Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/2016/3

Cetacea edit

Cetacea – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 1046 daily hits

This Level 4 vital article has a "has multiple issues" tag at the top that includes tags saying the article:

Needs copyediting
Needs additional citations for verification.
The Cetacea#Whaling and Cetacea#Antiquity sections each have a tag saying the section "does not cite any sources".
In two sections, the images are placed in such a way as to squeeze text into a narrow column.
Also, it is included in only three categories, which is not many for such a long article.

This is the type of article that will be widely read by many WP readers. For that reason, it should reflect WP's highest standards. Corinne (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (sorry). It's very developed, so unlikely to receive significant improvements from this project. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Northamerica1000s bang on - Seeing as it's a complete (or nearly I guess) article no one's gonna bother "improving" it, if it was a 1 liner I would probably say yeah but anyway as it stands I think accepting this would be a waste of time sorry. –Davey2010^Talk 01:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alba Iulia edit

Alba Iulia – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - ~120 daily hits

I know this article doesn't get many readers, but I still think it's an important enough article that it should be well written and well sourced. There are numerous tags throughout the article. Corinne (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Guessing you were using the old pageviews tool (I think post was made before {{TAFI nom}} was updated). This article gets around 120 per day — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of swearing edit

History of swearing – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - N/A daily hits

WP:NOTCENSORED. Not covered in Profanity at all (that is more about the types of swearing). Also, these sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23][24], [25]. --Coin945 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Coin945: Are you asking us to create a page that does not currently exist? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Of course!! :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women artists edit

Women artists – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 359 daily hits

There has been a tag at the beginning of the article saying "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" since 2011.
Some sections have either no or very few references.
The layout and arrangement of images could be improved. – Corinne (talk) 02:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – the lack of references is appalling. sst✈ 08:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christer Pettersson edit

Christer Pettersson – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - Between 100 to 1000 daily hits

Article is about Olof Palmes (most likely) killer. The article is only a start article and is lacking in sources, and could easily be improved and expanded.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Certainly seems important, and after looking at the Swedish article there's room for expansion. Will there be enough English sources to encourage participation? I wasn't able to find many after my (very) cursory search. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not before than after the 30 year anniversary of the crime in a few days will render several hundreds of new articles about the case in English. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow (28 Feb) it is 30 years since the assassination. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – It looks like there's enough we can use to expand the article: [26] Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Corinne (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – after checking the page views. sst✈ 08:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling edit

Spelling – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 300 daily hits

An important article missing key points. Einstein2 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as it is a REALLY important topic. Very relevant to general public too. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Anybody with the right subscription to one of the 50+ databases in The Wikipedia Library should be able to pitch in with some solid references to clarify this article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture edit

Popular culture – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 1287 daily hits

Level 2 vital article, should be expanded and sourced. sst✈ 08:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per nom. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Absolutely. – Corinne (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Nice find. Anybody with the right subscription to one of the 50+ databases in The Wikipedia Library should be able to pitch in with some solid references to expand this article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bless your heart edit

Bless your heart – (page view stats • edit • talk • history)

A somewhat common but sometimes ambiguous phrase, because it may be used as a term of endearment or a backhanded compliment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (sorry). It's a simple expression, and as such, it may not be of interest to diverse editors and may not receive a week's worth of improvements from project members. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I just find the intersection of language and popular culture interesting, so figured I'd offer the suggestion. I enjoy following this group's activities on the periphery, but I've got really learned how to identify which articles make the best TAFIs. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot ^talk 04:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]