...the single-sentence paragraphs, the lack of flow within paragraphs, the broken connections between paragraphs, the weak large-scale architecture in the article, the huge number of references for a paltry amount of data, the lack of distinction between important and trivial facts.
Record a new audio file once it reaches FA standard
Other:
Is it worth having an FAQ like other heavy traffic articles? E.g. "Why should Wikipedia have an article on itself?"
The "sub-articles" that were split off from this article are badly in need of attention, as are several other related articles. The following all need work:
History of Wikipedia — this one in particular is missing information and should be reorganized
Can we get the first three of these into a template somehow?
Many other language Wikipedia articles of questionable notability, particularly the smallest ones. A thorough going through is needed, with non-notable articles being AFD material.
Images: update graph in history section
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Expand : Add information about how well the open model is working. The number of articles protected and its evolution in time. Even better, share of reads (hits) according to page protection status.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
The following sources referenced in the subsection on bias in Wikipedia are both completely innapropriate. I will be back to review if a rollback can be made, or if a deletion is better. please provide feedback before then.
Curently citation 192, is not a scholarly or professional source of any kind, nor is it an original work. It is a summary of proceedings which took place during a summit which included commercially and politically motivated speakers, covering a wide range of topics. the source referenced has been obscured making its primary text unverifiable, and, presents the misappropriation that it is actually a scientific publication buy obscurity behind a pay wall.
Currently citation 193, this is also not an original work, the cited source does not include any original research, and in fact cites the Wikipedia article it is used in as its source for the fact that it is used to cite in the Wikipedia article. this is a clear Wikipedia:Verifiability
ABOUTSELF violation. Azeranth (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Livingstone, Randall M. (November 23, 2010). "Let's Leave the Bias to the Mainstream Media: A Wikipedia Community Fighting for Information Neutrality". M/C Journal. 13 (6). doi:10.5204/mcj.315. ISSN 1441-2616. Archived from the original on November 21, 2022. Retrieved November 23, 2022.
^Hube, Christoph (April 3, 2017). "Bias in Wikipedia". Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion – WWW '17 Companion. Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. pp. 717–721. doi:10.1145/3041021.3053375. ISBN 978-1-4503-4914-7. S2CID 10472970.
To-do list for Wikipedia:
