Article Improvement Drive/Archive1

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Article Improvement Drive/Archive1 as edited by DMorris (Talk | contribs) at 16:36, August 16, 2012. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


Can one vote for more than one article? I have no problem with any of the articles mentioned. I nominated the Germany article more to call to attention the fact that it really is in pretty bad shape, and conceivably created by somebody with less than serious intentions. MountainDew 23:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I guess my question is sorta related. Is the purpose of this Drive to fix articles up for featured status or to select articles to be featured? If the former, I believe Bible is closed to editing. Myk 23:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
You may vote for as many articles as you wish. This project is to improve the quality of the articles to bring them up to a featured article status, not to select featured articles. --Hojimachongtalk 23:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I just closed the Bible when a vandal came along and had his way with it. I am opening to it being edited by others, but there has to be some standards adhered to when the editing takes place, namely the article as it stands has to be about the Bible and it's direct history; the criticism of the Bible, the opposing views of it's authenticity, stuff like that, need separate articles specifically about those subjects. I did it that way, not because I'm a Bible-believer (and I am), but the fact that when there's just too much side-tracking in an article, then the article loses focus. This also applies to many other subjects besides the Bible. What say you? Karajou 23:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
If we have a full article about something like Criticism of the Bible, then wouldn't it be appropriate to have a short summary in the Bible article (say, one or two paragraphs) with a link to the full article? And yes, I agree, too much sidetracking would be bad. But anything relevant should be added. --Hojimachongtalk 23:38, 16 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's going to make Wikipedia quite mad, but that's ok!  :) Karajou 00:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


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.

Karajou 16:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

About the last point... I would sort of disagree there. The sources are included in the article so people can easily check facts to make sure the article does not try to spin things. Book references are hard to verify at home, and can even be hard to verify at a library. This of course assumes that the online source is reliable in the context! If the choice is between a reliable book and a dubious site (or between an okay online source and a book that is widely regarded as The Source), we should of course prefer the book. --Sid 3050 17:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
This is being formed at Conservapedia:Manual of Style. --Hojimachongtalk 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a diabolical trick on my part...imaging some poor editor out there who screaming "You mean I can't use the INTERNET!?!" Forces the poor sap to actually read!  :) Karajou 23:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)