Wikipedia talk:Featured articles: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Larry_Sanger (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
not going to nominate myself like that). Also, it was in the wrong place, put here before the article was even written, and the article needs work. --[[Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]] |
not going to nominate myself like that). Also, it was in the wrong place, put here before the article was even written, and the article needs work. --[[Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]] |
||
---- |
|||
Oh, I see. I'd agree with that. --[[LMS]] |
|||
Revision as of 01:54, 20 November 2001
Wikipedia has a plethora of good topics. The criteria used remains that expressed by Larry: (1) copious original content; (2) good writing; (3) clarity for the person who doesn't know what the topic is about (after all, this is an encyclopedia!); (4) whimsy (i.e., don't expect to see perfect consistency and fairness). 5) Refrain from listing many of the articles that consist of links to other articles, except where most of the linked articles were good (this is noted by "and related pages").
- the CIA pages, anyway; hey, the CIA did a great job!
CIA pages are very buggy. I live in Poland and I had to fix a few serious bugs about Poland, I've also found serious bug in article about Isreal.I'm sure that people living in other countries probably could also find some bugs. So don't praise CIA World Factbook too much. --Taw
The author of the Eugene Wigner page placed his own page here, which I think we should agree
is not appropriate (I happen to think some of my pages that aren't here deserve to be, but I'm
not going to nominate myself like that). Also, it was in the wrong place, put here before the article was even written, and the article needs work. --LDC
Oh, I see. I'd agree with that. --LMS