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
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)