Wikipedia: WikiProjekt Quality / Articles for expansion


October 25, 2021

This is a list of important articles whose elaboration does not correspond to their meaning and are very far from the ideal of a good article (ie they are actually "embarrassments of Wikipedia" in the sense that users of our encyclopedia now rightly expect better elaboration). Typically, these are problems such as small scope (the actual text of the article is disproportionately short due to the scope of the topic, which stands out, for example, when compared to parallel articles in other Wikipedia), few or no references and literature or long-term unresolved maintenance templates for serious article problems. Anyone can add articles to this list. It is advisable to check their readability beforehand (Pageviews tool) and follow the following recommendation. To add to the list would Articles explaining some common elementary or high school curriculum should have a permanent readership of at least about 20 views per day articles important from the point of view of university study in a common field should have a permanent readership of at least about 50 views per day other articles with the exception of purely entertainment and social ones (computer games, pop culture, celebrities, sports…) should have at least about 100 views per day Any articles that embarrass Wikipedia (have long-term unresolved maintenance templates or are close to their stump range) should reach at least around 200 views per day. add to the chapter "Low-quality articles that do not meet the requirements of the audience". However, it is necessary to justify why these articles need to be improved as a matter of priority. It is advisable to briefly comment on the articles and sign them (or replace the previous signature after re-checking) so that the date when the article was last checked is clear. Please follow the articles, especially the ones you have added here, and consider appreciating colleagues who will significantly improve them. A suitable award may be the Distributor's Rules (list of holders). The immediate goal of including an article on this list is not to achieve their high quality (rather reviews), but only to achieve a state where the article will not be downright incomplete, misleading, non-encyclopedic and the like. Therefore, it is necessary to remove from the list articles that no longer have gross shortcomings. The advice of reviewers working with the Quality project can be used for help. Here's how to make improvements: Either simply take an article on the list yourself and improve it. Or find a suitable colleague from wikipedians who work in the field and ask him to take over the article. Or offering an article for competitions, editing, Students write Wikipedia, editing collaborations and similar events. Articles can be used within the Write Together initiative and other actions of the Quality project. It would be appropriate for the various chapters of the list to be taken over as a "patron" by someone who will keep the chapter up to date and push for improvements to the articles in it. An overview of the development of these articles

Natural sciences, mathematics and technology

Biology, medicine, nutrition science

Zoology - too short, - Ioannes Pragensis (discussion) 19. 4. 2020, 14:39 (CEST) Vegetables - brief, some important aspects are missing, eg history - Ioannes Pragensis (discussion) 19. 4. 2020, 15:56 (CEST) I expanded, IMO ripe for elimination. --Sokoljan (Talk) 21/01/2021, 21:30 (CET) Sensory system, confused, incomplete, generally questioned - Ioannes Pragensis (discussion) 22. 4. 2020, 19:04 (CEST) I tried to edit. It's complicated. It might seem better for me to have this inaccurate article under the sensory system of the forehead

INSERT INTO `wiki_article`(`id`, `article_id`, `title`, `article`, `img_url`) VALUES ('NULL()','Wikipedie:WikiProjekt_Kvalita/Články_k_rozšíření','Wikipedia: WikiProjekt Quality / Articles for expansion','It might seem better for me to have this inaccurate article under the sensory system of the forehead','')