Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/2016/11

Biodegradable plastic – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 150 daily hits

Needs significant improvement, very messy article in general 172.97.129.251 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason it redirects to bioplastic, the link is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic

Support per nom. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Redolta📱 ^Contribs 17:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Redolta📱 ^Contribs 17:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping rope – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 280 daily hits

Support per nom--BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - Could do with some sources & improvements, –Davey2010^Talk 18:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I never realized it was a B class - Better off improving a stub or c class. –Davey2010^Talk 11:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it is already B-Class. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as is B class. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For it is B class, and therefore doesn't need a whole week of improvement. Ratto33 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ezbet el-Borg – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 5 daily hits

Although far from being a popular article, the Egyptian coastal city of Ezbet el-Borg was the 4 millionth article on the English Wikipedia. I also suspect that Ezbet had an important role in the Fifth Crusade but I cannot be sure. Greenshed (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom--BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Could do with some expansion, improving and sourcing. –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per below - I hadn't checked the pageviews - If the article has low views then it's not worth spending an entire week on it. –Davey2010^Talk 11:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs work but pageviews are far too low. Sorry. Our time is surely better spent on subjects more interesting to the general public. A milestone article does not give weight, I'm afraid — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pageviews are very very low, as MusikAnimal said. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per low pageviews. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]