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

Revision as of 03:04, 28 May 2008 editRichard001 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,850 edits Fix link← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:38, 19 January 2015 edit undoJarble (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users149,672 edits This article contains a section that is completely duplicated in another article.Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|merge=		\|merge=
	\|verify=		\|verify=
			\|cleanup= Merge ] with ].
	\|cleanup=
	\|expand=		\|expand=
	*Expand ] a little bit - three detailed paragraphs would be good for an article of this length.		*Expand ] a little bit - three detailed paragraphs would be good for an article of this length.

Revision as of 01:38, 19 January 2015

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Merge Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Systemic bias in coverage with Reliability of Misplaced Pages#Coverage.
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.