Revision as of 22:11, 10 August 2011 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,034 edits →Image of the advertisement: yes← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:35, 11 August 2011 edit undoJorgePeixoto (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,199 edits →Article too big: new sectionNext edit → |
Line 15: |
Line 15: |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think it would be very helpful to see the page as a fair-use image. ] (]) 22:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
:I think it would be very helpful to see the page as a fair-use image. ] (]) 22:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article too big == |
|
|
|
|
|
It is arguable that this article is not even notable enough to be in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
But even if it remains, I humbly suggest for its size to be cut down. It is horribly |
|
|
big. Big articles are harder to verify. Of course, sometimes you can't help but |
|
|
writing a big article, such as when writing an article about ]. |
|
|
This is because there is a lot of notable information to be said about Washington, |
|
|
and dozens or even hundreds of Wikipedians care about ], so it will |
|
|
be verified even if its big. |
|
|
But in the case of this New York Times ad, we have two conditions |
|
|
1) The article is pretty big and therefore time-consuming to verify |
|
|
2) Few people will care about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, the chance of misinformation appearing here is pretty big. |
|
|
Would you please trim it down? I know you had a lot of work putting all |
|
|
this together, but please, trim it down. -- ] (]) 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
I have ProQuest access, so I can get an image of the ad. It's obviously not public domain, but does it add to readers' understanding of the topic (justifying a fair-use rationale)? Or is it only the text, rather than the structure, layout etc., that is significant? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It is arguable that this article is not even notable enough to be in Misplaced Pages.
But even if it remains, I humbly suggest for its size to be cut down. It is horribly
big. Big articles are harder to verify. Of course, sometimes you can't help but
writing a big article, such as when writing an article about George Washington.
This is because there is a lot of notable information to be said about Washington,
and dozens or even hundreds of Wikipedians care about George Washington, so it will
be verified even if its big.
But in the case of this New York Times ad, we have two conditions
1) The article is pretty big and therefore time-consuming to verify
2) Few people will care about it.
Therefore, the chance of misinformation appearing here is pretty big.
Would you please trim it down? I know you had a lot of work putting all
this together, but please, trim it down. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)