Any Wikipedia articles you find dissatisfactory?

I find the article on natural selection to be rather narrow in scope, and generally doing a poor job of describing the algorithm. This may be because I’m a fan of Dawkins and Dennet, but to have the entire article focus on the biological sphere of natural selection is like… having an article on vinegar describing only its use on fish and chips. Sure that is tasty and likely the first thing people will associate vinegar with, but it’s selling it way short.

What articles do you think could do with a re-write or at least a re-focus?

Just hit the random button. There are a lot of unfinished articles or stubs.

But I assume you mean at least “Good” quality ones, right? Ones that look reasonably complete at first glance, but are missing important parts.

I can’t think of any, but such a clarification might help others.

There’s also a number of ways to find articles that need work, which is basically Wikipedia asking for help. Years ago, I remember the articles for literacy and Apartheid were just wiped and rewritten, basically by apologists who, being BOLD (something wikipedia used to tout,) just simply removed bias that they didn’t like.

Many of the scientific ones seem a little sort on info, some info that could be easily parphrased from a text book, but non one seems to want to do that. So there are tons of chemistry and biology stubs, for very important reactions, like Benedit’s solution or Tollen’s reagent.

I have a problem with virtually all the physics and math articles.

With few exceptions they become impenetrable after their opening sentence or two. I understand that as an ‘encyclopedia’ they should be able to serve as a reference, and maybe eventually as ‘the’ reference. Still, as it stands, they are being written for the enlightened few who already know, or at least have a fair understanding of, the subject at hand. I think the articles would profit tremendously if there was some effort made to make them accessible to the interested, but uninitiated reader. YMMV.

One that immediately comes to mind is the article on the Battle of Bouvines which is definitely still badly flawed, as it seriously misstates the tactical situation at the start of the battle. Philip II’s army was actually withdrawing to shield Paris and was strung out halfway across a bridge when Otto IV’s advance guard suddenly came up on Philip’s rear guard and started mauling them. Philip had to rapidly pull back and re-deploy his army in the face of the advancing Germans whose very rapid march appears to have caught him by surprise. Accordingly it also ignores the whole drama of the masterful tactical fight by a large contingent of French knights under the ex-Hospitaler Guerin to hold the advancing imperial forces at bay, while the rest of the French army marched back across and reformed their lines.

That said, another couple of entries I immediately thought of that used to be a little weak seem to have been improved in the interim. I’m sure if I searched a bit I could find other subpar ones, especially on obscure subjects. But I have to say that wikipedia, while far from perfect, seems to have pretty consistently improved with time.

I like a lot of true cime and the article in Wikipedia on those type are generally taken from too few sources, sometimes only one, to make them really accurate or good reading.

While the facts are correct a lot of the interesting sidelines are a mess