Charles Matthews wrote:
Jay JG wrote
>Do we really want "brilliant prose"?
Used to.
Specifically, [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]] was the old name for what is now
[[Wikipedia:Featured articles]].
>Is that even possible in an
>Encyclopedia? What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an
>Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples? I would have
>thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things
>we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an
>adamant point.
I don't want brilliant prose in an article on
heart disease. Decent writing
always helps popular science (cf. New Scientist).
I think "clear and concise" probably constitutes "brilliant prose" for
our
purposes.
In current affairs it is
far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style
book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate.
I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though they
happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for what
they do rather than what we do). I consciously emulate their tightness when
writing for Wikipedia.
''Clear and concise" is more the
idealised civil servant's style - pretty
good if the point is to get succinct versions of arguments written without
distortion.
Yep.
I think most of the style books make points about
keeping vitality in the
prose, not just conforming to 'rules'.
Indeed. Excellence in writing should not be a focal point for suspicion.
- d.