On 16/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
<snip> > For instance today's front page contains an article about the > Krag-Petersson repeating rifle which doesn't manage to give any dates > at all until the second paragraph (and then only the date of adoption > by the Norwegian Navy), although the most significant thing about the > rifle is that it was "the first repeating rifle adopted by the armed > forces of Norway" How did the editors manage to miss the date out of > the first sentence? How did it pass FA in that state? >
Vote stacking on IRC.
/me runs
I've read some "featured articles" and wondered how on earth they got that status... Probably because our "peer review" rarely really is "peer" review, more often other-editors-who-don't-know-the-subject-having-a-glance-and-thinking-that-looks-nice review.
Not a complaint, just an observation :-)
Dan