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
post Wed 5th April 2006, 1:41pm
Post #1


Group: Contributors
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 11:27pm
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 It's a little boring. Can I play twice?
Second try: Ooh. Nice article.
Third try: Short but fairly informative.
Fourth try: Seems like a useful article.
Fifth try: Short but apparently useful.
Sixth try: Interesting article, I liked it. Again rather short.
Seventh try: I used to have that album. Article is rather short, again.
Eighth try: This is the first really lame article I've hit.
Ninth try: Short but mildly interesting.
Last try: 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

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: 17th 2 18, 9:32pm