Anthony DiPierro wrote:
You know, if it was anyone else complaining about article quality, the response would be something more like "{{sofixit}}".
Yes, and that's a valid response to me. Except, when people tell me {{sofixit}} I start thinking about broad policy, not about editing the article itself. :-)
{{sofixit}} is what I intend to do, but at the level of policy. We need to take a serious look at why some high-profile articles are delightful, and some are horrible.
I do not think that the fact that Jane Fonda and Bill Gates are controversial figures is the real answer here, by the way. They are, but the problems I'm complaining about in the articles is not that they are biased, nor that they focus too much on the controversies, etc.
It's that they are badly written. A confusing mishmash of random facts not shaped into a coherent whole. Others have written eloquently on this, and on why this might be the case. The puzzle, though, is: what can be done about it.
Project outsiders might suggest only allowing "expert writers" to work on such articles. I think any of us can explain how that's much easier said than done.
--Jimbo