On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:35:17 -0700 (PDT), Geoffrey Burling
<llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmason wrote:
> Any unbashed viewpoint hurts our credibility.
True. See what you think of the current revision.
What is odd about this article in my eyes is that it
appears not to have
passed thru the normal process of being nominated, debated, then approved
as a "Featured Article". I admit I made a rather quick search on the history
What's that? Checking the featured log quickly brought up the history; search
for "Russian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured…
It's worth noting that most commenters recognized its NPOV
problems at the time, but were content to feature it anyway. Another reason
to encourage further serious editing and improvements to FA articles before
showcasing them on the main page... perhaps 24 hours' notice is not enough.
I like the way Featured Pictures are decided on a week in advance.
--
--:-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
+sj+