[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Excellent short articles

[Oldak Quill]

On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki <phoenix.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Intersting page; what happened to it? Surely an excellent article can't be
> short?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Excellent_short_articles

Excellent short articles can be short. There is a quality differential
among short articles: some are rubbish (inconcise, badly written,
unreferenced, unillustrated, &c.) and some are really rather good
(every fact referenced, concise communication covering the breadth of
the topic, well written...)

Thinking about science articles in particular, articles about single
molecules can sometimes communicate 90% of the information contained
in the literature (textbooks and journals) in 10k. The protein Nav
1.5, as an example, deserves an article but has only 11 results in
PubMed. If the article is concise (and science can be very concise)
but covers the topic well and evenly, I don't see why a short article
can't be excellent.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)