Ouch! Do you mean astronomy is boring, or my writing about astronomy? I do try to write articles that are interesting for people who might only have a passing interest in astronomy but it's easy for a scientist to forget what's interesting to people not in the field. That's partly why I sought peer review for Herbig-Haro object, because I was half afraid I was going to spend lots of time on something no-one would be interested in. Astrocruft, if you like. Please tell me if I'm heading that way! The general point is that for many featured articles, only one person might be interested in writing about a subject, but its appeal should be broad based if it really represents the best of Wikipedia. I'm not particularly fussed about architects in colonial New Zealand, for example, but Giano's articles on Benjamin Mountfort etc are interesting enough to keep me reading right through. WT -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Norton [mailto:wxprojects@comcast.net] Sent: 03 October 2005 11:32 AM To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Taking your eyes off the ball I would argue that featured articles that, say, Worldtraveller, writes (mostly dealing with advanced astronomy stuff) are about as interesting as watching paint dry - but they are obviously GOOD articles - and that's the point. The whole "it's only interesting to the author" argument is nonsense because its such a relative thing. Thanks, Ryan