Article
* appear in american angler magazines
  - cat fancy magazines
* appear on pages
  - web sites
* are adjectives and always agree with the noun they modify in both gender and number
  - artifacts
  - created by writers
  - determiners
* are located in magazines
  - newspapers
  - made of information
  - markers that help readers identify nouns
  - nonfiction
  - part of documents
  - parts of speech
  - used for reading
* are written by authors
  - contributors
  - researchers
  - same authors
* contain additional information
  - background information
  - more information
  - other useful information
  - photographs
* cover topics.
* deal with aspects
  - biology
  - exchanges
  - gas exchanges
  - subjects
  - theories
* describe aspects
  - details
* detail skills.
* discuss ability
  - applications
  - characteristics
  - choices
  - concepts
  - events
  - issues
  - military applications
* examine theories.
* explain concepts
  - essential facts
  - features
  - importance
* explain key concepts
  - physiological concepts
  - procedures
  - scientific concepts
* feature diagrams.
* focus on consumption
  - examples
* give descriptions
  - explanations
  - instruction
  - overviews
  - tips
* have common themes
  - enough information
  - few different pages
  - other purposes
  - requirements
* have specific diet requirements
* highlight issues
  - several issues
* illustrate problems
  - reproduction
* include information
  - lists
  - references
  - statements
  - useful references
* includes sections.
* is nonfiction
* need sources.
* offer advice
  - insight
* outline basic lawn care principles
  - interest facts
* present lists
  - results
* provide additional details
  - decorate tips
  - essential information
  - guidelines
  - indexes
  - knowledge
  - methods
* provide more details
  - opportunity
  - science content knowledge
  - simple guidelines
  - valuable tips
  - vital information
* review characteristics.
* say facts.
* shed light
  - natural light
* show examples
* summarize characteristics.
  * range greatly in quality, from very good articles to candidates for quick deletion.
  * Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics. In some countries, it may be a crime to discuss these topics. Others contain information on things that might be dangerous.
  * Wikipedia is not censored. Content will generally not be removed because some people find it objectionable. Wikipedia will also not use specific disclaimers in articles warning readers of such content. All articles fall under the site-wide 'Content disclaimer'.
  * Most articles have interwiki links to do that.
  * have to start somewhere.
  * is reviewed. I left some comments on its talk pge.
  * pertaining to profanity seem to be inconsistent.
  * clean up needed, yes, but the subject is notable.
  * has quite a bit of text, and some references. Probably needs improving accuracy, and more refs.
+ Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements
  * Articles in category contain all recorded statements that may become dated. The statements may need to be updated, removed or edited for perspective. Articles containing older statements are more likely to be dated.
  * Articles are permitted in userspace for some time before deletion is considered. Those articles are permitted to permit the editor time to bring the article into compliance. I do the same thing in my userspace. Since when do we delete based on that. I'm sure I've started some racy topics. This should have waited.
  * Others are more than welcome to come along and clerk the process, yet they don't. User A nominates article X. Users B and C are not comfortable with a promotion and so decline, but leave comments as to how to improve that article. User D on the other hand thinks it's fine and supports with a rationale. User A then fixes the concerns of B and C, who now support saying their concerns are fixed. Article is promoted. If you actively seek reviews and actively meet concerns that are raised articles will pass - they just take effort and it's not meant to be a walk in the park. Not submitting multiple articles at once also helps you to meet concerns and get reviews. When first set up, the process worked as a straight straw poll using basically a 'first past the post' method. Per above' is acceptable, as is 'My concerns are fixed' if the user originally 'Opposed' and listed issues. The templates could be removed and the discussion would remain with the same outcome.
  * The third method is one I wouldn't recommend, but more and more seems to become the prevailing attitude towards the process. Any article is selected and random. It gets a nomination, reviews are made yet these are ignored and challenged at every possibility, with the nominator expecting the reviewer and community to be the ones to fix 'their' article. Invariably the review appears on the talk page yet that is always the 'wrong' location.
+ Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements
  * The people in that movement were fighting to end discrimination against a number of groups, not just blacks. People of many races and religions participated. Article is very short and does a bad job compared to the United States article.
+ Category:BLPs needing more sources: Wikipedia articles with sourcing issues
  * This category is for articles about living persons that do not cite enough reliable sources. Articles appear here through a template, either  or  with the  parameter on.
  * Some articles require the use of technical terms. Even if the terms are properly explained, they raise the complexity score.
  * Article is fine now.
  * Article contains double interwiki link to one other languages.
  * Article contains duplicate interwiki links to another language. This can be a sign of vandalism.
+ Conservapedia: Wikis
  * Conservapedia' is a wiki designed for people who are conservative Christians. It was created by Andrew Schlafly. It also has lectures and other materials for students, and classes taught by Mr. Schlafly for free. All articles are written from a conservative point of view dominant in the United States of America. Conservapedia has some different ideas on community. They have Administrators who have the most power. Users are granted these rights and can also earn the right to block other users.
+ Help:User settings
  * You can also define the size of thumbnail images for yourself. Many articles contain thumbnailed images.
  * And I completely agree with Tygrrr here. Page has too many other different definitions that would only serve to complicate matters. Article is easier to understand.
  * Many readers of Simple English are people whose mother language is not English. In the government organisation for which I worked for many years, devising, writing and delivering educational programs for everything from infants to the aged, and with a particular focus on recent immigrants, we aimed at a reading age of 12years. But in fact, it was necessary to deviate from this, because the needs of infant-school children, intellectually disabled young adults, and elderly migrants were very different. But at least we had some idea who we were dealing with. In this present situation, I can see the benefit in being flexible. Some articles are much more likely to be read by kids and others by more mature readers.
+ MediaWiki:Tag-Spambot edit?-description
  * Article shows editing patterns often used by spambots. Edit likely done by such software.
  * Article is indeed worthless rubbish. I don't think this is a meaningful topic at all. Well, the article fails to justify its claims by means of reliable sources, so it's not notable. Under 'Other websites' is a link which does not support the page content. I can see no way forward for this one.
  * Article seems well sourced.
  * Article is just a bunch of speculations on the possible future success of the band.
  * I've done some extensive work on adding stuff while keeping it simple. Added quite a bit of history. Article feels full now, without being unsimple.
+ Wikinews: Wikimedia :: Wikis
  * Wikinews' is a free-content news source wiki and a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. The news articles are written by users working together with each other. Old articles are archived, and frozen so that people cannot change it anymore. Every article has a talk page where people can talk about the news in the article.
  * I'm sorry for the somewhat silly question. I want to know how to write my future changes. I had thought that the ideas we write about should be explained with simple words and sentences that are not complex. Many articles seem to have simple content as well.
+ Wikivoyage, Description: Travel :: Wikimedia Foundation :: Wikis
  * Wikivoyage is written by the collaboration of 'Wikivoyagers' from around the world. Articles cover different levels of geography, from continents to districts of a city.
  * Article now has plenty of acceptable references and more indication of notability.
  * Every article has a talk page. An article talk page is for discussing how to make the article better. It is not for talking about the topic of the article. It is not for chatting about whether the movie is good or not, or which actors they like.
  * I don't know how it works, but I don't think it makes him notable. Article is a resume anyway.