Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/2018/2

< Wikipedia:Articles for improvement‎ | Nominations‎ | Archives


Halldóra Briem edit

  Halldóra Briem – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 2 daily hits

– Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  • This article has been a stub since its creation. Although I've altered the stub template which was used in it from {{Wikipedia-stub}} to {{Iceland-bio-stub}} and de-orphaned it by making four articles (incl. two lists) have one link to it, I still couldn't expand it because I didn't have sufficient time to find sources and am proficient at neither Icelandic nor Swedish. Hope that Wikipedians who are proficient at these two languages can search for reliable sources and use them to expand it substantially. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - sadly it has way too few hits.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as 2 hits a day is nowhere near enough. Don't nominate the ~3-millionth most important article; nominate one of the top 10,000. Here is a good source for nominations. J947 (c), at 23:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per everyone above - Average of 2 hits a day and some have been going 3 days straight without any views ..... No point wasting our time with an article that never gets the light of day. –Davey2010Talk 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WinHex edit

  WinHex – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 51 daily hits

  • Though very useful in data recovery and digital forensics, this article about a disk and hex editor is still a mere stub.RekishiEJ (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support - per subject that can be expanded.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose; 51 is not enough in my opinion; instead nominate Human behavior as it is one of the top 1000 vital articles and only start-class. J947 (c), at 23:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Again like the Qubit field theory nom very specific article that would only interest those with a vast knowledge with pcs. –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen cuisine edit

  Chechen cuisine – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 23 daily hits

  • A definitely important article which is still a mere stub.RekishiEJ (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support - We always improve these sorts of articles so support. –Davey2010Talk 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fine. Importance is not the best and pageviews are severely lacking but this one source stub just qualifies for me. J947 (c), at 21:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/2018/2/TOC   Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chechnya edit

  History of Chechnya – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 84 daily hits

  • This article contains many sections which either require expansion or are empty. Hope that Wikipedians who study Chechnya can participate in the improvement and make it more comprehensive.RekishiEJ (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC) altered the nomination text a bit, since I don't think that this article can become featured just by becoming this week's article for improvement. 15:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - Doesn't really need any improvements, Adequately sourced and worded. –Davey2010Talk 14:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the article's sections are empty, and it's absolutely important, thus it is somewhat worthy of being today's article for improvement.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Without being disrespectful WP:SOFIXIT, A few empty sections doesn't mean this is the most deserving nomination out of the 8-10 listed here today, As I said the article doesn't really need improving. –Davey2010Talk 15:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose – It has 16,000 bytes of prose. It has 197 references. It has 227 citations in total. It is 150,000 bytes. Just that it has a few empty sections doesn't justify a nomination in my opinion. J947 (c), at 21:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And the pageviews are low as well but I think this is adequately important. J947 (c), at 21:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I have to oppose based on article quality. The article is in good shape. I think that a nom at GOCE is more appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/2018/2/TOC   Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qubit field theory edit

  Qubit field theory – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 3 daily hits

– Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  • Although this article is extremely obscure, according to Jimbo Wales, it should still be expanded substantially, as physicists and students of department of physics may be interested in it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support - per nom. Few hits but the article could really benefit from inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose – Extremely obscure; less than 2 hits a day on average. Also, everything on this encyclopedia should interest many people, and we're not going to nominate every C-class and below article, are we? Nominate some thing meaningful like the second biggest city in Thailand (which is a one reference stub). J947 (c), at 22:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose per J947 - This article would interest those interested in quantum field theory ..... but for those (like myself) who have absolutely no understanding of this topic there wouldn't be any interest at all, Very specific article would probably only be touched by those specific editors/readers. –Davey2010Talk 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose – Right now, as written, much too obscure, but since I believe there is increasing interest in physics (and astronomy), perhaps an editor familiar with the subject could write it so that non-experts could get something from it.  – Corinne (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Oshwah Can you think of an editor who might be interested in improving this article? It is probably not going to be accepted as a Today's article for improvement.  – Corinne (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human behavior edit

  Human behavior – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 709 daily hits

