FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
Miscellaneous Grab Bag -
     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

> Miscellaneous Grab Bag, Articles too horrible to dedicate attention to individually
Donny
post
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 240
Joined:
Member No.: 79



QUOTE(Hushthis @ Wed 5th April 2006, 6:39pm) *

This could be a fun game -- click random articles and assess the results for citations, viewpoint, grammar and accuracy.

I got http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Borges. It's a little boring. Can I play twice?
Second try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbira. Ooh. Nice article.
Third try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Little. Short but fairly informative.
Fourth try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umiastowski. Seems like a useful article.
Fifth try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_setting. Short but apparently useful.
Sixth try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Conal. Interesting article, I liked it. Again rather short.
Seventh try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattus_Norvegicus_%28album%29. I used to have that album. Article is rather short, again.
Eighth try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_planning. This is the first really lame article I've hit.
Ninth try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Angus_Association. Short but mildly interesting.
Last try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamimatsura...ict%2C_Nagasaki. Very short robot stub?

The only really good article I hit was the Mbira one, but none of the others except Top down planning were outstandingly bad. They all seemed to be a little short, and perhaps not very well researched.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Mister Die
post
Post #2


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined:
Member No.: 75,644



A Brazilian guy I know pointed out that the Pedro II of Brazil article, which is a featured article, has a definite traditionalist and monarchist slant.

I don't study Brazilian history, but I find it hard to reconcile the following:
QUOTE
Although there was no desire for a change in the form of government among most Brazilians, the Emperor was overthrown in a sudden coup d'état that had almost no support outside a clique of military leaders who desired a form of republic headed by a dictator...

The reign of Pedro II thus came to an unusual end—he was overthrown while highly regarded by the people and at the pinnacle of his popularity...
With, say, this from Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia:
QUOTE
A coalition of the urban middle class, coffee planters, and the military increasingly disparaged the monarchy and its ties to the traditional landed class. They advocated the creation of a modern republic that would support the new coffee and industrial capitalism, finding additional allies in the church. Discontent became widespread, and the military, representing this diverse opposition, overturned the empire.


This post has been edited by Mister Die:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now:
 
     
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)