Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages/to do: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:25, 17 February 2008 editRichard001 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,850 edits Expand← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:51, 22 March 2008 edit undoMouse is back (talk \| contribs)843 editsm image was addedNext edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:
	\|infobox=		\|infobox=
	\|other= *Discuss changing the subject (or just the name) of the article to something a bit broader (e.g. ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc) (reliability being a more narrow subject, see ]). Discuss overlap with ] and clarify the scope of the two articles.		\|other= *Discuss changing the subject (or just the name) of the article to something a bit broader (e.g. ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc) (reliability being a more narrow subject, see ]). Discuss overlap with ] and clarify the scope of the two articles.
	*Images: Perhaps a screenshot of a vandalized/inaccurate edit?
	}}		}}

Revision as of 23:51, 22 March 2008

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Expand : *Expand lead a little bit - three detailed paragraphs would be good for an article of this length.
- Should there be something on Misplaced Pages assessment of itself - e.g. the assessment scheme, WikiProjects, featured articles, peer review etc?
- Find references where called for
- Other : *Discuss changing the subject (or just the name) of the article to something a bit broader (e.g. quality of Misplaced Pages, quality and comprehensiveness of Misplaced Pages, evaluation of Misplaced Pages, assessment of Misplaced Pages, appraisal of Misplaced Pages, perspectives on Misplaced Pages, reception of Misplaced Pages etc) (reliability being a more narrow subject, see Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages#Article name). Discuss overlap with criticism of Misplaced Pages and clarify the scope of the two articles.