Of course, every entry on Wikipedia deserves attention. But some entries deserve tender loving attention.
If you come across a page that you think needs a lot of work, but have no idea how to approach it, list it here so that others can find it.
This page is very similar to the other pages like: Requested articles, Current events. However it is more utilitarian than those pages, being intended for the editorial community alone.
Articles that have good information, but need work for some reason
- Imprecise language - no longer in first person, but still needs work
- Alchemy - a great article, but written in an academic essay style
- poets - not only are the page titles messed up, very possibly the page itself should be redirected to [listing of poets]?
- Joshua A. Norton - a fascinating article, but very scrappy
- Black Sabbath - from the article: and someone else can write 1979 to date
- Homosexuality - the anthropological stuff looks bogus, and what does it have to do with homosexuality? Are they not equally applicable to het relationships?
- Military History - should probably be moved to Military history. Also this article is badly organized, but I don't know how to fix it.
- Asynchronous Transfer Mode - this article is severely bitty and needs editing
- Falklands War - stops on April 2, 1982.
- Wends- general re-write and information needs
- Sigismund I Jagiello -- at present, this is just bad prosopography. Needs an infusion of context and coherence
- Cracow - has a lot of good info, but also has some claims that fall outside the NPOV.
- Symbionese Liberation Army - formation of group is there, and a link to Kathleen Soliah, but the middle is missing
- [Articles from the 1911 Encyclopedia]
- salute has a good start, but needs more non-US information (and non-Western) information
Articles that seem to be nothing more than definitions
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an article which simply defines a word is useless. Sometimes, those articles can turn into bona fide encyclopedic treatments of a topic; sometimes they should just be deleted.
See also Wikipedia utilities/find or fix a stub.
Articles of dubious merit, accuracy and/or validity
See also Wikipedia utilities/Page titles to be deleted
Other Wikipedia Utilities
/Talk