Jump to content

Wikipedia:Cleanup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Warlord dehacker (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 22 April 2007 (→March 20, 2007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:CU" redirects here. For For Check User Requests, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (WP:RCU). For information on changing your username, see Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU). For Cleanup Templates, see Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup (WP:TC), see WP:CU (disambiguation).
Shortcut

Welcome to the Wikipedia Cleanup section! Please report messy articles below, and explain why it needs to be cleaned-up (ex. grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.). Please be sure to sign your addition by using the following format: --~~~~

Any user can edit and fix any page. Please remove any entry from this page after it is fixed (do not just put a strike through it, or leave it), and remember to take the appropriate tag (or any other tag) off the page, once it is done. Please feel free to use the Wikipedia: Cleanup resources, to post what you think needs to be cleaned-up, or for you to use as a guide. I just did!

Anyone who wants to work on cleanup jobs is asked to fix articles at the bottom of the list, because they have been listed for the longest period of time (Older cleanup: Category: Cleanup by month). (the current month, and the past five months only).

Refer to Wikipedia:Cleanup process for more information.

Cleanup instructions

PLEASE USE THIS FORMAT: *[[The name of the document]] - Why it needs to be fixed--~~~~ FOR EXAMPLE:

  • Wikipedia - Copied from a different page, and the spelling is really bad.

When you want to make a new line, for example you want to add a note, you simply add a colon (:) in front of the asterisk (*). If there is already a note, then just add another colon in-front of the asterisk, and so-forth.

PLEASE USE THIS FORMAT: :*I cleaned it up a little, but it is still a little messy.

FOR EXAMPLE:

  • Wikipedia - Copied from a different page, and the spelling is really bad.
  • I cleaned it up a little, but it is still a little messy.

Please be sure to sign your additions by using signature button in the toolbar or by typing two dashes and four tildes (--~~~~).

Thanks!

April 2007

April 21, 2007

April 20, 2007

April 19, 2007

April 18, 2007

April 17, 2007

April 16, 2007

I had a go at this, but it still needs a lot of work and a fresh pair of eyes. It looks to me like the initial work was done by an automatic internet translator, so there may be a copyright issue somewhere here...Lorangriel 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 15, 2007

  • Channel 4 programming is a new article that combines material lifted from Channel 4 (which was becoming too big) and material merged from the former List of Channel 4 television programmes. It is divided into genres of programming some of which are highly specific with others being vague and mixed-up. It also contains content from many different editors, describing specific programmes individually, which tends to make the prose seem very disjointed. It generally needs a tidier structure, but given the amount of content, is a pretty big endeavour. It is also separately tagged as requiring references. -- Fursday 00:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 14, 2007

  • Supernatural - This is an important article, but unfortunately it contains many forward claims that require attribution to reliable sources, chief among them a strong support of methodological naturalism in science. It lacks references for many of its other claims, which I have marked with "citation needed" tags. It uses numerous weasel words. "Competing Explanations and Criteria of Preference" as well as the end of "Alleged instances of supernaturalization" have a naturalistic POV and should be cut down unless reliable sources can be found to support their statements. See what I wrote under "Unsourced." Good day.Schmitty120 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 13, 2007

April 12, 2007

April 11, 2007

April 10, 2007

April 09, 2007

  • George Molesworth - This article has been tagged for Cleanup since December 2005. Hopefully someone will get around to cleaning this up this time around. AecisBrievenbus 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - I turned the info into paragraph form and added some basic headings. Still lacking detailed information, especially about personal life. --Ewangard 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • North-West Frontier Province - The geography section reads like a travel ad, while the history section contains a copypasted lecture. I couldn't retrieve where the lecture ends and the proper article continues. AecisBrievenbus 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatecore - Article is pathetically small. Needs to be serious updating.
  • Lifeguard - Article has been turned into a directory listing, and has been re-written by a person from only one country. Please help by removing any directory listing or other un-encyclopedic information, they we (the subject matter specialists) can go back and restore it properly. 71.200.92.220 01:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 08, 2007

April 07, 2007

  • Quality control - completely uncited, seems like the bulk of the history is OR/speculation. style issues. over half the text is on quality assurance, which has its own article. (though there is a merge discussion on the two). Ripe 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 06, 2007

  • DeSagana Diop- "DeSagana N'gagne Diop (pronounned Suh-GAH-nah JOP)" Pronounced is spelled wrong. -- Magnaflux 08:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

April 05, 2007

April 04, 2007

April 03, 2007

March 2007

March 30, 2007

March 29, 2007

  • I took a jab at it. A lot of the work simply required naturalization of the English grammer, so that's done. I can't say anything about the informational content itself. Still needs sourcing. --Lendorien 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 28, 2007

March 27, 2007

March 25, 2007

March 24, 2007

  • List of Colombians - It's overloaded with colombian personalities which aren't "important enough" to feature on this list. To much information to describe each person (needs sumary of each description). Information is not well organized and seems traduced badly (directly from spanish), and it has been vandalized before -- Minako-Chan* 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dolphins-Jets rivalry - Lots of information (perhaps too much), but unencyclopedic tone throughout much of the article; too much for me to rewrite on my own. Could use some copyediting too, perhaps. -- Highway99 06:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 23, 2007

March 20, 2007

March 19, 2007

  • Looks like a moderator and few other people have taken all the junk out and made it relevant (added school district and names of administrators) Borisshah
  • Fall of the Roman Empire - Article needs to be organised under headings, subheadings and such - also the article requires a general proofreading. 60.240.7.64 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dronfield - This article has been subject to many small, unstructured additions producing an incoherent and somewhat unintelligible read. The information in the main body is delivered in a short and almost truncated manner for the most part, explicating very little as the topics progress. Secondly, half of the text under “History” relates very loosely to history; distinct sections relating explicitly to their own content may solve this. --Naqahdah 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Naqahdah[reply]
  • Chuck Norris - Article has been vandlized so much, I really just couldn't fix it all alone. I took away the things I knew were not correct (i.e Height= 78 axe handles) to try to clean it up a little bit. It is hard because after fixing it, before I can warn people its being vandalized by a new set of people.Inter16 15:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of counties in Illinois - Looks like somebody tried to fix the formatting, but now the page just plain doesn't work. I can't even figure out what was trying to be done, but maybe somebody else can see the direction that was being taken? —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like someone did try to change the formatting, in turn screwing up the placement of everything after Crawford and before LaSalle. Those County1s are what is left of those counties. Ksabato 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 18, 2007

