Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
well done
Line 9: Line 9:     
:::See [[Wikipedia:Quality]]. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::See [[Wikipedia:Quality]]. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::: Ah, I see now.  The random entries are listed below for us, and you list the ones for Wikipedia on its Quality page.  Well done!!!  We do far better than Wikipedia!
 +
 +
:::: In fact, I'm going to post a comparison from your good work on other pages so that others will be sure to see it. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
    
:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia:  judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article.  That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia:  judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article.  That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,231

edits

Navigation menu