Wikipedia:Article improvement drive/Removed/20 March 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Asia*

Reason
Fairly shallow. More of an annotated list than an article.
Support
  1. Maurreen 00:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. kaal 02:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Houshuang 20:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. 500LL 14:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments

[edit] History of sculpture**

Reason
Also in nomination at COTW, but more appropriate here: lacks links, see also, categories, everything after ancient times. Bad article hierarchy too.
Support
  1. Circeus 02:14, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Djadek 14:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ganymead 07:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments

[edit] Economic inequality*

Reason
A very important global political issue that is missing a lot of information and several entire sections. -- Beland 08:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support
Comments

[edit] 2003 Invasion of Iraq*

Reason
Fairly important contemporary topic with an article insufficiently neutral, comprehensive, and referenced. 119 10:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. 119 20:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Maurreen 04:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments

[edit] Separation of church and state*

There are major developments in non-Christian countries which are totally missed by this very important article. -- Beland 21:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Hippalus 11:51, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Maurreen 04:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. TIMBO (T A L K) 09:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments

[edit] Freedom of the press*

Reason
Only five paragraphs. (Is that a stub?) Timely with court cases in the USA.
Support
  1. Maurreen 22:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. TIMBO (T A L K) 09:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments

Looks sufficiently stubbish to me if you wanted to try it on COTW.--Dmcdevit 04:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've nominated it on COTW, it's a deserving article, so if anyone saw it here, go vote on COTW!--Dmcdevit 04:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Essentialism*

Reason
Important theory in philosophy which has had great influence on biology, and still has influence on feminism and gender-theory. The theory has also been a cornerstone of racist thinking. The philosophy-section is very incomplete and unbalanced, the biology and the society section are nothing more than substubs. Needs a lot of work! --Hippalus 12:04, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Hippalus 22:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Maurreen 04:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments

[edit] Personality*

Reason
On the clean up list; certainly important. -Litefantastic 17:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Litefantastic 17:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Maurreen 04:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments

[edit] Music*

Reason
Large topic with large article. Currently listed for cleanup, the article badly needs a discussion regarding its organization and then to be heavily edited based on that consensus. Hyacinth 17:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Maurreen 05:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dave 01:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ganymead 07:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments

[edit] Leonardo da Vinci*

Reason

Very close to FA quality, but not there yet. Needs references. There's little more than a list of his paintings, needs actual description, as it's quite important (I was surprised there's nothing about the importance of the Mona Lisa even). Much of the article, especially about art, seems superficial, it just needs to be improved all around. --Dmcdevit 04:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support
  1. Dmcdevit 04:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. 119 04:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Hippalus 08:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Litefantastic 14:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments
    • Should have mentioned: it was a featured article back in the brilliant prose days, but was since removed in December, see the vote here.--Dmcdevit 05:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticle_improvement_drive_Removed_20_March_2005_2114.html"