On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Carcharoth
<carcharot...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Carl (CBM) <cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth <carcharot...@googlemail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and
>>> serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic. This
>>> article appears to be the starting and the ending point. Sometimes
>>> less is more. State what is needed, and let the reader then read more
>>> elsewhere as they see fit.
>>
>> Wouldn't this apply to other articles equally (e.g. our biography of
>> Santorum or the article on cats)? If not, why not?
>
> Part of the process of improving articles involves editing them, and
> that includes removing stuff as well as adding stuff. There are many
> cases of articles at the featured article process (and sometimes at
> the good article level as well) where excessive detail is removed. The
> specific arguments for carrying out such editing on this article
> belong on the article talk page.

Personally -

Once you get over the basic "What prompted Dan Savage to do this, and
what did he do", putting the rest of the context and criticism and
Santorum's response in place in more depth is fairer to Santorum than
covering those in less depth.

Truncating it actually would be more of a BLP problem than the longer
article, IMHO.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply via email to