Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Archives/Unsuccessful Nominations/April 2014

Archived April 15th
From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I wouldn't have the technical knowledge to edit this page competently, but this is a very important scientific topic that our encyclopedia should present better. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nominated by Northamerica1000(talk) 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment - Plenty of reliable sources on this very topic, which I think is important in real life, but low traffic makes me hesitate. Any argument to nudge me toward "support"? Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page that is begging to be turned into an article. Coin945 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - As the hatnote says, should be turned into a "broad concept article", though should probably be renamed "Women in religion". Madalibi (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - The number of hits indicates consistent reader interest, and Wikipedia should present more professional info on this kind of topic that has both historical and fictional meanings. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment - Almost said "oppose". More work should probably be done in "What links here" to link to more specific pages rather than this one. I could change my mind if I saw a good argument for support. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Was on WP:5000 because it go 22,000 hits one day and 100,000 hits the next in February. Otherwise gets very little traffic, and applies only to Germany and Japan, so too narrow. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One of 100 level-2 vital articles, but contains only 888 words of text. The tag suggesting we improve it with translation from the corresponding article in the Basque Wikipedia (see eu:Industria) should be a wake-up call. Madalibi (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - C679  07:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Comment - Undeniably important and could use a good clean-up, but it looks well developed already, no? Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * mostly unreferenced, out of sync with its summary in Philosophy of science - organize and flesh out using the two external links -hugeTim (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. A hatnote states that the article is about "an alternative theory of mind power", but that's about all we hear about it. Traffic for the last 3 weeks has stabilized around 350 daily hits after a very high peak of 40,000 hits (?) a few weeks ago, but that peak and the sustained traffic indicates widespread reader interest. Google Books gives plenty of sources that point to several different meanings. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the least fleshed out of the articles on Best Picture winners at the Oscars.--Coin945 (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - For some obscure reason, got 201,007 hits on February 3, but now at about 40-50 a day. Classified as low-importance in two WikiProjects. Seems far too narrow for TAFI. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * --Coin945 (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * --Coin945 (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * --Coin945 (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * --Coin945 (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – Deserves much better.


 * This is one of only 100 level-2 vital articles, but it reads like a jumble of undigested information. The talk page has been dead for more than 2 years. Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Few hits, but this is a level-3 vital article and there is no lede (just two tags: expert) and cleanup), the article is mostly about China, and the section "16th century to 1945" consists of 10 one-line bullet points. Unlike History of Asia, this article is actually about a place that makes sense historically. Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - This pigeon is famous for a single event that is already fairly well described in the article. Not sure how we would develop this. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Interesting and get a good number of hits. It is a C-class article, but most references are to primary sources. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page that is begging to be turned into an article. Coin945 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps made famous by The Hunger Games, but a very important topic that has had a very long history.--Coin945 (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Too China-centered because of the Imperial Chinese tributary system; deserves a broader treatment, both historically and conceptually. Only one comment on the talk page since 2009! Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page that is begging to be turned into an article. Coin945 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Level 4 vital article.--Coin945 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived April 16th

 * Level 4 vital article.--Coin945 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment - Founder of Zara. The hits go down by almost half if you discount two exceptional days. Madalibi (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Level 4 vital article.--Coin945 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment - Seems fairly well developed. Is there anything sorely missing from the article? Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A writer for The Simpsons. His bio has four well-referenced paragraphs, and he is known to be reclusive, so not sure how we would develop this much further. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Well developed already, and would further contribute to Wikipedia's Anglo-Saxon bias. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Needs work. Yours Truly (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived April 21st
From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - A level-4 vital article with good traffic. Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. NorthAmerica1000 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Comment - A level-4 vital article, but it looks quite well developed, no? Madalibi (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. NorthAmerica1000 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * lists need converting to prose, see summary in Philosophy of science for a start - suggest using WP:SS to summarize more specific articles on philosophy of psychology -hugeTim (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support "philosophy" and "psychology". Two words that strike fear into the hearts of many. (Due to the level of comprehension required to understand them). Nevertheless I'm prepared to give this a shot.--Coin945 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Archived April 22nd

 * This article has so refs, and it is poorly formatted and hard to read. There is plenty of potential to improve this article, and to get it more linked and viewed. Horai  551 12:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Not enough traffic ~KvnG 04:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - too niche. C679  20:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Does deserve to be improved, but probably not in the framework of this project, which focuses on articles of more general interest. Madalibi (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - has potential for expansion, and some editors are interested in the topic. NorthAmerica1000 17:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Archived April 28th

 * A UNESCO World Heritage Site connected to the Norse exploration of the Americas, it is the only attested Viking settlement in North America. Lots of unexploited sources online. We could easily turn this into a short "good article". Madalibi (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Listed in 7 WikiProjects, this high traffic "level-4 vital article" is composed of a few short sections and a more fleshed out "Use of the term" section that is still biased toward a few aspects of this rich topic. We need more on history, geopolitics, human migrations, ecology, etc. Madalibi (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Archived April 29th

 * Only a short lede and two short sections for this universally known figure, one of the first works of art created by humanity. Madalibi (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)