On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Mark Gallagher wrote:
[[Lang Hancock]], which I bring up whenever I need to refer to a good article I've written (since, alas, it's the only really good one I can claim!), has References, External links, Further reading, and See also.
I had a quick look at this article & found it is a solid, useful piece, the kind of work I've been looking for to add to [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]. I think it is just as important to recognize that spending 50 hours to create, say, 25 solid & useful articles is just as valid as spending 50 hours to create one Featured Article. Considering the number of articles, spending the time on more articles may be more worthy of praise.
Some of us are having trouble explaining that to a group at [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles]]. Or maybe they are just afraid that as it stands, saying that something like [[Lang Hancock]] is a Good Article is arbitrary & therefore bad -- without acknowledging that for the most part, everything on Wikipedia is arbitrary. (Although it helps in the long run if you can articulate a reason for your actions.)
Geoff