[WikiEN-l] Re: articles about Serbian history

[Fred Bauder]

>Both of you define different sides to an issue I've been wondering about
>myself: just how should we judge the quality of the material pointed to
>in the external links part of our articles?
>
>For example, if I were aggressive in my criticism towards these links,
>I would remove many of the several URLs in the [[King Arthur]] article
>because I feel, frankly, that they link to material that read like a
>mediocre high school essay. But I haven't touched them because
>(1) I wonder if my insistence on a scholarly approach to the material
>isn't promoting a POV that I'm not aware of; and (2) they
>do include material on the later Romance of King Arthur that isn't
>sufficiently developed in the article as it stands.
>
>Or, to put it another way, is deleting external links that one doesn't
>like similar to deleting material in the Talk: pages one doesn't like?
>
>Geoff

One can go too far; but one should edit external links for a mix of points
of view and degrees of difficulty. The King Arthur article is an excellent
example. A few high school level links are fine as are those to literary
sites that consider the later literature as well as links to sites that
examine the slight historical evidence.

Fred