I believe the name "Brilliant prose" is problematic for several reasons:
- It emphasizes writing, while a good article needs to be written well, factually accurate, neutral, reasonably complete, nicely illustrated and well organized. It has to cite its sources, link to related pages and present all data in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion. I believe these criteria are not properly encompassed by the word "prose".
- The word "brilliant" is very vague and difficult to define. Accordingly, many Wikipedians have different ideas as to what is "brilliant prose". Some interpret the term pragmatically, feeling that every article that satisfies certain criteria should end up on BP eventually, even if it's short and to the point. Others understand BP to be always just a selection, that is, if the average Wikipedia article was on par with most traditional encyclopedias, BP should only list the very best.
- Last but not least, it conveys a sense of arrogance, and makes us look foolish if we list an article that is only slightly "non-brilliant". The likelihood that this happens seems very high. That also makes the title sound slightly unprofessional (reminiscent of the fun and games days of the early Wikipedia)
I would therefore like to ask you to brainstorm for a better title. My own understanding of BP is the pragmatic one, that is, I see BP as our certification mechanism, and every article should eventually pass through it. As a matter of fact, I would like to see discussions on every talk page at a certain point to the effect of "When can we get this listed on BP, what needs to be done, let's do it".
As with all brainstorming, we should begin by just collecting possible titles without criticizing them. If one of them clearly stands out, we'll pick it. Otherwise we can vote on it.
Here are my ideas:
Certified articles Certified content Trusted pages Trusted area Safe zone Approved articles Golden.. Verfied..
My favorite so far is "Trusted pages".
Regards,
Erik