Sheldon Rampton wrote:
The bottom line, though, is that an encyclopedia article shouldn't have errors of grammar *or* fact. I know some respected university scholars who have problems with spelling and grammar, but before their writings get published, someone fixes those problems. An article in the Wikipedia that has problems with spelling and grammar clearly hasn't been through the level of review that goes into a student's term paper, let alone an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Absolutely right.
I think right now we have a situation of very high average quality (esp. for articles over a certain length), but with some very important weaknesses. That's going to be the goal of a review process: to address those weaknesses while at the same time respecting and working with our community model.
I'm generally in agreement with what Erik Moeller says about this. That is, I think that it is best if one way or another our review process grows organically from our existing traditions of review for featured articles.
--Jimbo