On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Yes, but once you're using one source to find
other sources and
hunting for them, you're not really in the realms of low-hanging
fruit.
Some of the so-called low-hanging fruit are articles that have never
been in that good condition, even now, or that still have great
potential for expansion or reorganisation (even if a lot of the detail
is in related articles, accessible via links). I'll try and find a few
examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky
Compare that to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil
...which is quite good.
The surgery article is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery
...but quite why there are 15 templates at the bottom of the article,
I don't know.
Something that looks OK at first glance, but less so when you look closer, is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass
Another article that is in a "hodge-podge" state is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging
If these all count as low-hanging fruit, they may have been picked,
but they haven't really ripened yet. Part of the trouble is that truly
general, overview articles are: (a) difficult to write well; and (b)
experts tend to prefer to write more limited, specialised articles.
Sometimes the subsidiary articles need to be written to a good level
before the general article can be tackled. Sometimes it is the other
way round.
Carcharoth