much more about it over at Wikivoyage, where it's guide-class and about to make a Main Page appearance.) Vital 5 with a healthy couple hundred pageviews a day, the widespread use of English in its native land makes it a more accessible topic than editors afraid of working in countries they're unfamiliar with might worry.

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

List of premature obituaries: A former FL, an eccentric and popular topic, and a refreshing change from the sports statistics and "list of awards received by X" that populate FLC. This list was demoted in 2009 for sourcing concerns, which even at the time were mentioned as potentially fixable.
War: Let's just jump straight into the Overtopics, shall we? This Vital 2 really shows what "Top-importance to the whole encyclopedia" means. Currently B-class -- more B- in my estimate, maybe -- it stands out that non-editor readers on the talk page have qualms with the scope, in particular omissions they expected to find.
The Picture of Dorian Gray: Once GA, now C. ~~Still relatable.~~ This seminal work of literature can certainly be returned to where it was.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

Byzantine Empire: From the metapedian perspective, this is perhaps our most important FA -- the oldest, promoted in 2001 (older than some of this newsletter's subscribers!), to retain FA status unbroken to the present day. Speaking exopedianly, it's still decidedly vital, with nearly three million page views in the last year. FAR was suggested late last year; it hasn't been brought to the chopping block yet, but an article this important both inside and outside of the project deserves to remain in top shape.
Underoath: This GA is recommended for GAR, with complaints about long-unaddressed maintenance tags and sections in dire need of updates. The article gets hundreds of views a day and is translated across plenty of projects.
Acute myeloid leukemia: Medical articles aren't scary! Really! They're not! If I can work on them, so can you! That aside, this FA was given a FAR notice in January. There are sourcing concerns, conveniently assisted by sources left on the talk page. Non-editor readers on the talk have raised concerns about inaccurate prognostic statements.

Letter from the Editor

This issue's reader suggestion is brought to you by Sennecaster:

Margery Wolf: Perhaps the fastest GA delist known to the project, this article was delisted two days after promotion upon discovery of foundational copyvio. Though it was reduced to just four short paragraphs, the sourcing obviously exists to create a high-quality article.

Yes, I know I said I was going to switch to monthly. Let's just go "Vat doesn't really Get Time" and run with it.

The Core Contest is on its last day of entries, and I've picked articles here with an eye to that. It's the first time it's running since 2017, and I for one am looking forward to overhauling Prehistoric religion. If you feel inspired by anything here, get in there quick!
Vaticidalprophet 17:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.

Discontent Content Issue 5[edit]

Discontent Content Issue #5

Welcome, subscribers, to the fifth Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Isolar – 1976 Tour: A substantial musical event for one of the most influential albums of its era, but with a rather spindly, table-focused article (I also note no one seems to have given post-inflation numbers for any of the figures).
Occultism (Islam): "Major topic that's a literal stub because it's about something outside the comfort zone of the average editor" of the day. Esotericism in one of the world's major exoteric religions is, of course, something which can be written about extensively.
G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: Going meta for a moment...This is an interesting case, and it's a shame we discuss it only as a paragraph. It would be fascinating to read further on this topic.

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

Misophonia: A concept, symptom, or disorder -- no one's quite yet drawn the borderlands -- where people are unusually upset at noises such as chewing sounds. The idea may sound odd, but it does distress people with it and those around them. The subject is very popular, with Half Million Award-tier page views, but the readers are served by a rather weak article.
Sparks (band): This eccentric, creative band was a GA long ago, but delisted in 2010. Though undersourced, the article certainly has potential to return to its old status.
Han Xin: One of the great military leaders of ancient China is graced by a massively undersourced article. Several sections have none at all.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

Wind: This FA is on a huge, important topic, but its star needs some polishing. FAR notice has been given for significant uncited passages. To quote the talk page, the article has good bones, and it can certainly be restored to modern FA status if anyone is able to work on it.
Jeopardy!: The article for perhaps one of the most famous game shows of all time is at GAR for citation issues. Most of the issues brought up can be fixed quite easily, such as locating page numbers.
French fries: Tasty, but needs more sauce. The GAR discusses unsourced sections and unreliable sourcing; I also notice some pretty blatant prose issues and a spindly lead.

Letter from the Editor

This issue's reader suggestion from Sennecaster:

Maasai people: The Vital 4 article for this major East African ethnic group was recently significantly reduced due to copyvio. It needs urgent work to restore cored-out content, but the references are still available in the article to simplify the process.

One topic I've been broadly thinking about lately is the concept of GA sweeps. There hasn't been one in well over a decade; discussion of a new one is traditionally stymied by the sheer number of GAs that would need sweeping, considering there are over ten times as many as there were at the last sweep. Nonetheless, there's no dispute that many GAs don't really count as 99.5th percentile articles, or even decent-quality articles (whether one's own personal reading of WIAGA is closer to the former or the latter, and how different those things are, is an exercise for the reader).