  • Yale University - a mess on many levels, I'd call this high priority given the prestige of the institution. Way too many external links, way too long - break out sections into their own articles; not many reverences. For starters. Maybe the "village idiot" wrote this one?
  • Video camera - article is unclear and needs an editor with some knowledge of the subject to check it.
  • Olivia_(singer) - Proofreading for typos and general cleanup required, e.g. same facts are stated multiple times in several locations (bio, music career)
  • Erotic Lactation - Article needs general proofreading. Spelling errors, non-words, and some colloquial speech detracting from encyclopedic tone.
  • This still needs more editing. I attempted to make spelling/grammar changes, but short on time and unable to finish it now. I cannot in good conscience recommend leaving the bit about lesbians breastfeeding each other being commonplace. The citation for that bit was dated to 1934: too old for anything current and scholarly. I left it there, though. Snackar 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I felt I could see a contentious process through, I'd nominate this for deletion. It's possible a good article could be written on the topic, but it would bear little resemblance to the jumbled mess that is there now. Good catch, and good luck with the cleanup! -Pete 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made an effort to clean this up a bit. It's a little less messy but still has the orginal research issue. I've culled most of the media listing as at the end because they were too much of a mess to make much use of and were probably inappropiate anyway. I also added ciatation request tags. Hopefully, this and the help of other editors will push it towards being a more servicable article. --Lendorien 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 17, 2007

  • Noelle Pikus Pace - This article is poorly written and from a first person perspective. The person is real and seems notable but the text of the article needs much attention. Sadly more than I hace this morning. JBEvans 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social studies - This article needs clean-up, streamlining or a complete rewrite and/or a possible merge? I tried some by correcting spelling but I do not have enough time, interest nor experience to format the layout and content. Also not sure about the validity/nobility of the subject, as it seems to be some sort of set of study hints for students; therefore un-encyclopedic? I also tried to make the layout look a bit better, it's better looking but still is a poor article in my opinion. Hopefully someone will look at this to help clean it up, expand it, merge it, or delete it. I did add a stub tag. Dunno :/ -Jeeny 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I tried to break up the material in the introduction into subsections as well as removing some redundancy and confusing sentence structure. I also rephrased the Digital Technology section to be easier to understand and to sound less like a commercial. I don't know enough about the teaching methods to know what to do with them, but I recommend perhaps just creating a new page or linking to an existing one that covers the method of teaching. The current lists are not very informative and seem more like a brochure than an encyclopedia entry. SPH. 17, March 2007.
  • General Hospital - This article is in need of some basic cleanup and reformatting. If left untended, it will essentially turn into a recap/fansite page. I don't have a problem with posting storyline-type information, but it needs to be brought up to WP Quality standards. Also, fans keep adding new couple and supercouple pages for practically every set of characters - most of which is in blatant violation of WP:NOR. I would think most of the "couple" pages are good candidates for deletion. A few, like Luke and Laura Spencer are definitely Notable for their contribution to the modern Soap Opera, but most are frivolous and unnecessary.--66.91.225.99 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 16, 2007

  • Rachel Stevens - The article seems to have too many sections, and become very messy and untidy to look at. Blacksilkandy 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islam Spread - This article has a few passages with clearly biased points of view and should be written much more neutrally. Examples of quotes include "The infamous Hakim (Al-Hakim bi-amr-Allah, the sixth Egyptian Caliph, 996-1021, who became the god of the Druze) determined to destroy the Holy Sepulchre (In 1010.)" Infamus? God of the Druze? What?

"Yet, in spite of all, Christianity failed, and Islam succeeded in gaining the Iranian race." I think there is a much better way of saying that. --213.174.190.59 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 15, 2007

  • Morgellons - This article is full of confirmation bias. When I attempted to challenge the logic of those posting a very biased, anti-Morgellons article, I was told I didn't have any knowledge of the disorder by Chairboy. In fact, I have considerable knowledge of the disorder and I am challenging their posting of the research. There is no way to edit this article neutrally as it is not a neutral article. Those who are writing it want it to be against Morgellons, therefore, this entire article should be flagged as so and it should be deleted in its entirety. Chairboy does not have the credential to determine who is presenting valid research and who is not presenting valid research. He also believes that research that has been presented and dissed by some is also not challengeable. Their is no consensus (except the anti-Morgellons view) by any of the writers of this article and it is very, vividly apparent that those who try to put in balancing statements will have their statements deleted. The anti-More will not allow any discussion presenting any cause as credible even if there are thousands of pages of research supporting the discussion. This article is junk scholarship and for that reason alone, this article MUST be deleted by Wikipedia if Wikipedia is to maintain their credibility as a place for neutrality and good scholarship.RamyB777 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization and presentation of the information gives an unclear picture as to what Morgellons actually is supposed to be, which to say that the article fails to give a cohesive picture of the supposed disorder.

March 14, 2007

  • Jared Ingersoll - All the information is there, the page just needs a little formatting work.
  • Sunflower_oil - Is nearly an adveement. No NPOV, and no hear-say claims.
  • Rancho San Joaquin Middle School - Seems a little one-sided, don't you think. It is only talking about one humanities teacher, Kay Gee, there are other humanities teachers and other teachers there who deserve to have their name on their as well, not just her. Please do something about it, I didn't want to touch it, but I might fix it a bit... just a bit.
  • Shorts - The section 'Motivation' is poorly worded. -- Bitbut 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but that's not the half of it. For a start, it seems to be written, without realising it, from an entirely monocultural (North American) point of view, but this is a subject on which attitudes and practice vary a lot even within the English-speaking world, never mind everywhere else. There are also a lot of terminological and definition problems. Unfortunately I know a lot about this subject, so I suppose I shall have to get down to work on it. Woblosch 22:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 11, 2007

  • Juicy 2 - Uses current tense for a non-released game, has poor grammar, and no internal links. As noted at the top of the article, the article also provides insufficient context for those who know nothing of the subjsect matter.
  • Popular music - Many weasel words, many statements needing citations, general cleanup needed, check for grammatical consistency needed.
  • Intermolecular force - Citations need to be added.

