Wikipedia has a plethora of good topics. The criteria used remains that expressed by Larry: (1) copious original content; (2) good writing; (3) clarity for the person who doesn't know what the topic is about (after all, this is an encyclopedia!); (4) whimsy (i.e., don't expect to see perfect consistency and fairness). 5) Refrain from listing many of the articles that consist of links to other articles, except where most of the linked articles were good (this is noted by "and related pages").
- the CIA pages, anyway; hey, the CIA did a great job!
CIA pages are very buggy. I live in Poland and I had to fix a few serious bugs about Poland, I've also found serious bug in article about Isreal.I'm sure that people living in other countries probably could also find some bugs. So don't praise CIA World Factbook too much. --Taw
The author of the Eugene Wigner page placed his own page here, which I think we should agree
is not appropriate (I happen to think some of my pages that aren't here deserve to be, but I'm
not going to nominate myself like that). Also, it was in the wrong place, put here before the article was even written, and the article needs work. --
LDC
Oh, I see. I'd agree with that. --
LMS
Seeing that the same thing has happened again, I've added a sentence to the main page suggesting that you shouldn't nominate a page you've written most of. If that's not the consensus view, please remove it --Robert Merkel
I agree that the article is pretty good, though, and may well end up there soon. --LDC
I fully concur with the "don't nominate yourself" principle that LDC outlined. (OK - no page "belongs" to anyone, but obviously if you've made 23 out of 24 edits, there is a sense in which it is "your article" for this particular discussion.) Like LDC, I've written a few articles that I thought were damn good, but sadly no-one else feels they qualifyfor BP. However, that aspect is a good exercise in humility, and make's me want to try and write better articles. - MMGB
I admire your humility. But are you sure that the people who know about the brilliant prose page and who are knowledgeable enough in your subject area to recognize brilliant discussion of it are the same people who have read your article? ... Looking forward to having an active "watchlist,"
KQ.
Even if I don't think you should add your own page, I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing attention to your work: Manning, I added your Paul Erdos page. --LDC
Removed Charles Evers because the article is clearly not yet up to scratch. To the person(s) working on the Evers page, I'd just like to make clear that this is a page for recognising the best writing on Wikipedia, not the articles on people who we think are particularly notable. If the article becomes brilliant, me or somebody else might well add it here. --Robert Merkel
- Robert - I've also removed the Charles Evers article (on another occasion) for the same reasons of inadequate quality - better watch out for this link in future. - MMGB
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)