Wikipedia:Article improvement drive/Removed/6 June 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article Improvement Drive

Article improvement drive is a weekly collaboration to improve non-stub articles to featured article status. (For stub articles or topics with no articles, see Collaboration of the week.)

Two collaborations are selected each week by registered users from ten candidates. Nominations are placed under Pending nominations with an explanation of what work is needed, and held there until they are both seconded and the queue before them is empty. Each Sunday, the two articles with the least support are dropped, the two with the highest become the Article Improvement Drive and the remaining six are dropped to the bottom of the Pending list. Articles in the Pending category may receive votes, but cannot actually become Improvement Drive candidates until they cycle up through to Nominations again. Please place an asterisk next to an article's nomination for each time it enters the 'Nominations' category.

Current Article improvement drive articles are:


Last week's winners were Social Justice and Choctaw language
  • {{AID}}, a notice for the talk pages of nominated articles
  • {{AIDcur}}, a notice for current collaborations

Nominations[edit]

Next two project articles to be selected on Sunday 5 June. Ten nominations are voted on each week, please put overflow nominations under Pending.




Papua New Guinea[edit]

Reason
It is a great article, however, could be more intresting and have more extensive history. Would help wikipedia greatly if we improved this article.
Support
  1. Taylorr 9:52, 30, May, 2005
  2. NeoJustin 02:50, June 3, 2005 (GMT)
  3. Fenice 12:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, this nomination has jumped the queue. It needs to be brought to book for violation of the procedure

See the diff by User:Taylorr, 68.196.86.165. --Laura Scudder | Talk 07:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was copied direct from COTW... still hasn't come off there. astiquetalk 23:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Kannur**[edit]

Reason 
The article is slightly verbose and needs some expert editing to become a featured article . I hope wikipedians improve this article.
Support
  1. Sumalsn 21:33, 6 May 2005
  2. Sudheeren 06:52, 8 May 2005
Comments
  • The article is good and seems throrughly reasearched. needs alittle bit improvement - 06:52, 8 May 2005 Sudheeren
    • These are all sock puppets. Please cut it out. -Litefantastic 16:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Article looks fine, you should probably just use peer review. Revolución 01:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug**[edit]

Reason 
Currently tagged as a stub, but probably too long for COTW. Certainly needs expansion though, especially on his work, he is thought to have saved at least a billion lives and is very well known in developing countries.
Support
  1. --the wub (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Within the article we can be all NPOV but Borlaug saved the lives of more human beings than any other person in human history, and is a hero of highest magnitude. There should be reams written on this man. And setting my pov that saving hundreds of millions of people from starvation is an amazingly good thing aside, such an action is extrordinarily influential. --Zantastik 09:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Green Revolution mentions that Borlaug was instrumental in the Cooperative Wheat Research and Production Program, but Wikipedia won't tell you precisely what that was. The "Green Revolution" page mentions Hybrid Strains and Agricultural techniques, and hints in the last paragraph at genetic engineering. Presumably, the man's science should be handled on other pages like this, with the Norman Borlaug page concentrating on his biography and specific contributions to the work, personal envolvement in the political controversy, etc. The "Green Revolution" page concentrates primarily on "Criticisms of the Green Revolution", so it appears that NPOV on Wikipedia extends naturally to covering a Nobel Peace Price winner. Wragge 18:02, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Comments

Manx (cat)**[edit]

Reason 
This article has been very contentious until recently. There were multiple points of disagreement (the overall vigor of the breed, the effects of inbreeding, the pertinence of pictures, British vs American English, etc) that have finally been smoothed over, at least for a time. See the talk page for details. I proposed to the participants that perhaps some outside eyeballs might help resolve issues and improve what is a pretty fair article but for the conflicts. I believe that the idea intrigued all and may have contributed to a general calming of moods. So now it's time for me to live up to my end of the deal and propose Manx (cat) as a nominee for the Article Improvement drive. I think it would benefit from having a broader group of editors, especially to smooth over the points of contention.
Support
  1. -- Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. -- maltmomma 02:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ike9898 16:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • I don't think this is suitable for the Article Improvement Drive. The Manx is a tailless breed. Putting this article on the spot might attract vandals.--Fenice 06:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • ...I don't get the connection. -Litefantastic 16:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Because its controversial, I forgot to say.--Fenice 05:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
      • It can be argued that the missing tail is really a deformed spine and that these cats cannot balance as well as other breeds. (Breeders will argue it is short, but sufficient to balance.) Still there are militant acitivsts against cruelty to animals, and if this article goes on the portal page they might discover Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle to spread their views, in a subtle or in a vandalistic way. AID should produce featured articles. We should improve articles that are suitable for that standard. --Fenice 05:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
        • If we only focus on non-controversial articles, we won't have a very useful or interesting encyclopedia. I'm not saying I don't understand your point, because I do, but hey, we have to run these kind of risks. In time, all of the special interests who are awake will discover Wikipedia. Let's be as ready for them as we can be. Catbar (Brian Rock) 10:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
          • The more users involved in an article, the protection it has against being used as a propaganda piece. I think controverisial topics benefit from the raised profile. ike9898 16:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

