Wikipedia:Articles for Improvement/Log/November 2012

< October 2012	Articles for Improvement	December 2012 >

The Rangoon Times[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a newspaper published between 1854 and 1942. It is on poor condition and may be substantially improved with information available on the internet. I made a quick google books search and found several useful things to start. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 20:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some initial improvements to the article: de-orphaned it, cleaned-up, added italic title template and added a category. Then, slightly expanded it and added one source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SkiTrab[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recently created and misses a lot of information that is on the internet. I have made a search on Google Books and found some substantial info to start. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 20:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vigilante Vigilante: The Battle for Expression[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have found good coverage filtering a google search and the article can be substantially improved with such information. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did a search on Google and found a great coverage of this book. As of its actual state, it seems like it could be easily brought to AFD (so let's improve it to avoid a snow keep there :P). — Ṟ Ṉ™ 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this article be a candidate for deletion? I assumed it would be better to start a stub than have no article on this book. Is starting bare-bones articles frowned upon? Naturally, I agree that the article has plenty of room for expansion and improvement. Eric ^talk 22:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not deletion. This is improvement. Here, Wikipedians gather to improve the quality of the article :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I understand what AFI is, and was questioning the above ...could be easily brought to AFD... Eric ^talk 23:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. At a glance, may people could bring the article for "notability issues" if they do not make a research. That's what i tried to say with "could be easily brought to AFD". I never intended to sya that it could get deleted because it won't. If so, I wouldn't had nominated it for AFi but for AFD :P — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two sources and tagged it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nokia Lumia 822[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article can be substantially expanded from information on the internet. As of the opening of this AFI, the article only has the infobox. I did a google search and a google news search and found very good coverage of the topic. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 21:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to add some actual information into the body of the article, however, there are still pretty big gaps in the article such as availability and general data about the phone, since we don't have much to go off now. -Gigabyte 88 (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several sources that could be of use: Unwired View [1], SlashGear [2], USA Today [3], Reuters [4], TechRadar [5] and PhonesReview [6]. Hope it helps. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 04:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: PC World [7], Press Blue [8], CNet [9], GSM Arena [10], Phone Arena [11], Digital Trends [12], PC Magazine [13], eWeek [14] and Daily Tech [15]. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 04:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.