March 10, 2007

March 09, 2007

  • Fettes College - The reference to this Scottish school is now not worthy of Wikipedia as it is not objectivce and it is fairely obviious someone is taking advantage of Wikipedia's openess and writing about events which probably occur in most educationaL establishments ( scandal) and which do not add very much to WIKIPEDIA over the passage of time. Therefore I have deleted large sectiions and will delete the same should they appear. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noremacnomis (talk • contribs)
  • Varalaru - History of Godfather - Many grammatical and clarity errors. Much of the content essential to a good article on a film is there, but it is also confusing to read. Most of the spelling errors have been addressed, but the original author(s) may not be familiar enough with English (no criticism intended). A good copy editor is essential, and familiarity with the film may be beneficial. The article will benefit from much paring of excessive detail, and significant citing. Also, many, many incidences of what appears to be original research, or at least, personal interpretation. :—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  03:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 08, 2007

  • Cars Diecast Line - Confusion as to what material should be included or not. Organization could be lots better also. Lots of new information being added seems outside the scope of the article, and I'm beginning to doubt whether it was worth keeping when it was nominated for deletion. --Rick Beckman 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rodney Mullen - Massive spelling and grammatical errors, in addition to many unsourced statements and statements that may not even be true, such as "he inspired all the little kids to begin skateboarding. I believe that it had been vandalized recently, and many of the errors may be due to the vandalism. As I don't think anything said in this article is accurate, I suggest it be cleaned up or rewritten.

March 07, 2007

March 06, 2007

  • Calvary - "References in popular culture" section makes up over half the article and contains a lot of non-encyclopedic content.
  • British African-Caribbean community - Is supposed to be about the African and Caribbean communities in Britain but instead is completely about the Caribbean, please clean it up. I already tried but somebody changed it back.
  • American Pie - Has words run together, misspellings of McLean's name, and far too many other errors and REALLY needs a good cleanup by someone with good grammar.
  • Praieira revolt - This article needs cleanup. Needs more context and details. It's badly in need of sourcing and a general reorginaziation of the info. It reads like a philisophical essay rather than an article and is light on any real meat. --Lendorien 00:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 05, 2007

  • Cleaned up grammer a little, but I didn't want to touch it much because I know nothing on the subject. --postofficebox

March 04, 2007

  • Ranger's Apprentice - Requires checking of detail, an info bar, a table of contents, locations, cleanup of messy character section, and better summary of the books.
  • Biotechnology - Needs a cleanup of the formatting and on the info. It is currently too messy and hard to retrieve information from...
  • Jarboe - Has too few references to other pages and discography needs a major cleanup, in compliance to the standard way of mentioning a huge list of albums.
  • Europa-Park - Added the Infobox, but will not format properly. Can somebody take a look and help out? Also the article is in need of some general reformatting to make it easier to read. Poeloq 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paleo-Paganism - One-sided information on a concept that seems redundant and invented by a single author and lacking academic consensus. The originator of the article resists any editing or labelling, as shown in the Talk page. See also Meso-Paganism. -- jofframes 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was meant to be on this project page, apparently wasn't added; so, I've updated the tag, and yes, it is in dire need of cleaning-up, what with all this POV statements, untruths, and whatnot being edited into the article. --Qwerty (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 02, 2007

March 01, 2007

February 2007

February 28, 2007

February 27, 2007

  • I did a lot of copyediting and rewording for clarity, and removed some redundant text. However, this still needs a look from someone familiar with the topic. --DoorsAjar 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 26, 2007

  • MonoDevelop - The article's text seems to be lifted directly off the MonoDevelop website. Someone who is familiar with the software should probably clean it up. (I left a message on the talk page weeks ago, but no one noticed. I'm not using MonoDevelop so I really don't know anything about it.)Ubuntu Dude 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roman Catholic Diocese of Bergamo - Copying this from another article description below: "Numerous style, spelling and grammar issues; would benefit from a complete rewrite." Difficult to extract meaning from the many sentence fragments. This probably requires someone familiar with the subject in order to understand what's going on. -Cue the Strings 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Libertà condizionata - Same as above. Both articles were created by the same user, and are plagued with basic structural problems. Appears to be talking about the parole system in Italy - someone with knowledge of that would have an easier time cleaning this up. -Cue the Strings 17:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 24, 2007

February 23, 2007

February 22, 2007

  • Aviv Geffen This article contains a lot of information not relevant to an encyclopedia. Numerous style, spelling and grammar issues; would benefit from a complete rewrite.
  • Rupert Lowe This article has a lot of information, but it is poorly structured. The tone is too conversational and there are numerous uncited POV assertions.+
  • The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock - i put in a cleanup-remainder tag about halfway through the article. The first half of the article is good, but the second half needs a grammar, spelling, and style check, along with wikification. - Im.a.lumberjack 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 21, 2007

February 20, 2007

  • RMI-IIOP It assumes too much background knowledge. It has no general discussion about what this protocol is, what various forms it takes, what it's used for, it's history, etc. I already know a little bit about them and use them but came here to learn something more and went away without the info I was looking for. Dougher 04:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Web crawler - This page appears to have been purposefully defamed. AarrowOM 15:49, 20 February 2007
  • Geophagy - The proposed merger with Geophagia would help, but the main problems with this article remain: screwy formatting and wikification, and an over-emphasis on cultural issues at the expense of medical content.
  • Ramush Haradinaj has quite a lot of pov issues. The article reads like a glorification of his (removed quote from the article) "calming and authoritative presence", with perhaps a hint of myth-making. The article needs a lot of citations to boot. AecisBrievenbus 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 19, 2007

February 18, 2007

  • Muv-Luv - This article is written in a very confusing way. The character information appears to be the central feature rather than the main story itself. Aparently, the information came from a japanese source, so it needs a cleanup to meet up the standards of an article written in english. Thank you, Minako-Chan* 14:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 17, 2007

February 16, 2007

February 15, 2007

February 14, 2007

February 13, 2007

  • Wham! - Needs grammar, punctuation, complete sentence help, as well as sources.

February 12, 2007

hOtt sex

February 11, 2007

February 10, 2007

  • Parlour music - I'm not sure this should be cleaned instead of deleted, but it has a source. It's very hard to understand even for music-knowledgeable people, and seems to be one guy's opinion, who has a single line stub for an article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marques Houston - Poorly written in terms of the English, and just doesn't read like an encyclopedic article. First section looks like an overview, and just generally looks untidy. Also not inparticularly thorough and has some formatting issues. Also uses the term "sophomore" a lot which I think is outlawed by the Manual of Style (due to it not being used outside of the US and Canada). Esteffect 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 09, 2007

  • Frank Stanford - Article has no headings and needs citations and references. -Cavykatie

February 08, 2007

February 06, 2007

  • Dennis Gabor - article is disjoint, repetitious, and has a single multiply-referenced source. algocu 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

February 05, 2007

  • Senate is done. House list still needs to be checked.

