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.