[WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

[John Lee]

On 2/27/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting articles will establish context. They should be able to
> > show why the subject is interesting to someone who isn't already a
> > fan/scholar/whatever of the subject. I would particualrly note that I
> > think we'd be in much better shape if we stopped talking about
> > notability and started talking about interestingness. This would put
> > us in a position to give more of a pass to well-written, thorough
> > articles on odd but cool topics. This is good - it has demonstrably
> > proven itself to be something people expect from Wikipedia. [[Heavy
> > Metal Umlaut]] anybody?
>
>
> I'm not sure this is the same issue, but I had an argument with someone
> who
> wanted to include some loosely related material because it "related [the
> subject] to people's lives".  Frankly I don't think we need to "sell" a
> topic to the audience.  People look up articles in an encyclopedia because
> they are already interested in the subject, it's not like a magazine where
> you come across the topic randomly.
>
> Adam


I would say it's not really the same issue. Making an article interesting
should not entail sexing it up. Some subjects are naturally boring, so it's
key to write in a style that can maintain the reader's interest and focus.
That's more important than adding in irrelevant minutiae in an attempt to
keep the reader interested, which loses the point of the article - to focus
on its subject, and to focus on it in a way that keeps the reader's
attention.

Johnleemk