Wikipedia:Peer review/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1

Encyclopædia Britannica edit

This article is has already acheived Good Article status. Some users suggested that we try and get this nominated for Featured Article candidate. Just imagine featuring this: with the growing tension between Britannica and Wikimedia. It would show that Wikipedia is a true neutral encyclopedia, capable of featuring it's own competitor. Anyway, this article is already in pretty good shape, almost everyhting is cited, it's well formatted, etc. So, I was wondering what else it needed. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This thing is wikilinked to death, remove as much of em as possible. The 'edition history' section is pretty fugly; nothing like hitting a page of blah-table. rewrite or remove is my suggestion for that one. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilinked to death? Really? Can you give me an example? As for the table, that's a good idea. The only problem is I have no experience in table-formatting. I'll see if I can get anyone else to do it. NauticaShades^(talk) 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - wikilinking is better by now. found what we needed at Help:Table, made it smaller myself, hope you find it agreeable. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. excellent call to make this an FA. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Total references need to increase. Intro is long relative to body. Without being too effusive, I think we should give it more credit in the intro. Marskell 10:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right about the intro. I'm going to try and work on it. NauticaShades^(talk) 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As part of the increasing in the total number of references, the {{fact}} tag after the statement in the first section about hieroglyphs translation in the Rosetta Stone needs an inline citation to a reference. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. I've been trying to find a reference for tat one, with no luck. If you have any ideas. please tell me. NauticaShades^(talk) 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The part comparing it to Wikipedia could be more complete. For instance you should perhaps mention that Wikipedia started off with a great deal of content from an older Britannica. Some criticisms that I've heard of Britannica vs Wikipedia is that the quality of the prose in Britannica is superior; and another major thing that a lot of topics that are important to the general audience don't get covered well because of the limited demographics of Wikipedians. I believe this paper mentions most of this.--Konst.able 11:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We try to avoid too much Wikipedia in the article, however, due to WP:SELF. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that, but Wikipedia is probably Britannica's top competitor right now and I think deserves a good comparison. What you mention right now is just the Nature study, which is obviously debated and only covers a narrow aspect in the first place (i.e. just a couple of biology-related articles, and assessed just on accuracy).--Konst.able 00:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll work on it then, but we have to be careful, or it'll sound like we're promoting Wikipedia too much. NauticaShades^(talk) 08:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - On a side note, while the article you linked to might be interesting and a useful source for other articles, it has no real use for Britannica. The only part of the artile in which Britannica is mentioned is when it refers to the Nature survey, which is already (as you said) on the article. This would probably be more useful for the Wikpedia article itself. NauticaShad e s 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]