On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 01:59, Erik Moeller wrote: I believe the name "Brilliant prose" is problematic for several reasons: - It emphasizes writing, while a good article needs to be written well, factually accurate, neutral, reasonably complete, nicely illustrated and well organized. It has to cite its sources, link to related pages and present all data in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion. I believe these criteria are not properly encompassed by the word "prose". The only things I disagree with in the above are the requirements to "cite its sources, link to related pages", as the first one only comes into play, if the content is contested. I can think of several areas of knowledge, where citing sources, while nice, is largely unnecessary. (Physics articles about very easily confirmable phenomena for example.) Linking to related pages? Well there are really some subjects which truly are self contained, and then the links will tend to be to subjects not related. I see nothing wrong with this. We should not go around removing valid links, because they are not relevant to the article. I know there are views which diverge from this, but to posit this as a requirement for "brilliant prosehood" (for lack of a better term); well I don't agree with it (at least not yet). - The word "brilliant" is very vague and difficult to define. Accordingly, many Wikipedians have different ideas as to what is "brilliant prose". Some interpret the term pragmatically, feeling that every article that satisfies certain criteria should end up on BP eventually, even if it's short and to the point. Others understand BP to be always just a selection, that is, if the average Wikipedia article was on par with most traditional encyclopedias, BP should only list the very best. How about if we define it communally? As the result of what all wikipedians as an editorship point to when the term is uttered? - Last but not least, it conveys a sense of arrogance, and makes us look foolish if we list an article that is only slightly "non-brilliant". The likelihood that this happens seems very high. That also makes the title sound slightly unprofessional (reminiscent of the fun and games days of the early Wikipedia) Well, a case in point was the article on Rhazes. (First article I remember reading on wikipedia BTW) It was simultaneously listed on Brilliant prose and Pages needing attention. Thus the likelihood of what you claim is one. One for some values of "non-brilliant", that is. I would therefore like to ask you to brainstorm for a better title. My own understanding of BP is the pragmatic one, that is, I see BP as our certification mechanism, and every article should eventually pass through it. As a matter of fact, I would like to see discussions on every talk page at a certain point to the effect of "When can we get this listed on BP, what needs to be done, let's do it". As with all brainstorming, we should begin by just collecting possible titles without criticizing them. If one of them clearly stands out, we'll pick it. Otherwise we can vote on it. A counter proposal, if you please; expanding on your comments above. Why not have several different ways to characterize the articles we think are our best, maybe even having different grades, like say 0.5 Wikipedia, 0.8 Wikipedia, 0.9 Wikipedia and 1.0 Wikipedia? Here are my ideas: Certified articles Certified content Trusted pages Trusted area Safe zone Approved articles Golden.. Verfied.. My favorite so far is "Trusted pages". Sorry, no offence, but don't like any of those, and haven't got a better designation on the lines you are thinking. Respectfully: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)