February 04, 2007

February 03, 2007

February 02, 2007

February 01, 2007

  • Iran - The article is very long. Confusing. Many parts of it have useless information. The history section goes too much into precision for present time and talks about current events (which are not suppose to be there). Need removing many paragraphs ans adding some. And user:Cyrus111 is making it even worst. It's a whole mess. --Arad 01:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Zealand local body elections 2004 - has a list of the winner of one mayoral election, and one ward result, and the rest is a list of councils. - Kripto 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sylvia Browne - Completely biased, no neutral POV. Disorganized. Looks like propaganda rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • Scientology series information box links to doctrine are innaccessible, despite appearing blue. Also, obviously discussion page is frequently altered. Clearly, there will be possible legal implications they will pursue if you try to limit editing to registered users, but a separate page containing possible complaints about their general practice on wikipedia could be maintained, and I don't see how they could forward legal objections. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.239.145 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2007

January 31, 2007

January 30, 2007

  • Health care in Canada - The article is very difficult to follow, with grammar errors all over the place. Also, the page suffers from numerous instances of suspicious phrasing, which may or may not be POV. An example of such is the phrase "simple economics dictates that doctors within the system benefit from a shortage of supply of doctors. Therefore the payment system to doctors benefits from a doctor shortage". Whether this is true or not, I cannot check; there is no source for the claim. King Zeal 06:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garcia de Nodal expedition - Tagged for cleanup due to: run-on sentences; awkward wording; inconsistent capitalization; needs more references. --TRosenbaum 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iberian Lynx - Tagged for cleanup and spell check. There are many spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and in some sections, poor style. There are no sources cited and I have found some subjective comments. This article deserves better. --Francisco Valverde 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 29, 2007

January 28, 2007

January 26, 2007

January 25, 2007

  • Los Angeles News Service - Article needs to be rewritten in a more consise style, with headings and proper sourcing. I've made some attempt to clean it up. There's some personal info in there about the founders. Not sure it's appropriate for the article, but the founder's article was merged with this one some time back. --Lendorien 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filter (oil) - Article needs to be cleaned up in formatting and word usage.
  • Mystic projection - Seems to be written from premise that everything described (assorted out of body experiences) are true; popular/folk history is treated as true; historical sources are taken out of context/misundersood (e.g. Jewish mystical texts).````ykahn

January 24, 2007

  • Romance novel - This article is a little confusing - it has no introduction and kind of just jumps into some bulleted points. I'd clean it up myself but I'm not really qualified to write a good introduction to an established article in this area CredoFromStart 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bat Boy: The Musical - This article is ridiculously convoluted in its Synopsis section. It jumps in an incredibly confusing and distracting way, and in certain regions it plagiarizes directly from the blurb of the book. And frankly, being an ex-actor in this musical, I frankly don't think I'm objective enough to rewrite this. Also, might want to keep an eye on the Controversy and External Links -- far too many high schools have been advertising in there. Ryoji.kun 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 23, 2007

January 22, 2007

  • Green Politics - needs a complete makeover
  • Allu Arjun - needs almost complete rewrite - reads like a vanity article at this time. VirtualSteve 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rose (onomastics) - a complete mess, which is supposed to "disambiguate" hundreds of family and place-names derived from "rose"; some of it is in German; some in Polish; it contains redlinks by the hundred. Can it be made useful? The page was begun by a user who is now indefinitely blocked, so they won't be sorting it out soon. Will anyone else want to, or should it be deleted? SiGarb | Talk 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears to be consistent in its structure with other articles within onomastics category. I think it could be cut down to size a little bit, but what to take out? Should the article be just of places/names called Rose? Other articles have "incorporating root" sections, so it's a hard call imo. EvokeNZ 12:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 21, 2007

  • Red Baron 3D Community - It's a long article with quite a bit of POV issues, lots and lots of original research and a lot of the use of the personal pronoun I. I think there's a kernal for a good article there since the Red Baron community has been extraordinarily active, but this article definitely needs help. Unfortunately, I don't know where to start. -- Lendorien 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hazing-Structure is highly erratic, at times appears to speak only of US Fraternity hazing, at times not. If the list of hazing rituals is retained, then there ought to be caveats explaining which cultural milieus they pertain to. The thing deserves to be a scholarly treatment and isn't there yet. -- Duke Leto 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comet (passenger car) — Format is highly unlike encyclopedic content; article reads like a school essay. Tone is highly informal; language is imprecise; descriptors of varieties of names for railcars cited in article are incomplete and sometimes misapplied.
  • Cyber-bullying - Badly in need of overhaul in every sense. Needs more valid, verifiable information. Lacks citations, what citations it has relate to single source, which, while valid enough, risks POV. -- Zeraeph 13:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Akkari-Laban dossier - mostly just a very long translation, perhaps a copyvio too? -- SLi 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muraqabah - Doesn't use sections, is a guide on meditating or something (possibly shouldn't be in Wikipedia?), I'm not also sure this is WP:N. Maybe someone should nominate it for deletion, but at the very least it needs substantial work. --SLi 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 19, 2007

January 18, 2007

January 17, 2007

January 16, 2007

January 14, 2007

January 12, 2007

January 11, 2007

January 10, 2007

  • Gordon Lish needs major wikifying for redirect loops and superfluous hyperlinks. Fannish tone suggests notability and refs need checking, and WP:COI issues could be a problem.


January 08, 2007

January 05, 2007

January 04, 2007

  • List of internet beggars - links to pages of varying notability that all ask for money and as such could be considered spam. Also a lot of comments based on personal opinion.
  • Cleaned up considerably, but needs to cite sources still. Could this be changed to "Internet Beggars"?

January 03, 2007

  • Yellow Pages - other countries and regions section needs to be cleaned up re. URLs, layout and general content.

January 02, 2007

January 01, 2007

  • Zygosity - A mess. jkhjkSomeone has combined three reasonable articles into one strange amalgam, using copy & paste rather than merging histories. This needs someone to right the wrongs who also knows enough of the science to know what they're doing. --Grutness...wha? 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooperative and others (many here, notably Co-operative economics and Co-operative Federalism/Cooperative federalism mess) - Mixed usage in text within most of those articles (cooperative versus co-operative) and mixed usage between articles makes for confusing in-text links. This would require someone with admin powers to complete some of the needed moves, but otherwise it just needs someone with a lot of time to comb through and correct the spellings to how the article is titled. Gave me a migraine. Buona fortuna! --Rkitko 08:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirrhosis has way too much technical jargon in it to be understandable. Perhaps someone with some knowledge on the subject could make it easier to understand?
  • Appears to have had some improving and has the cleanup tag removed. It still reads like a medical dictionary in spots, especially in the Causes section. Words are used that are too complex for the layman with no explanation. Still needs attention. --Lendorien 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006

December 2006

  • I touched up the encyclopedic tone of the article, but it's still not what I'd call satisfactory. In my opinion, it needs more information, more references, and more relevance. --edi 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made style changes to be more consistent with the other sections of the MN Vikings article, but it's my first edit of a WP site, so please feel free to provide feedback.

