Putting in place what are effectively featured
article
standards would
for starting new articles would be a great way of killing
the project
if it was remotely enforceable.
Worse still articles like [[Canal]] would be effectively
unrwritable
by anyone. Since there is not going to be anyone aware of
all the
worldwide scholarly literature on the topic.
[[Canals of the United Kingdom]] would probably be
impossible since
even Charles Hadfield needed help with his The Canals of
North West
England book.
I think that is a misunderstanding that operated at the time as well. This is not about
having to chew your way through all the available scholarly literature before you are
allowed to start the article "canal".
It is about checking if there *is* any scholarly literature out there. And accessing and
using that as you grow the article.
This is even more important when you start working on an article that has already existed
for a number of years, and that other editors have built up to C-Class, or whatever.
Before you jump in and rewrite the whole thing, you should check the sources that are
already cited, and check what scholarly sources are out there: authoritative sources that
have been cited by many other authors, but still haven't made it into the article.
It is not unusual to find articles that are 5 years old and still don't cite a single
scholarly source, even though there are plenty of scholarly sources out there.
Andreas
Well, one way
is to make clear to our editors that we
expect them to make a bit of an effort to
research the
existing scholarly literature. (And that they should do so
first before arguing with people who have completed that
step already.)
However, that idea does encounter resistance. I am
reminded that I proposed as
much once, a good few years ago.
I started a talk page discussion, and we made some changes
and additions (some of which are still in the guideline
today).
One change which didn't make it was the addition of
this sentence:
"A review of the existing scholarly literature should
be the first step in
starting work on an article."
The way the sentence was edit-warred out of the
guideline is quite funny, in
hindsight. It was removed a day
later, with the edit summary:
"Rm sentence that runs counter to policy."
Another editor put it back in, slightly changed, so it
now said:
"A review of the existing scholarly literature *is
recommended before*
starting work on an article."
Half an hour later, that was taken out as well, edit
summary:
"Asking the general public to become familiar with
scholarly literature
(which does not exist for all subjects)
prior to editing places an unrealistic burden upon would-be
editors. Where’s the policy?"
I added it one more time, and it was taken out again
and described as
"nonsense".
You get what you pay for.
Andreas