Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/2019/5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Centrism

[edit]

Centrism – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 877 daily hits

  • Very important article about political science that lacks in referencing, does not properly use the lead to summarize contents, and aside from it, consists almost purely of what might as well be a list. In other words, the article needs to be almost completely reorganized. Geolodus (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support - to include.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support per nom Hhkohh (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Human female sexuality

[edit]

Human female sexuality – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 697 daily hits

  • Very important article that has issues with lack of clear focus and scope, with scattered information on a variety of subtopics that end up making it overly about one aspect while providing geographically specific information without context for why it is included. It needs to be able to find itself. It is important because women's sexuality impacts legal and cultural treatment in a broader context. Having a good basic framework not around orgasms would be useful. --LauraHale (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Room for expansion. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Clovermoss (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Menstruation

[edit]

Menstruation – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 2012 daily hits

When it comes to how many people in the world are dealing with menstruation on a regular basis, I'd say that this topic is of broad interest to a lot of people. Talking about periods can make some a bit squeamish, but I don't think that warrants complete avoidance of the topic. Clovermoss (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support as highly viewed article with potential for improvement. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_improvement/Nominations/Archives/2019/5&oldid=989925458"