Cvillepedia talk:Article Criteria

From Cvillepedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comparison with wikipedia -- B.S. Lawrence 13:22, 7 March 2012 (EST)

As is these standards seem mighty low, and miss the most important piece, comprehensive coverage of the subject. For a start at my suggestions see wikipedia e.g. on the Virginia WikiProject you can find links to a page with criteria for each type e.g. good article criteria. --B.S. Lawrence 13:22, 7 March 2012 (EST)

These standards are meant to be in addition to the Wikipedia standards on what makes a good article: all that business about tone, neutrality, etc. My aim here is to establish very basic mechanical guidelines that aren't so nuanced and can be easily digestible in a class setting. Does that change your opinion at all? -- JMarley 14:02, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Not a bit. How does wikipedia's good article criteria not fit the criteria you describe? It's as "nuanced" as you want it to be; these are neither complicated nor esoteric concepts. The stuff on the page now is subsumed therein. And be honest: if the question (as the page purports) is to describe a 'good article', do you think the criteria you've given are close to sufficient for calling that article 'good'.? Put another way, there are dozens and dozens of really bad articles out there, which by this criteria could be eligible for Featured status. -- B.S. Lawrence 15:59, 7 March 2012 (EST)
And as a total aside these new/edit/reply templates used on the talk pages force the conversa--Seantubbs 14:28, 19 March 2012 (EDT)tion out of wikipedia style. Signatures go at end, not in section header, and most replies shouldn't start a new section head. -- B.S. Lawrence 15:59, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Importance of verifiability and sources

The Virginia Wiki criteria is very helpful - thank you! Do you think there is any merit in adding criteria to it that require an article to have more than one editor and/or more than one source listed? I am in favor of those additional criteria because they support the collaborative intention of the wiki and require our writers to base their articles on a broader range of source materials. -- JMarley 10:13, 8 March 2012 (EST)

I just made a swath of changes around this notion, including emphasizing the importance in the lede. -- B.S. Lawrence 13:59, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

No original research

As someone who has conducted a lot of original research for this site, I don't believe that this should apply to a cvillepedia article. We're inviting people to tell their stories, and are inviting them to use this site as a repository. Why wouldn't we want original research, as long as it is cited ?--Seantubbs 14:28, 19 March 2012 (EDT)