 Miscellaneous Grab Bag, Articles too horrible to dedicate attention to individually |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| Donny |
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. |
   |
 
|
Posts in this topic
  |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |