Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beer/archive0
Extensive and extremly informative. →Raul654 19:27, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
Object- it needs a good lead section that can act as a concise article in its own right (news style). This would also make it possible to have this item on the Featured article part of the Main Page. --mav 02:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)- I stronly disagree with both Mav's assertion and his reasons. I don't see any reason we couldn't put beer on the main page, and (more importantly) I don't think we should censor featured articles candidates based on whether they can be featured on the main page or not. →Raul654 21:57, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Qualifying for listing on the Main Page is not my major point. My point is in regards to organizing information so that it is most useful to readers. Some readers want a concise article on the topic - not just a definition. Expanding the lead section into a miniature article (a concise article) makes the entire Wikipedia article more useful. --mav
- I stronly disagree with both Mav's assertion and his reasons. I don't see any reason we couldn't put beer on the main page, and (more importantly) I don't think we should censor featured articles candidates based on whether they can be featured on the main page or not. →Raul654 21:57, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Well written, lots of info, and it does too have a good intro section. Couldn't fit more than two senetences on the Main Page anyway. --zandperl 01:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Support. In my view, the more concise the intro, the better. -- Stewart Adcock 21:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That is reader unfriendly. Some people don't want to read a long article to get the basics. Best to summarize the major points and then give readers a choice. See news style. --mav
- I detest the news style. It means that you have to read everything twice - once in an over-concise form and once in an over-verbose form. It is much better to write an article and then provide a short summary at the top so the reader (a) knows it covers the right topic (b) gets hooked. Besides, wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a news source. Just my 2 cents. Stewart Adcock 22:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The lead section should be a summary that grabs people. That summary should address the major and most important points in an article. Since those points are so important, they bear repeating and being expanded upon later in the article. This helps solidify the major and most important concepts to the reader. Other readers could just opt to read the lead section to get the basics. In short, Wikipedia news style gives readers a choice about how much detail they are willing to read through to get the information they need. It is highly useful. This set-up also lets Wikipedia be a concise and general encyclopedia along with being an interconnected set of specialized encyclopedias. Such specialized encyclopedias normally require special background knowledge to understand articles. But a good lead section should be understandable by just about anybody. --mav
- I have beefed up the introduction with an additional two sentences. I think that should do it. →Raul654 09:31, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks - that is enough for me to withdraw my objection. The lead section can be expanded more later. -- mav
- I have beefed up the introduction with an additional two sentences. I think that should do it. →Raul654 09:31, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
- The lead section should be a summary that grabs people. That summary should address the major and most important points in an article. Since those points are so important, they bear repeating and being expanded upon later in the article. This helps solidify the major and most important concepts to the reader. Other readers could just opt to read the lead section to get the basics. In short, Wikipedia news style gives readers a choice about how much detail they are willing to read through to get the information they need. It is highly useful. This set-up also lets Wikipedia be a concise and general encyclopedia along with being an interconnected set of specialized encyclopedias. Such specialized encyclopedias normally require special background knowledge to understand articles. But a good lead section should be understandable by just about anybody. --mav
- Added Japan section and offer my support. Revth 06:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very well written and informative, alothough the U.S. section is disproportionately large compared to the others. DryGrain 17:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)