"...I think it is encylcopedically [sic] written, and quite well at that too"
"...our goal is to be as informative as possible to all our readers.... people are interested in it."
"...an awful lot of sources..."
"...Excellent article, well sourced.... Press releases determine verifiability not notability. This article should be used as a template"
"...This one clearly meets the standards that I would use."
"...There is the potential for a very good article here..."
"...A thoroughly-researched and well-documented article..."
"...our goal is to be as informative as possible to all our readers.... people are interested in it."
"...an awful lot of sources..."
"...Excellent article, well sourced.... Press releases determine verifiability not notability. This article should be used as a template"
"...This one clearly meets the standards that I would use."
"...There is the potential for a very good article here..."
"...A thoroughly-researched and well-documented article..."
Which great work worthy of the best encyclopedias are we discussing here? Which vital addition to the Sum of Human knowledge are we praising?
- Is it the article on the island of Madagascar? No. That article "appears to contradict itself".
- Is it the article on Homer, author of the Iliad and the Odyssey? No. The "neutrality of that article is disputed".
- Is it the article on Zinc. No. That has sections that "do not cite any references or sources." And we are asked to "please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources."
"I love Der Wikipedia! I love Der Jimbo Wales! He make me money!"
