"Steven Walling" wrote
Is it 5,000 GA and/or FA quality articles,
like they profess they are going to build better than Wikipedia? Or is it
5,000 total, with lots of schlock thrown in?
It's not the former, as "Random page" reveals. Some decent if stodgy
articles. Some slight. If [[cz:Middle East]] is at all typical, they are ducking some
areas.
Redlinks: plenty you'd have thought someone would have filled out by now. Deficiency
of vitamin gnome. It doesn't look like anyone searches the site for common spelling
errors like "neccesary" or "comittee".
The quality is probably more consistent than early-model enWP. But the coverage is not
really very far along the timeline, if that's a fair metric.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam