Jump to content

Wikipedia:Cleanup/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 15
This page consists of entries that have been addressed and cleaned up.
  • Per WP:BAREURLS, "Note that some citation styles, such as the MLA style, use full bibliographic citation that happen to display the text of the URL in addition to proper identifying information, like the author, date, and title of the publication. These are not considered bare URLs." As such, the bare urls are okay within this article. North America1000 18:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
tried making it read better, but by post world war 2 section everything is very incoherent and unrelated. giving up X( Ramthecowy (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed up. Tinton5 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Unstruck. The article still has several bare urls. North America1000 22:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, must have missed a few. Tinton5 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 Partly done: Page now has no bare links. Still more sources and some clean up needed. Tinton5 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 Partly done: I cleaned up the refs, but I don't read Thai, so they may not be perfect. Copyedited quite a bit, but the article still needs work. Leschnei (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I did the best I could to edit thisJimnChina (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Update - I cleaned the history section up a bit grammatically, but it still could do with some sort of rewrite. Moony22 (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Jacqueline Bobak - appears to be a notable individual by may need some edits and sources
  • Roulette needs to be checked for mathematical accuracy: there are numerous errors.
I suggest editors ignore this contentious and pointy request. The nominator has made these changes and been reverted. Instead they might sort out the nominator's many new stubs, which continue to use bare url references, despite him been requested not to do this many times. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
What is worse, it seems to be a WP:COPYVIO from here:

Succinctly, the term shipping agent refers to the relationship between the principal, in this case is the shipping company conveying the goods and its representative whereby the principal will impliedly or expressly authorize the agent to work under his control and on his behalf...

Zezen (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed the external links, but the other problems still need to be addressed.
  • Black Canary - Article has multiple issues of "describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style," "need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards," and "too long and excessively detailed." NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Privacy-invasive software - Unfortunately I am not in a position to edit this article at this point because it has many problems. Several places adopt an editorial and non-encyclopedic tone, and at one point even shifts point of view to the first person plural, "We believe...". Do all editors believe that way? I am not sure I do.Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Wonder Years - LOTS of unsourced material. The lede needs rewriting with preferably no sourcing. Needs to adhere more to MOS. More discussion of music and impact needed. Final episode/epilogue section needs to be chopped down considerably. More pictures would be nice. Basically, the whole article needs help! Twyfan714 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 4 O'Clock Club - this article is quite a mess. The characters are there but they need more information that actually tells you more about what they are about. It's difficult because it's not like there are a large amount of people out there who watch this particular programme and who can actually clean the article up. It just looks a lot like fan editing and it needs a clean up as it doesn't clearly dictate what happens in the series, exactly. Emirates123 (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Merlin Entertainments - I just fixed a few glaring syntax errors (like two headings not having the same number of equals signs (=) on both sides, and a few wiki-links with a similar problem of not having the same number of brackets on both sides), but I'm sure there are many more. Most of these errors are in the "Operations" section". Of course, that section also has no citations at all... --V2Blast (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I did a bunch of copyediting but I couldn't make any progress on the Polish references. I tagged it for 'no footnotes' and 'cleanup-translation'. I'm not sure what outpolishing is (maybe I did it?), so I didn't strike it out. Leschnei (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Chach Nama and related articles - article and related ones regarding a chronicle of 7th-century India. Though listed as low-importance, there are abundant resources regarding this period of history and the articles could use better sourcing, restructuring, and content additions. dci | TALK 16:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Janet Lane-Claypon – This is an article that deserves to be in much better shape. This page had no references and inappropriate tone. I added references quickly but I can't understand a thing related to cancer and science research bc my knowledge in this area is too limited. Can someone take a look? МандичкаYO 😜 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Jan Norberger - Can someone please review this for me so that the Clean-up / Neutral POV tag might be removed. I have received some feedback from other users and removed citations that linked to Mr Norberger's LinkedIn page, replacing them with verifiable neutral citations. I have also added additional verifiable citations for paragraphs that didn't have any prior to the tag appearing. Any assistance would be appreciated. MS Joondalup (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the intricate detail and original research tags, after removing several sections entirely that were completely unsupported. (I left two sections marked with BLP sources-needed tags, because I felt the info in those sections was not contentious.) I replaced the single source that had gone dead-link with what seems to be the new url of the same article, and found a second source, albeit one of limited usefulness. Presumably I shouldn't strike out the text above here, since the article still has issues... —GrammarFascist (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 Partly done: I have performed more minor cleanup, but the article still has issues. North America1000 16:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)