At 03:00 PM 9/18/2005, Dan Grey wrote:
I've read some "featured articles" and wondered how on earth they got that status... Probably because our "peer review" rarely really is "peer" review, more often other-editors-who-don't-know-the-subject-having-a-glance-and-thinking-that-looks-nice review.
Not a complaint, just an observation :-)
I have been wondering about pictures in featured articles... there seems to be a rule that a featured article needs to have lots of pictures. The problem is that for many topics there are no suitable pictures.
An example of what I'm thinking of: [[Attila the Hun]] has a whole bunch of pictures of Attila -- but all of them are fictional. To the credit of the article, it is actually mentioned that there are no real pictures of him. But this is way at the end, and the first fictional picture is at the very beginning of the article. Unexperienced readers that don't read all the way to the end might be misled into accepting these pictures as factual representations.
Shouldn't the same encyclopedic standards we have for text be applied to images, too?
Chris [[User:Chl]]