Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations
|Main page||Articles for improvement||Article nominations||Schedule||Assessment||Accomplishments||Automation & templates||Members||Talk page|
Suitable articles at the Article nomination board are likely to appeal to a wide variety of editors, and have sufficient potential for improvement: Stub-Class, Start-Class and C-Class articles are ideal for nomination.
Articles and lists nominated here can be about any topic on Wikipedia. To encourage diversity, nominations are listed under the following topical areas:
Be bold! Articles here can can be edited at any time by all users, regardless of project membership status. As such, this page also functions as a general noticeboard for English Wikipedia. All nominations will be automatically archived by MusikBot once they are closed, and successful nominations are automatically listed at the Articles for improvement page.
Human female sexualityEdit
- Very important article that has issues with lack of clear focus and scope, with scattered information on a variety of subtopics that end up making it overly about one aspect while providing geographically specific information without context for why it is included. It needs to be able to find itself. It is important because women's sexuality impacts legal and cultural treatment in a broader context. Having a good basic framework not around orgasms would be useful. --LauraHale (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Applied sciences and technologyEdit
History and politicsEdit
- Very important article about political science that lacks in referencing, does not properly use the lead to summarize contents, and aside from it, consists almost purely of what might as well be a list. In other words, the article needs to be almost completely reorganized. Geolodus (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Mathematics and computer scienceEdit
Language and literatureEdit
- Listed as a level-5 vital article in People, Writers and rated as high-importance to Wikiproject Children's Literature and Wikiproject Women's Writers. Currently, it's a start-class article. Clovermoss (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
People/Companies and organisations/ProductsEdit
The George Sand article is stylistically all over the place. Some of it seems to have been poorly translated from another language and there are odd facts and bits of information in between parts that read like a poorly-researched tell-all celebrity biography. Atiru (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)