  • A start-class article in Wikipedia:Vital articles which should be improved substantially a.s.a.p.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Sorry, this article is not the only start-class one in WP:VA. 13:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - Article is fine IMHO, Doesn't really need improving. –Davey2010Talk 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Two maintanience tags including a personal essay one and you say that it Doesn't really need improving? I'll support the worst vital article. J947 (c), at 19:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now properly evaluated the article I do have to agree the article does need improving, Support. –Davey2010Talk 21:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - per nom.  – Corinne (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner (TV series) edit

  Prisoner (TV series) – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 404 daily hits

  • C-class article that on review would probably be returned back to Start-class. Needs improvements all over, references, c/e, facts checking, tone, etc. Would benefit from being included in the project.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support - Although the English Wikipedia has been criticized for having systemic bias toward current events and popular culture, this article should still be nominated here as it is both important and problematic. Many of the statements in it are unreferenced.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I unfortunately don't think this meets the criteria for importance or notability from general editors. I think WP:GOCE/REQ may be more useful, or alternatively a peer review; or, if the nominator wants to put some effort in, a good article request will provide some useful feedback. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I agree with Tom (LT). The article seems quite substantial as it is, and could just benefit from a copy-edit at GOCE, some added sources, and then perhaps a GA review.  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of medicine in the United States edit

  History of medicine in the United States – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 63 daily hits

  • This article requires both update and expansion, since it lacks plenty of important facts, e.g. Alice Hamilton's role in making occupational medicine in America as advanced as that in Europe, and medical breakthroughs after WWII. RekishiEJ (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC) added specific examples which I forgot to add before 13:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support - I'm on the fence with this - Part of me thinks the article is fine as is but the other half thinks it could do with some improvements and sourcing. –Davey2010Talk 14:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support mainly per Dave. What broke it for me was the two (!) see also sections. J947 (c), at 21:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – An important topic, and I think the article could be expanded.  – Corinne (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Dagestan edit

  History of Dagestan – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 22 daily hits

  • Actually, this article is not much more detailed than Dagestan#History. Hope that Wikipedians who study Dagestan can participate in the improvement and make it more detailed.RekishiEJ (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC) altered the nomination text a bit, since I don't think that this article can become featured just by becoming this week's article for improvement. 15:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - Could do with some improvements however looking at the Pageviews since it's creation (2011) it's only ever got around 20 odd views a day, On 21 Jan it reached 2,827 views and on the 22 Jan it reached 179 views ..... So what for ever reason there was a huge spike in pageviews and then the next day it died down .... The one day pageview spike IMHO is not a justification for accepting the article here - The page has done poorly when it comes to pageviews so as such being absolutely honest our improvements to the article would be a complete waste of time as it would only be seen by a few people if that. –Davey2010Talk 14:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Davey2010. It seems important but the pageviews just don't show it. J947 (c), at 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – For reasons cited above. However, the article could be expanded by an editor willing to put in the time and effort.  – Corinne (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Programming style edit

  Programming style – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 129 daily hits

  • The article is vital in programming, and the article has essay-like and ref-improve issues.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support - per nom. Could really need the projects help. Quite many hits as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support – An interesting subject, and, if written right, the article could be both interesting and useful for non-experts.  – Corinne (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/2018/2/TOC   Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAA Tourist Attractions of China edit

  AAAAA Tourist Attractions of China – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 38 daily hits

  • I think this one is of broad appeal and importance as it includes all major cultural sights in China. One extra factor that might make this an attractive choice collaboration is the structure of the article. To complete the article, a total of 249 listings need to be filled in according to the table format. This makes the work easily divided. So if 20 editors take responsibility for 8 or so entries, we will be done with the remainder of entries and create one of the best one page resources on cultural destinations for China. Muzzleflash (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support-Intresting, important but a much neglected topic of China — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 10:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - The pageviews have been relatively low, It does need improving but tbh I think there's better articles on here that need our help. –Davey2010Talk 14:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose mainly per Dave. Articles that function mainly as a list are in my opinion not appropriate for being a TAFI. J947 (c), at 21:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support – I think there is a place for good lists. See Wikipedia:Featured lists. Perhaps this list would get more daily hits if it were a more complete list, with more details filled in.  – Corinne (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Comment Since TAFI is organized as a team effort, I think lists are ideal. For this list, short summaries need to be written for 150-200 sites. The work can easily be divided among 20 editors. Muzzleflash (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not approved (automated closure) No further input after 21 days — MusikBot talk 04:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_improvement/Nominations/Archives/2018/2&oldid=989925345"