Carbunar,John Mathis, MihutM have been editing it, so a cleanup is certainly in order. Furthermore, the article has too many references, it litters the text, very many of them in Romanian with no translation, some of them quoting obscure little publications, (whether they are reputable or not is hard to assess), and uses as references unknown people as great experts on the subject. Stefanp and his sock puppets have also edited King Michael of Romania's page in a similar way. The arguments on the Talk pages of both articles are illustrations of what I am writing here.[1]Marina C (2) 13:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

Done my part Dilane 05:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Multi-agent_system - The article lacks a general description. There should be a long general description of MAS, and a short concrete example (not the other way round, as it is now) --JFromm 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persepolis - A lot of good info here on one of the ancient world's most important cities, but it reads like it was written by someone who spoke a primary language other than English. The introduction is strong, but then it goes downhill. Lots of grammar and punctuation issues and some really weird syntax. Also, zero references. Dppowell 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some copyediting. Still has issues that I can't fix, mostly due to lack of familiarity with the subject and the fact that it was probably written by someone with English as a 2nd Language. I'm not familiar with the subject so someone else more familiar with ancient persia probably needs to look it over. Also, it needs citations desperately. There's a good start on a solid article here, but it needs more work.--Lendorien 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the infobox lists only his former teams, so naturally the current team is excluded. Nothing wrong with that. And I don't get what you are talking about the bathroom award, since it sounds like vandalism to me. Vic226(chat) 10:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of Cuba - Cuban Rebels section has seemingly random information, and needs fluidity. Its kind of a mess, really. G.bargsnaffle 19:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chinese language - Many sections are disorganised and do not conform to the language template recommended by the Wikiproject of Languages. Also, subsections are misplaced, such as loanwords, which shouldn't be listed under morphology and the content is quite difficult to read. Another discrepany is when you search for Sinitic languages, it redirects you to the Spoken Chinese entry; however, when you type Chinese languages, it brings you to Chinese language. The section on Chinese characters is still unnecessarily long even though there is already a detailed article on Chinese characters. And the whole entry is just too long, it is 57kb in size, some of the clumsier sections should be rewritten for sub-articles. I do not understand how this article managed to become a featured article before, or maybe it was much better. Please contact me if anyone would like to work together on this Shingrila 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alice Academy - Information on the article, mostly on the characters are very confusing... -210.213.159.187
  • Aureal Semiconductor - Minor punctuation, typo, and grammar issues. At least one "editing comment" appears in the body. Structure could use a cleanup. --Dan Hendricks 02:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xine - Needs references for the "DVD Issues" section.
  • Forest_School,_Horsham - indiscrimate and redundant listing of everything associated with the school 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Edith Pringle: Aussie pol activist -- PoV pervades article, largely via activist jargon, e.g. "rights" and "progressive" reflect how i'd describe her goals to my allies, but you might use "privileges" and "radical" instead. Excessive use of hdgs suggests desire to shout, perhaps in order to exaggerate significance of her details.
    --Jerzy•t 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the slightest change of two or three words (not "progressive" and "rights", though.) this will be a slightly less toned article. It seems fairly factual and straightforward, though. Editing now.Resonanteye
  • Rashied Ali - Currently a mess of unsourced, unformatted articles, including one in French (???). I didn't want to revert back to a stub, and I suspect there may some useful information in there, but I don't have time to read through a dozen pages to find it.
  • This article needs to be worked on. It lacks formal tone, has none of the normal information for inclusion in a game article and needs sourcing. I'll be coming back to this in a couple days, but others are welcome to give it a crack. --Lendorien 08:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is way too technical for the layman to understand. One expert in the field even says on the talk page that reading it makes his eyes glaze over. Article (especially in the introduction) needs to be rewritten to make it more accessable to the layman. No-one but major computer geeks will ever really know what the heck it's talking about as it currently stands. I can't help here because I'm one of the laymen.--Lendorien 23:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Risa_Kudo appears to have been machine-translated from Japanese. I started to clean up the grammar but some sentences are gibberish. Needs someone who can read the Japanese original so that the resulting fixes are meaningful. --Wintersweet 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately needs a Japanese speaker to look over. It's got to be the result of Machine translation. The language is terrible. Quote: "The elder brother 1 year old 8 years old above the top is born at the 3200 g weight as the youngest child （ the first daughter ） of three elder brother younger sisters who are. At first, saying " red " （ the Beni）, it tried to put but the parents named a name " Risa " out of the candidacy with the being of some in the first son voice." In other words, it's incomprehensible. I've added translation and cleanup tags as well as list it to Wikiproject Japan for cleanup. --Lendorien 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article now consists of her entire filmography lifted from IMDB. As it is, the article is a stub, with almost no biographical information and about 50 to 70 film listings. It should be trimmed to only her more notable roles. --Lendorien 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a few things here and there in this article. I moved the sections around to try and create a more normal flow as well as fit the format of the normal biographical article. Much of the quoting done in this article needs to be done away with and merged into encyclopedic content. I think it would be wise too, to try and find more sources. The same two sources are quoted repeatedly for almost the entire article. --Lendorien 09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sport in Canada - Information just thrown together. It has some good information but needs a bit of rewritting.
  • Origins of Santa Claus - This article seems to need cleanup for several reasons. See its discussion page for more information.
  • Contemporary Art - although listed as a "project" this article has not been improved recently, it is still poorly organized, lacks any citations, is missing much essential information, and has a glut of irrelevant details. This is a true shame, as this is a topic on which many people have expert opinions.
  • Still is suffering from some issues. There's a section floating out there that seems not to have any relevance tot he subject matter. Otherwise, the article would probably be ok, if short. --Lendorien 18:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category of being - As a major topic in metaphysics, perhaps the biggest, it strikes me how poor this page is. It is clearly a mish-mash of different writers using inconsistent terminology (the poor quality is even reflected in the article's title: the article is called "category of being," even though the bolded word in the opening sentence is "categories of being." Before I added it, searching for "ontological scheme" did not even redirect there. I think an expert should rewrite the whole thing, starting off by giving the goal (to create a minimal, exhaustive, and exclusive list of all the fundamental kinds (no universal negative categories, or disjunctive categories) of things that exist) - i.e. a category has to "earn" a place on the list by proving itself to be irreducible to other categories, or capable of being eliminated entirely. In the second part, s/he should then list the categories that have been argued to exist (be generous in this part, since reductive/eliminative arguments will come next). And in the third part, s/he should discuss arguments for/against certain categories e.g. Hume argued that space and time don't "deserve" a category on the list because they are only constructs of the human mind.
  • Mechanics lien - This article could use some section headings to differentiate the subject matter of each paragraph.

