[WikiEN-l] What to do about our writing quality?

[Charles Matthews]

SlimVirgin wrote:
> It's rare that an article continues to get better after being
> featured, for example, but not unusual for it to deteriorate unless
> it's watched closely. When I wrote that people should hesitate to edit
> good prose, I meant precisely that -- not that they shouldn't, but
> that they should ask themselves whether what they want to add or
> remove really does constitute improvement.
>
>   
Yes, but that's really a separate issue, I feel. Featured articles, only 
0.1% of the articles, are almost by definition a "local maximum" for 
writing. If you wanted a better article, it might need to be changed 
around, not just pushed to the top of the slope. (The analogy is with 
trying to get to a higher mountain peak, from the one where you are now: 
you are going to have to descend before climbing.)

So I think David Gerard has a point; and FA, our star system for 
articles, is as usual, a bit misleading as to the general needs of the 
site. We do need factual content added, as a matter of course. We do not 
need edits reverted as uncultured in writing terms, when they offer 
content improvements. We do need, to go back to something Sarah brought 
up, to parse "major copy edit" as "reorganisation" + "copy edit as 
tarting up", and in that order.

Charles