This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Cleanup. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
The Second Sex - The verbosity of this article, particularly the section Content of The Second Sex, makes it very confusing. It appears to be an essay or thesis but is so under-referenced that one cannot tell where the information and commentary is coming from. As a general reader I lack the knowledge base to sort out opinion from quotation from original research.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sukyo Mahikari - Religious article needs thorough cleanup to make encyclopedic. Needs wikification and copy editing for tone and pov issues. Significant sections unsourced.—Lendorien14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Arguments for and against drug prohibition - reads like a debate, some arguments are very weak e.g. Needs to be gone over for NPOV. Also contains serious sourcing issues. The article uses three different methods of sourcing. Needs to be converted to footnote intext references for entirety of article. Sections may need to be merged or reorganized. A very messy article.—Lendorien19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Lean Construction Worded like an advertisement. Deals with a specific construction technique by a limited group of firms. Promotes its superiority. Uses extensive external linking directly to for-profit organizations. 4.230.162.23702:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Translation - Has some readability issues. Also seems to be the subject of an editing skirmish between people who are in the field. The result is an article that reads like a textbook and is not very accessible to the non-expert. Man It's So Loud In Here16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Banasthali Vidyapith - Marked as an article which reads like an advertisement. It's based (with apparent permission) off the school's promotional brochure. Needs tone editing, wikification, cropping and possible expansion to include info usually found in university articles.—Lendorien14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq grammar, repeated sentences, sections read like it was written by some teenager unfamiliar with the language. As the general's place in Pakistani history is important, I would like someone with academic knowledge to review, since the article has changed since the last time I read it. Mac
Jealousy is based upon an inaccurate/limited definition of the word "jealousy." Does not cover any of the other meanings of the word beyond that in a romantic context. Includes poorly organized, non-encyclopaedic content. Entire 3rd paragraph is such high-level summary that it reads like a elementary school project - was worse than useless, far below the quality I've come to expect from Wikipedia. Punctuation is poor -I'm sure I could go on, but overall, I felt this was a very disappointing article.
Feminism and the Oedipus complex - Messy stylistically; the section on Deutsch reads like it was automatically translated or translated badly, & other sections are haphazard & unclear. All sections need more detail and a generally more thorough, professional treatment to be useful. PoetrixViridis04:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Uyghur people - Sloppily written, with poor grammar and illogical constructions; some sections are written in a juvenile tone; many unsupported statements; general pov Bacrito15:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Pallava: Organization is poor. English is muddled. There seems to be some original research mixed in there, although that might just be an artifact of poor composition. Probably needs a solid fact-check. Justin Bacon15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Center for Talented Youth - This is terribly written, it is full of typos and has more fandom than information. It seems like someone wrote the article who did not know how to write, because of that there are no links and bad HTML. Marlith03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Cave diving - Needs to be completely re-organised. Too much of some info, others are lacking. Lacks proper headings. History section is particularly scrappy (ricjl)
Hip hop & Hip hop music - Both appear to replicate the content of each other. Hip hop music has two styles of referencing, includes a list of sources, and a limited number of Harvard refs. The article is full of opinion, not neutral and very long. Confused re-directs/merger requests. Escaper200711:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Vasileios Spanoulis - The formatting of this article is very sloppy and the layout makes for a very confusing read, but it has potential given the amount of quality information about this international NBA player compared to many others. MichaelProcton04:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hanover Shoe Farms has a cleanup tag on it but I cannot find the reason why on this page. I made recent edits to it to clean it up but I'm not sure if I fixed the problem. COuld somebody give me a hand? I'm new to wikipedia. Barn Cat18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I will definitely try to help, but most of the help I can offer is to clean up the language. It currently sounds very stilted. Sean Montgomery14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Nihonjinron - An article that looks like it's in the middle of major editing but hasn't been edited in almost a month. It has a section named 'Comment to be repositioned' and other stuff that should've been done on the talk page. Haridan07:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Pseudo.com - Notable internet pioneer firm, however page lacks a lead, a lot of the information is in non-encyclopedic form, and the bulk of the people mentioned are red-links.—Cerejota03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Non-synchronous transmissions - Article needs serious improvements. It repeats information, it has no illustrations to explain the text, and it is written in an unencyclopedic manner. It also promotes the American Trucker Association, & Professional Truck Driver's Association school at the Houston Community College N.E. campus in northeast Houston, TX (USA)! Why? — CZmarlin02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Ranger's Apprentice (series) - A large amount of spelling and grammatical errors. Way to many for me to fix on my own. The content at parts can also sound very unprofessional
Bob Clampett - very subjective text in the lower sections - e.g. he wrote some of the 'most outrageuous and funniest cartoons'.
