Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Article Improvement Drive (view source)
Revision as of 20:53, March 17, 2007
, 20:53, March 17, 2007no edit summary
:::One suggested a "see also" subheading in the article, and this could contain the links to the articles in question. In my experience with Wikipedia (regretably!) there's always someone who's got to take the "one or two" paragraphs and turn them into an embarrassment. But I think we're planning ahead for things like this, which means more control, more quality, better results...it's going to make Wikipedia quite mad, but that's ok! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::One suggested a "see also" subheading in the article, and this could contain the links to the articles in question. In my experience with Wikipedia (regretably!) there's always someone who's got to take the "one or two" paragraphs and turn them into an embarrassment. But I think we're planning ahead for things like this, which means more control, more quality, better results...it's going to make Wikipedia quite mad, but that's ok! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
==Standardization==
I think we should get together and discuss a plan which ensures a single standardization with regards to the layout and structure of each article. It doesn't have to involve a re-write of each one, but something where the reader can go to each article and not have everything all over the place with each click. So here's a suggestion (not mandatory, by the way):
*Each one to be well-written! Now that should be mandatory!
*Each article laid out thus: intro paragraph, main body (divided by subheadings, if necessary), conclusion, references, links.
*All pics to the right, at 250px, with the exception of the lead pic, at 300px.
*If criticism of the subject is necessary for inclusion, it must have a well-sourced rebuttal as well. If such criticism is too long, then separate article is needed.
*All effort should be made to use actual books as primary source material when writing any article; online links should be regarded as secondary.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)