Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Encyclopædia Britannica
This article has already acheived Good Article status. Some users suggested that we nominate this for Featured Article candidate. Just imagine featuring this article: with the growing tension between Britannica and Wikimedia, it would show that Wikipedia is a true neutral encyclopedia, capable of featuring its own competitor. Anyway, this article is already in good shape, with sufficient and complete citations, as well as following the Manual of Style. It was recently Peer Reviewed and Auto (Javascript) Peer Reviewed, and the helpful criticism(s) was taken into account. NauticaShades 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Object, but this isn't bad at all. I still think that too much emphasis is placed on Wikipedia—the comparison with Wikipedia takes up more space than the comparison with all other encyclopedias. Cut down on the details of the Nature study, and provide more details from Kister's Best Encyclopedias. What other criticism has there been other than spelling? I'm not sure that the spelling issue deserves an entire level 2 section. Finally, more citations would be helpful—there's alot of material in the history section that isn't cited. And use {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} for references. Fix these issues and I'll come back and give it a closer look. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The blockquotes in the history section are a bit awkward (to me at least). I wasn't even sure the first two were quotes and not formatting mistakes until I checked the footnote. If this is to be kept, the formatting should be more clear somehow, I think. But why do we need to quote verbatum here? Is there a good reason we can't write this in our own words? --W.marsh 02:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Neutral for now, because I haven't looked at this as much as is needed to comment exactly. I will say, having commented briefly re the intro during the PR, that much excellent work has been done in terms of sourcing and organization. Good work Nautica!
Personally, I think the Wiki - Britannica comparison should actually be reduced. We leap from History to CD-roms and then to an elaborate comparison to "us". Now, you may not want to reduce it, b/c other editors will argue otherwise, so perhaps expand sections surrounding it. For example, while the history is long, the 11th edition could be given its own section(?).
Later, we have "Current version" as a level-two and then "Editors" (which doesn't fit) and "Versions" (which is redundant). Fix that sectioning.
Also, I added two fact requests yesterday (important stuff, because it's comparing to other encyclopedias) and those should be taken care of.
This a bit of "macro" comment—I'll try to look at the prose later. This has greatly improved anyhow, and this FAC is a good first attempt, even if the article is not quite there. Marskell 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- The first quote, up against an image, will be narrowed to a short, vertical column on small screens. In the comparison section, please consider making the point that the standards of writing on WP are likely to vary more than in EB. Tony 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Be careful with that though; make sure there's a reference—I think the Nature study mentioned something about how the Wikipedia articles were less uniform in general, so perhaps mention that. --Spangineeres (háblame) 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just a minor point: "Encarta, released in 1993, became a software staple with almost every computer purchase" -- can you provide a citation for this? Maybe the statement is true for computers sold in the US, but I don't think I've ever seen a copy of Encarta in my country. --Zvika 17:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Object. Contains unsourced POV about its spelling style being confusing. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The everythign2 reference needs to go. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
