Charles Matthews wrote:
Jay JG wrote
Do we really want "brilliant prose"?
Used to.
Specifically, [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]] was the old name for what is now [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]].
Is that even possible in an Encyclopedia? What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples? I would have thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an adamant point.
I don't want brilliant prose in an article on heart disease. Decent writing always helps popular science (cf. New Scientist).
I think "clear and concise" probably constitutes "brilliant prose" for our purposes.
In current affairs it is far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate.
I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though they happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for what they do rather than what we do). I consciously emulate their tightness when writing for Wikipedia.
''Clear and concise" is more the idealised civil servant's style - pretty good if the point is to get succinct versions of arguments written without distortion.
Yep.
I think most of the style books make points about keeping vitality in the prose, not just conforming to 'rules'.
Indeed. Excellence in writing should not be a focal point for suspicion.
- d.