October 2006

  • hard to know where to begin on this one. The article is huge, but it's not set up like a normal religious denomination article. The language in it needs to be cleaned up as it's very POV and non-encyclopaedic. It also needs reorganization and perhaps some culling. -- Lendorien 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworked the entire article, trying to give it NPOV, remove unnecessary information, make it encyclopedic, rearrange to a more logical order, add a few links, and just generally polish up the writing. I'd love for someone else to have a look and see what I've missed; I think after it goes past a few sets of eyes it might actually be a decent article. Most importantly, it still needs several citations (some places tagged, some not). -- edi 07:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to know what this entry is referring to. Took a look. ERA is a disambig page now. Seems ok. Era still has cleanup tag and probably could use some working over. --Lendorien 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is pretty clean now. It no longer has any refs to the company, reads wella nd looks good. Just needs sources. I put the Business and economic wikiproject tag on the talk page so hopefully someone fromt here will stumble on it eventually. --Lendorien 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Podiatrist Introduction is not bad, but the rest of the article needs a lot of work. The sections for the various countries are particularly hard to follow and repetitive, and have no wiki markup. The list of conditions(?) also seems unnecessary, although some items could be incorporated into a more informative section on the work of a Podiatrist. I also get the feeling, from many parts of the article, that the text has just been copied from another source. —anskas 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issues remain outstanding. The article is still in need of editing and wikifying. It seems to jump around a bit and doesn't flow very well at all. I would do it myself, but I don't feel comfortable with my lack of knowledge of the subject. --Lendorien 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to solve this. there are a lot of experiments that are listed that do not have entries behind them. Perhaps it could be culled down to notable or seen on screen experiments? Either way, there seems to be a lot of discussion going on currently int he talk page about this issue, so maybe it'll soon be resolved. --Lendorien 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Globalization - it seriously harms the information in the article.
  • Futures exchange - is extremely confusing; I've taken macroeconomics (and garnered a 4.0, harrumph), always read the newspaper, and was totally confused about this article. It needs a good one-over by an economist.
  • There is a general need for cleanup on this article. As it stands right now it needs heavy reoranization to make the information flow more coherantly. I've changed some headings and moved information around, but it needs a second look. The article seems to contain link spam as the list of links at the bottom seems overly large and has no descriptions as to what they refer to or why they are significant. Article also needs sourcing. Would someone with some background give it a look over? --Lendorien 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given it a bit of an overhaul: cleaned up weak writing, tightened the language to be more encyclopedic, rearranged to provide more logical flow, removed some irrelevant and redundant material, fixed a couple of links, etc. However, it still needs work, most desperately with links and references. There are only a few actual tags, but there is lots of unsupported information that needs to have references cited. Also the list of external links is completely ridiculous and needs desperately to be culled. And finally, I'm still getting a handle on Wikipedia's preferred formatting (section headings, etc) so that probably needs to be touched up as well. I may be back after I cleanse my mental palate, but for now I've done all I can with it. --edi 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requires rewritting Rajrajmarley 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Igarassu - has been tagged for cleanup since November 17, 2005. It still needs a lot of work, so I'm bringing it up here, so that someone who knows the city may have a go at cleaning this up. I'm too naive. 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done significant editing to give it better context based on info from other articles and what little I've been able to glean fromt he net. I think it works better now, though it still needs sources. --Lendorien 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inocente de Ti - looks like copyvio. Not encyclopedic. Very long plot synopsis, long list of credits and very badly formatted. Mona-Lynn 06:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harry Baron(60-something Israeli sculptor) - wikify; prosify; rescale photos; probable self promotion, so check notability; format reeks of being prepared for another medium, so do further copyvio checks.Jerzy•t
  • This article needs help. I worked on prosing out the list in the first section and added an artist infobox. The artist style section is full of buzzwords and makes little sense. It reads like something from a resume. Sources needed as well as more details to make it worth anything. --Lendorien 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • José Rizal(Philippine nationalist activist, writer, martyr) - de-PoV, esp. de-hagiographify; condense or split; state early and clearly what his notability is, beyond the (non-verified (and AFAI could stand to read, inexplicable) worship of him by Ph. or Malay nationalists.Jerzy•t
  • This article has been extensively edited since it was placed here. The issues may have been resolved, but it's hard to tell. See talk page for details. --Lendorien 02:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006

  • I have attempted to do some cleanup work on this. It needs to be pared down drastically, but I've never read the book so I don't feel comfortable editing anything out or writing a new synopsis. I added categories and the novel infobox and did a bit of organizational edting, but it still needs loads of work. --Lendorien 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Communication - Very poorly written, and may need expert attention on the subject.
  • There appears to be active discussion on this subject, but they lack guidance of how to organize the article. I think it would really help if someone knowledgable in general article organization could step in and offer advice. --Lendorien 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some editing and culling of sections in the article. See talk page for details. A lot of the content was very vague and completely unreferenced. It still needs sources. --Lendorien 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rights of Man The article is extremely cluttered and lacking of any sources. It could be divided into subsections and some parts removed or merged into other wikipedia articles.
A little better than it was orginally, but it still needs some work to make it more coherant. The various sections do not segway into one another very well. I would work on it, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. --Lendorien 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magnetic moment - There's a problem here and elsewhere with "magnetic poles," which are discussed as if they were magnetic monopoles. The magnetic moment is first defined as the pole strength times the separation. The correct definition (current times area) is given later in the article, but the earlier reference to poles is both confusing and wrong. The initial discussion of diamagnetism on this page is also confusing. --Bjheiden, 11:25 PM (EDT), 13 September 2006
  • Egyptian burial - Poor grammar in several sections, and the section on The Indestructibles completely neglects the precession of the equinoxes, although the full article on the indestructibles is a bit more informative.
  • have tried the obvious grammar/spelling/undisclosed conspiracy theories, but needs the attention of an Egyptologist (amateur or otherwise) to be truly cleaned. --Callix 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006

  • John Stafford (US politician)(born abt 1940, military lawyer)- No sense, no chrono flow, excessive admiration, PoV about how he almost stopped Vietnam War & unverifiable & PoV "faithful Catholic". Continue wikification.Jerzy•t
  • Much cleanup has been done since first posted. I did some more wiki work, npov work here and there, as well as sourced a couple items. It still needs sourcing overall. Implementing an infobox would be good too, but I'm not sure of which one to use. --Lendorien 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't seen the movie myself, but part of the problem is the movie has a very weak storyline that serves as a vehicle for various gags. I'm not sure how to edit this without more or less cutting most of it out completely. Help? --Lendorien 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article smacks of having original research. There are a lot of subjective comments in it(Especially in Exploring Fantasy of Love, Spring and Island) that need to be weeded out. Also, the introduction needs to be expanded to include a very brief overview of what the series covers. The quote at the beginning should probably be removed as well as using it as an intro is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I'd do it, but I'm lazy right now. :D --Lendorien 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006