League of Nations**[edit]

Reason 
It has that whole things-that-went-wrong-after-World War One edge to it, and besides: it matters, but nobody really knows about it that much. -Litefantastic 16:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Litefantastic 16:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • Oh blimey: it is a Wikipedia:Featured article (one that I nominated, as it happens!). Does you really think it needs substantial improvement? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this was already a Collaboration of the Week. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the article that could require an Article Improvement Drive nomination. Revolución 21:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It would be good if it were updated with inline references (e.g. footnotes) whilst there is still someone around who remembers where the facts came from. Mozzerati 21:14, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Inland Sea**[edit]

Reason 
Needs more geographical information including water pollution. --Larus.r 21:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Support
Comments

Software engineering**[edit]

Reason 
There is a long discussion on the article with a lot of topics not cleared up to now. In my opinion, the article is not state of the art. It could be structured better and some sections could be moved to articles of its own. It should be a start page for all articles concerning with tthe topic and an introductory article for the WikiReader Software Engineering. Simultaneously, I propose a German collaboration (Qualitätsoffensive). See Talk:Software engineering. --Hans-AC 15:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. --Hans-AC 14:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. --ZeWrestler 21:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • I agree, this artical, could use some improvements. ZeWrestler 21:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Langley**[edit]

Reason 
Needs style edit, and just a general overhaul. --To0n 6:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Support
Comments
  • This one might get more help from {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}}. 10:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mother Marianne Cope[edit]

Reason 
Needs to be beefed up now that it has a prominent link from the Pope Benedict XVI article which has high traffic. Mother Marianne Cope of Hawaii was the first person beatified by this Pope in particular, on the way towards sainthood. She needs an article befitting of that honor. I'm quite sure there is a wealth of information sitting around somewhere about Mother Marianne Cope's work with Father Damien in Molokai.
Support
  1. --Gerald Farinas 22:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Comments



World Year of Physics 2005[edit]

Reason 
This article is definitely not a stub, but I think it could be a lot better. In particular, I think it'd be nice if it could be featured article quality before the end of the year as this celebration is meant to be a big deal in physics and has been talked up in physics circles for years now.
Support
  1. the wub (talk) 14:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • I think it would be better if we wait until the World Year of Physics is over before we start writing about it. It's like writing about the crucifixion of Christ before he was even born. We're not in the business of prophesizing what will happen in the World Year of Physics. Rather enclyopedias tend to be about events that have happened. By year's end, I'm sure we'll be swimming in cool information we can use to piece together an article. Until then, we should wait. --Gerald Farinas 00:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The World Year of Physics though is meant to be a celebration of the last 100 years of physics, particularly Einstein's miracle year of 1905, which changed the face of physics remarkably. So although we don't know exactly how the actual celebration will run it's course, we do know perfectly well what we're celebrating and what is planned for the year. So I fail to see how we're prophesizing anything. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pending nominations[edit]

Game[edit]

Reason
An entry level article on a vast and important subject that was just a few paragraphs long when I came across it. I've added a few more paragraphs with basic info on the anthropology of games; they themselves could stand expansion. Other views are also needed.
Support
  1. Smerdis of Tlön 23:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 05:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments

Abortion[edit]

Reason 
This important article is currently suffering from edit wars.
Support
  1. Djbaniel 00:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Gerald Farinas 00:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. CristianChirita 09:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Laura Scudder | Talk 07:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • I think it's a good candidate, even if it weren't suffering from edit wars (which is not surprising). There's a wealth of information out there that we hear about often on the topic that hasn't been mentioned. Also, the information already in the article needs to be better organized and reworded for comprehension and flow. --Gerald Farinas 00:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution[edit]

Reason 
This article was actually posted on Wikipedia:Cleanup as needing work, and I thought it could be a decent AID candidate. Here was the comment from User:Madmagic:
"This article needs work. There are sections which are well-written and documented, and other sections which are blank or under-written and under-documented. The relationships between the first, second (and perhaps third) Industrial Revolutions are not made clear nor easy to understand; the Talk page is equally confused and could use streamlining. Given the ongoing importance and the relevance of the subject to daily life, including the net and Wikipedia, this is a signifigant article which IMO should be strengthened to feature article status. Right now, it's a source of confusion and uncertainty to any new reader unfamiliar with the subject."
Support
  1. RJH 20:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Madmagic 18:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. EatAlbertaBeef 22:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fenice 08:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • I don't think this one needs it as bad as the Second Industrial revolution which doesn't talk about the American Industrial Revolution, Chinese, Japanese,French, Central European, etc. Falphin 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)