I've been brainstorming ideas, and I've been wondering if we can tackle the problem with limited-scope sweeps. One idea would be sweeping popular or vital articles -- those that get enough views to make up a significant proportion of the "GA experience" to readers. Another would be focusing on shorter GAs, which might trend towards a less in-depth treatment of the topic than could really justify the rating. There may very well be a path here to maintaining GA standards, and either of those would have the benefit that they might be more likely to encourage people to work on rather than simply delist articles -- popular topics with lots of interested parties willing to help, or smaller topics that don't seem like too big a challenge to pick up.
Vaticidalprophet 04:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.

Discontent Content Issue 6[edit]

Discontent Content Issue #6

Welcome, subscribers, to the sixth Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Floating match on card: This famous magic trick is a microstub with an empty section and no meaningful discussion of its methods or effects. Some useful information is available on the talk page.
Erotic horror: A significant literary (or, well...look, you know) genre with significant academic and critical coverage, which you wouldn't know from reading its three-sentence article.
Black ribbon: Currently in poor shape, with unnecessary lists attracting spurious examples, this article nonetheless has potential to cover a coherent topic on a sensitive subject.

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

Violin: This twice-candidate at GAN has good bones, but suffers from expanses of uncited content (and indeed expanses of "people slapping CN tags on literally every sentence"). Much of this information should be citable, and potential exists for this article to stand tall amongst other core music articles.
Art museum: Though this looks a little underrated as a soi-disant "Start", it's nonetheless an important cultural article with significant improvement potential. This was a former candidate for the Team-B-Vital campaign ran by members of the Wikimedia Discord to bring Vital Articles to B-class status, and while not selected, it has strong potential for anyone interested in working on it.
Grocery store: Daily life has always been one of Wikipedia's coverage gaps. Though this topic is something virtually anyone deals with on a regular basis, the article struggles with cleanup tags, sandwiching, and the weird fear of prose that drives people to put everything they can in a list. With hundreds of views a day, readers deserve an article with a stronger core.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

Slackers CDs and Games: This GA hasn't had significant content edits since 2008. As much of its content references then-recent controversies, it needs a good look for updating.
Potential superpowers: GA with a multiple issues template, with concerns of outdated information, lack of citations, and potential OR.
Alzheimer's disease: This major medical FA is at FAR due to outdated information, an unfortunately common scourge of medical articles over time. Such an important article needs people willing to get it in good shape.

Letter from the Editor

After my prior thoughts on GA sweeps and their viability, work is beginning to break down what parts of the backlog can be tackled. Planning is beginning at User:Vaticidalprophet/GA reform and its talk; feel free to give your opinion, participate in current GARs, and assess articles. The current plan is to look at GAs with outstanding cleanup tags as our first priority.

Sorry for the delay this time around -- I've been having A Month healthwise. I expect to maintain this at an approximately monthly schedule and will try not to let it slip further. I'm enthused by the work going on at GAR lately and hope to work something excellent out of it.
Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.

Discontent Content Issue 7[edit]

Discontent Content Issue #7

Welcome, subscribers, to the seventh Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Exile: An unexpectedly poor article for a major form of historical punishment, and one of those few where anyone can agree the "In popular culture" section is far too sparse. Even a relatively minor improvement to reflect the historical and sociological literature could really improve this article's usability.
Scratching post: A major element of cat ownership (if you ever want to own furniture), this article lies right on the sub-start border and is supported by exactly one ref. Arguably, there may be few serious investigations of the subject :) Some information seems split between it and the related article cat tree, and they may be better off handled under a single more fleshed-out title.
Agnathia: A two-sentence stub on an unusual deformity (absence of part of the jaw). Even in its incredibly short length, the article manages to conflate two different things, the absence of the jaw entirely and the presence of missing sections. This article could become significantly more useful with even minor improvements any non-specialist editor could do, such as discussing causes (e.g. treatments for certain cancers) or finding more prevalence data.

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

Firefox: An ex-FA, a Million Award candidate, and the best browser (don't @ me). This article has good bones, and could certainly be brought to a quality-assessed status. A problem noticeable in the ref section is the advancing age of many sources.
Cyclone Tracy: One of the biggest disasters in Australian history, Tracy notoriously levelled the whole city of Darwin over Christmas 1974, with people unable to evacuate due to the demands of the holiday season. This ex-FA is still a confronting look at the tragedy that forced the complete rebuild of the country's northernmost capital, but some work needs to be done to improve sourcing, particularly around the Aftermath section.
East Asian religions: A disappointingly sparse article on the religious history of over a fifth of the world's population. This was a GA once, prior to the 2009 sweeps, but has had little serious improvement in the past fourteen years.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

History of Singapore: A 2006 GA now at GAR, this highly important article draws close to a quarter million views a year. The GAR notes significant missing citations and dead links.
Dungeons & Dragons (album): This 2007 FA is now at FARC, the last stop before delisting. The talk page hashes out source reliability; the article may be closer to salvation than it looks, for someone who can get a hold of the contemporary zines.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series): The one that started it all! The talk page for this FA at FAR gives extensive and fully actionable notes on the article's issues, mostly prose-related. Serious improvements could be made by following the recommendations. It would be a shame to see the article delisted because of the original writer's lack of time to work on it.

Letter from the Editor

I LIVE.

Hi, guys. Great to see you. I felt like doing this again. Will I do more? Let's find out. I hope you're all well, you beautiful people.
Vaticidalprophet 12:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.