"Steven Walling" wrote
Is it 5,000 GA and/or FA quality articles, like they profess they are going to build better than Wikipedia? Or is it 5,000 total, with lots of schlock thrown in?
It's not the former, as "Random page" reveals. Some decent if stodgy articles. Some slight. If [[cz:Middle East]] is at all typical, they are ducking some areas.
Redlinks: plenty you'd have thought someone would have filled out by now. Deficiency of vitamin gnome. It doesn't look like anyone searches the site for common spelling errors like "neccesary" or "comittee".
The quality is probably more consistent than early-model enWP. But the coverage is not really very far along the timeline, if that's a fair metric.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam