[WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

[William Pietri]

Phil Sandifer wrote:
> I think before we can really deal with questions of what should and  
> shouldn't be sourced, what a good source is, and what is and isn't  
> worth having articles on, we have to go back to brass tacks and  
> answer "What is a good article?"
>
> [...]
>
> To my mind there are three parts of a good article: it must be  
> comprehensive, accurate, and interesting. [...]
>
> Are there any problems that people can see with this formulation?
>   

I think it's a good start, but it's hard to say for sure without seeing 
the implications. I'm sure you'll get more reaction as you connect it to 
policy changes.

There are two other qualities I'd like in a good article: readable and 
useful. I think the first one is somewhat out of scope, as you're 
focusing mainly on sourcing. Although as Adam points out, readability 
and comprehensiveness are at somewhat at odds, so it's not entirely 
irrelevant.

As for utility, I think like interestingness, it's a hard one to pin 
down because it's more about the reader's reaction. It's also somewhat 
in competition. [[Period table]] and the conversion chart on [[Ring 
size]] aren't so interesting, but they sure are useful. Personally, I'd 
rank utility higher than interestingness as a criterion for article 
goodness, with accuracy higher still.

William


-- 
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri