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