User talk:ElectionJune2014/Referenda/2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I think we should have separate categories. The main page should link separately to articles approved by speialist Editors and to those approved by Council or Approvals Manager. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | I think we should have separate categories. The main page should link separately to articles approved by speialist Editors and to those approved by Council or Approvals Manager. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
Anyway, I don't wany to sound negative. I've signed up to support this. I think a more realistic prospect of formal recognition would encourage contributions. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:51, 6 June 2014
"compare its content and quality with comparable articles in other encyclopedias, including Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica online"
- Not encouraging start. WP is certainly not reliable (it says so itself, so it must be true). EB isn't either (I can give examples if you like, though those would be from the print edition, as the online one seems to be subscription-only (last I tried)). What should be checked against is the most specialist material available. Peter Jackson 10:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should have separate categories. The main page should link separately to articles approved by speialist Editors and to those approved by Council or Approvals Manager. Peter Jackson 16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't wany to sound negative. I've signed up to support this. I think a more realistic prospect of formal recognition would encourage contributions. Peter Jackson 09:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)