Focus III - this reads like a review, and is incredibly positively biased.
Mii (Jungle de Ikou!) - This article is about a cartoon featuring a ten year old girl with large breasts. The writers of this article do not deserve good faith; the depraved tone is hideously unencyclopedic. A gx702:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thompson (band) - Doesn't look to be written by native English speaker. Odd grammatical mistakes littered throughout. Also may contain OR and copyright violations. Milton22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Civil War (comic book) - The Synopsis section needs cleaning up. It's really long and wordy and disorganized and is just a retelling of it all, and is not encyclopedic. It also needs extensive copyediting.—zandperl16:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Jarboe - List of albums needs cleanup. Biographical info was cut as copy vio, but a user readded it claiming to be the artist in question's assistant. It IS copy vio fromt he artist's website. Someone with a bit more knowledge of policy needs to take care of this.—Lendorien16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeoman - No intro, dictionary like sections, written poorly, could be shortened. Seems more like what you'll find in an entymology dictionary than an encyloclopedia. GreaterWikiholic00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Lauren London - The article already has an Unreferenced tag, but could also benefit from a general cleaning up of the Early Life and Career section. Arrow00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Pre-qualification. Some of the information is incorrect, specifically regarding the social security number not being needed. That is absolutely incorrect.
Hells Angels is really poorly written, controversy aside. There are all sorts of grammatical errors and odd syntaxes. I'd be bold, but I don't know enough abuot the subject to figure out what some of the article is trying to say—xAlpha23:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a "subject matter expert"? What subject would that be? It may just need to be re-written - both the article and talk are a bit out of control.Lightwiki01:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Timebase correction repeats a lot of the same information and is poorly organized.
Smooth jazz - Numerous Wikipedia policy concerns, including WP:RS, WP:V and in turn WP:N as well as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:EL. The article though is about a major jazz genre with worldwide radio coverage, and so is notable and in my view, not eligible for AfD, but notability isn't established in the article due to no citations or references. Also alerted to cleanup taskforce, where detailed information on the articles problems are here: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Smooth jazz.—tgheretford (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Richard McKeon - There are no citations, and the article is not well written, especially the end.
Alternative hip hop - Supplies little fact and much opinion and while it cites its sources for this information, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry at all. Does not go into great detail regarding examples, history, etc.
Evaluation - grammar and formatting both need cleaning up a bit. Some clunky and sweeping statements need tidying up too. Rob15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo and Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo (character) - These articles are in desperate need of cleanup and I refuse to be the one to do it (I don't have the time nor the patience to handle such jobs). I suggest more than one person tackles these articles (I'm sure the other Bobobo articles need cleanup too) to avoid going insane. // DecaimientoPoético00:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
VATSIM - Information is not up to date, needs a review Enti342 09:25, 8 May 2007 (EST)
Have taken a look at it today, and based on what I saw, I think that this could be removed from the cleanup patrol, and the cleanup tag removed from the page itself. Will wait a few days for any objections and then remove the tag myself. Frmatt (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor is in need of some reorganization. Various sections could probably be subcategorized (for example: 'Virginia', 'New York' and 'England' — although I'm not sure what heading they could fall under; also, 'Parliament' and 'The House doesn't miss anybody' should probably go together). jareha05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Nursing Informatics - majority of article is a reprint of a memo from a company which lists opportunities in the field. This seems inappropriate material for Wikipedia. Also, external references not formatted standard way.--Vitamin D19:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Right now (4/07)there is really only an opening definition and 6 more definitions in the definition section! Some good refs but no article. tagged for expand. --killing sparrows06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Working --Haruth (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)