On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I see no material distinction preventing us from
documenting the
matter in a balanced fashion.
The trouble is, the article is overwritten. This is not a phenomenon
restricted to this article, it is common in many "political" or
"activist" articles, where some editors try to use *every* source out
there to write an article several pages long (sometimes in an attempt
to avoid arguments about what to include and what not to include, at
other times maybe just by being carried away, or simply by not wanting
or knowing how to exercise judgment on what to include and when less
is more).
I repeat, a shorter article (if done to high standards) would be *just
as balanced* and would send the message that this is not a topic that
really needs lots written about it. One of the fundamental elements of
editorial judgment is to decide what to leave out and how to
*summarise* parts of the topic rather than drawing in everything that
has been written about the topic.
You see many FA-level articles where the main writer has read numerous
sources and made a judgment (based on the proportions of coverage
given by the main source) on where and how to summarize. That needs
doing here.
Carcharoth