  • Vril - The article Unencyclopedic, messy, confusing.
  • Article has spelling and grammar issues, confusing, lack of context, uses lots of big words that explain little and just generally needs help. Needs someone whith knowledge of the subject to look it over. It currently has 8 tags on it. Ouch. --Lendorien 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polish Catholic Church - The article appears to be a machine assisted translation of the Polish Wikipedia page, and need significant attention from someone who speaks the lanugage, or is aware of its context.
  • This page was definately pulled from the Polish page. I've done what I can to fix the intro and make sense of things, but most of the page is a mess beyond a non-expert or non-polish speaker's help. Does anyone know any polish speakers we could ask who could go through it and fix the translation? As it stands it's utterly incoherant. --Lendorien 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Polish wikipedian helped out here on February 25th, 2007 and did some translation. I normalized his translation a bit. He did not do all of the text, but a significant part was taken care of. Some additional translation of the portions near the end after the fall of communism would be useful to round out the article as it currently ends in 1951. --Lendorien 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomad - This entry gives the impression that nomadism and pastoralism are the same thing. Pastoralism or animal husbandry is a subsistence method, and nomadism is not, although the term is sometimes used as shorthand for pastoralism. However, any society which does not remain sedentary for a significant length of time is considered nomadic. This includes most hunter-gatherers, but the entry makes no indication of this. Also there is no logical organization of the information that is presented. An expert's contribution would be best.--LC | Talk 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2006

  • Banasthali Vidyapith - Marking as an article which reads like an advertisement, particularly since it is -- it's based (with apparent permission) off the school's promotional brochure. Also, it has no links and is missing much of the standard information (like quality information on academic programs) one would expect from a university article. Likely needs someone from India or who is personally familiar with the institution to tackle it. - Beginning 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some more clean-up, editing to the intro and minor formatting. The article has been rewritten, but now it consists mostly of regimental unit lists that are longer than the short article itself. Not sure how to fix this, but I'd suggest cutting out the regimental stuff completely. --Lendorien 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lalitaditya Muktapida - This article needs just some general editing (i.e. correction of spelling/grammatical errors) and also perhaps more research (Only one page out of one history book is cited).
  • Apparently this has had some editing to improve it, but it's not entirely thematically coherant at the moment. It needs to be reviewed by someone with a background in the subject to straighten things out. --Lendorien 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005

October 2005

  • I will sort this out, I think there is a lot of good explanatory information here for people who don't know the word, but it's all in the wrong order and looks like the author was just trying to be funny rather than informative. --KJV 15:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The List of firearms really needs to be cleaned up.There are double names,unright names,missing names and absolutely no order.
  • Puer and Senex have virtually no information, and don't even really make sense. Herzliyya 04:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaissance Classicism is confused and anachronistic in the discussion of visual art. The article needs to be broadened to encompass literary and philosophical forms. (Stamboultrain 19:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Ardour - apart from the fact that a user looking for Ardour might reasonably expect to find an article about Passion, parts of this read like an advert, with use of personal pronouns.... "Even so, we believe that in time, Ardour's editing capabilities will become the new standard for DAWs. Within the edit window, you can adjust everything about your session and its timeline layout.... Edit automation data in their own tracks. Unlimited undo/redo should encourage you to try out your ideas without fear"....TheMadBaron 23:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unitarian Democratic Coalition I have marked this page for cleanup because of the gap between the "Electoral scores achieved by CDU" header and the actual table marking the election results. My knowledge of wikicode isn't good enough to fix this. Can a lovely individual offer her or his assistence? It could also probably do with a bit of an expansion too, but I don't know enough about the coalition. aliceinlampyland 19:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virial theorem I came to this from supernova. No doubt it makes sense to mathematicians - but a one-sentence explanation of what it is used for/context placement etc might be useful to the rest of us. The few other mathematical-symbol-heavy entries I have come across would benefit from a similar improvement. (They may be technicalities, but can usually be given a brief clarification suitable for those not involved. "This is used in describing how one liquid flows through another", "... how the various components of a supernova travel as it explodes." etc.) - What they said, but i'm pretty sure neither sample language is headed the right direction. Good task for someone who's already been wanting to read up on thermodynamics.
  • I've done a little work to make the article more encyclopedic, to add a little more information, and to correct one inaccuracy. I think it's pretty decent, but would welcome other eyes to have a look before I completely remove it from the cleanup queue. --edi 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 18 months since the above comment, many people have worked on this clearly very important article. On a quick read, it looks to me now broadly OK, though one could always quibble with the relative proportions of space devoted to different aspects. If any experienced editor agrees with me, I suggest this entry could now be removed from this page. Woblosch 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suwannaphum needs to be NPOV'ed ("highly conjectural", "responsible modern scholarship", "attempts ... flounders on the simple fact that", "if the myth were true") by someone who knows the subject. This article also borders on original research. Aecis 11:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many radio stations contributed by an anon user that need to be cleaned up. Currently, he is contributing to radio stations in Chicago, and among his works include: WSCR, WIND, WLEY, WKSC, WKQX, WCKG, WADO, WWDJ, WWRV, WZRC, WNSW, WKDM, WSCR, WMVP, and others that I listed in cleanup from October 2005. He has also worked on other existing Chicago radio articles and has also made his presence felt with L.A., Philly, and NYC radio station articles (most of the NYC articles are cleaned up). Please be aware of his style as I assume that he'll probably work on other cities soon. If anyone has an update on his doings, or for further discussion and an overview on what he's done, I have set up a subpage at [4]. -- ErikNY 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haifa - English could be improved, transportation section is too detailed - maybe deserves its own article, academic institution could be better ... etc. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the right place for such a debate, but for info I have merged the final and first paragraphs to make it clear that both terms are used (and there is a redirect from one page to the other so the page name is not very important). Andreww 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy g biographical article created by what seems to be a new user. Article contained an email address to reach the person at the end, which I deleted. Wikipedia's being sluggish for me today, not sure if it's my internet connection or the server, so editing is difficult. Rest of article could use some additional cleanup. --Seanorthwest 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pallava: Organization is poor. English is muddled. There seems to be some original research mixed in there, although that might just be an artifact of poor composition. Probably needs a solid fact-check. Justin Bacon 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filippino Lippi: (Renaissance painter) it's my first true article, mainly translation of the Italian one. I'm not English mother-language, so maybe it needs also some style adjustments.
  • Stuart Bowen: general -(US Insp'r Gen'l in Iraq).Jerzy•t +removed struck thru sent!Jerzy•t
  • Nick Blinko: (UK rocker) PoV, wikify, keep focused, cnv Amazon template to ISBN one.Jerzy•t
  • William Wilbanks: probably not an AfD but rather reflection neglect of his notability from hostile PoV; cop-ed.Jerzy•t

