QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 1st August 2009, 8:08pm)
QUOTE(Anthony)
But you say it is the best. Why do you believe that? What is the proper audience for an encyclopedia article on a topic as complicated as "atom"? What question, from a person with what level of knowledge, would you answer with "read the Wikipedia article on [[atom]] and all its subarticles, that's the best written on the topic - anywhere"?
The answers are the subtopics of
atom.
What's the question?
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 1st August 2009, 8:08pm)
There is almost no math in the atom article itsefl (one or two very simple algebra equations) so the level is the mythical 'intelligent layman" whose primary language is English and who is assumed to have a high school education. It's suitable also for high school students. Read it and you'll learn the basics: what are atoms, how did we discover them, what are they made of, what are their basic properties, how many kinds there are. And so on.
You're saying if a high school student asked you "What are atoms, how did we discover them, what are they made of, what are their basic properties, how many kinds are there?" you'd answer "read the Wikipedia article on [[atom]] [and all its subarticles?], that's the best written on the topic - anywhere"?
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 1st August 2009, 8:08pm)
As you may know, Wikipedia has some pretty stern guidlines in keeping articles below 100 kB if they are to get past FA review. Why? Some stupid shit about how articles longer than 50 kB have trouble being downloaded to ancient browsers (one assumes Netscape running on a somebody's IBM AT and a telephone cradle modem, not an iPhone). It's WP's outdated policy. But criticizing it is silly, as it does little harm when these things are accessed online, as these things are hyperlinked, and if you want to read more on the topic, just read the link.
There are many significant harms. First and foremost, it is completely non-obvious that a reader is
supposed to read the "sub-articles". Along those same lines, you haven't really answered whether or not you expect the reader to read the "sub-sub-articles" or the "sub-sub-sub-articles", etc. Secondly, but about as importantly, adding the "sub-articles" makes the article way too long, and presents the information in a non-intuitive order. I'm sure there's a much better treatment, of similar length, that can be had by reading a chapter or two from a physics textbook. Even moreso if you allow me to cherry-pick selected portions from a physics textbook, like you seem to suggest doing with Wikipedia articles ("pick out some sections which are of comparable length").
I agree with you that WP's outdated policy contributes greatly to this, but that's fully irrelevant, because we are discussing whether or not a Wikipedia article
is "the best written on the topic - anywhere", not the reason why it isn't.
I think the "sub-article" mess is in itself enough to render it "not the best".
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 1st August 2009, 8:08pm)
Really, if you're really down to the point of arguing that Wikipedia has put material into subarticles that it should have kept in its shorter main article, and vice versa (ie, it doesn't exactly follow your taste or interest in subtopic coverage), I think you've lost.
I'd say selection is the single greatest contributor to judging an article as "the best written on the topic - anywhere". And I'd say the coverage of the details of the atomic orbitals, for instance, is abysmally poor.
By the way, you misattributed two of the quotes above to me instead of "Limey". Please fix this.