September 2005

  • As far as I can tell, "Patriarch of All Romania" is a title, but this article seems to be just about the present incumbent. I suggest renaming this article after the name of the person in question (if anyone can work out what it is). If there is sufficient info then the "Patriarch of all Romania" article could remain to describe the post in general, but this might be unnecessary as there is already an article "Romanian Orthodox Church" where such info could very well go (for example, there is already a list of patriarchs). I would do this but I am so ignorant of the subject it would be better for someone else to do it! - Matt
  • I don't see why this is a "cleanup" request. It should be a "someone please write an article about this" request if there is such a thing. - Matt
    • In case there was another article on the subject and "two minutes left in the library session" (g). Will put it on a more appropriate list. JS
  • I question the value of this article as it stands at the moment. - Matt
  • Cecilia Gallerani- Very poorly written with little information and POV. 13:27, 27 Semptember 2005 (UTC)
  • This article didn't look too bad to me. I have reorganised it a bit, and added some new headings and stuff. The "countries with Burger King restaurants" section seems a little OTT, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with it. Someone who better understands Wikipedia's arcane formatting syntax could possibly lay it out it a little better so it doesn't take up such a huge amount of space. - Matt
  • I took a stab at this and got partway through 'food' and couldn't do any more. I might be able to give it a look later, but it's giving me a headache. Hopefully I didn't do more harm than help. BCampbell 15:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm doing a little here and there, this is one huge mass of text. I added ToC tags to the sectionlabels, hopefully that will make cleanup a little easier. I also bulleted the references and wikified the links there. Still needs a ton of work, including (IMHO) some reorganization and trimming. I'll keep doing small bits as I can. KillerChihuahua 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "History/Major Events" alone section is 57 kB, and clearly needs further subdivision. There's nothing wrong with using the multilevel capability of our hdg system: putting
  • I concur. The section titles were already there, but w/out the ='s. I just added the ='s in order to chunk the article into more manageable segments. I have limited time for editing and tend to do little bits as I find time. Hopefully this will help encourage others to trim and edit also, as the chunks are less intimidating than the whole mess. I see TheMadBaron has already started on "food." As I said earlier, the article IMHO needs massive trimming and a re-org. I just cannot spend the time necessary to do this all at once. It looks like most of the edits so far have been minor trimming, wikifying, grammatical corrections. This one is going to take a lot of work to get to manageable size, and I have no problem with that happening in small doses. KillerChihuahua 12:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree that this article needs "massive trimming" (unless, I suppose, it was already trimmed before I looked at it). Anyway, almost all of the content in place now seems very worthwhile, with little repetition or unnecessary waffle. The main thing it needs is some attention to English in places, a little bit of reorganisation in places, and something to break up the great wodges of text and make it less formidable to the reader. I did a bit on the organisation/formatting front - added some more subheadings and stuff. - Matt 29-Sep-05
  • I am getting nervous about potential copyright issues with some of this material. See Comanche talk page.
  • Made a start on this. See "Landscape" talk page for explanation.
  • I've expanded the article and made edits based on Jerzy's stylistic comments. Yes, he's my grandfather. However, I think he is also clearly far, far above WP's threshold for notability.--Bcrowell 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've deleted the cleanup tag. In my opinion, the article was never in need of a cleanup in the first place, but I've tried to make the kinds of style changes requested by Jerzy. Jerzy has also raised questions about notability; if I haven't satisfied him on that point, then he could initiate an afd process.--Bcrowell 20:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had a go at this, and removed cleanup tag.
  • I took a stab at this, reformatting the features under a "gameplay" heading and rewriting. It could use another look, some more information, and some external links -- the one there was to a review on an obscure website. Couldn't find an official Mario Party site. BCampbell 15:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finished cleaning and merging the disparate parts with egg (food) and made it parallel with structure of egg white. reordered and changed headings in all three pages. Added food stubs Snafflekid 09:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically wouldn't it have been more proper to slap a copyvio notice over it? I suppose it's ok now since it's been totally rewritten, but the old article consisted of nothing but one sentence that outright listed the copyright it was violating. If that doesn't call for a copyvio notice, I don't know what does. Aquillion 07:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muse (band) - Needs a HEAVY copy-edit, I've taken a quick look at it but couldn't finish! All information seems accurate and while there are grammatical faults it's the style that really seems to be in need of redress. Jezze 22:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • House of Terror. Looks like significant portions of it were copied from [7], if not the whole thing. It reads more like a brochure, and the inclusion of prices and operating hours only makes that worse. Al 19:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Matt.berlin has done some significant work on this article, and I've touched up the wording just a bit and added one citation tag (it could probably use more of those). It seems reasonably decent to me now, but I'd feel a lot better if someone with more knowledge of the subject... and an impartial viewpoint... could have a look at it. --edi 04:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toa - General low quality of writing. I've worked a bit on the article, but I don't know enough about the show/toys/whatever it is to be qualified to rewrite extensively. RSpeer 01:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Durka I don't even know if this article should be kept. I need someone with more experience to look at it. -Ravedave 01:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a fair bit of work on it, but there's still a lot to be done. It really requires more of an expert eye than I have since it's pretty specialized information. --edi 04:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simulacrum - Starts with an old defintion, then says there's a new, more popular definition, then talks about a whole bunch of things unrelated to each other only separated by paragraphs (meaning it needs to be divided into subsections and preferably more ordered:). Kreachure 22:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • E number - Needs a far better layout, something like a nice table with more info, at the moment its a not very useful list.--PopUpPirate 16:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Lasso programming language - Terrible formatting, editorial comments. Zoe 08:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maine Coon - Particularly the behavioral section was mostly just the author describing all the silly things their particular cat did, instead of noting traits of the entire breed. I cleaned it up a bit, but more needs to be done to clean up the article, and more factual notes about behavior could stand to be added. Praetorian42 15:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made clear the fictional nature of the character in the lead but the article needs the attention of someone who knows this series. --killing sparrows 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) PS, I left a note on the Star Wars project page. --killing sparrows 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_of_Romania]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cleanup&oldid=124783140"