== Radcliffe wikify == 

 Hi Doops,  

 My name is . I'm currently on a editing spree of college-related articles. The reason I added a wikify tag to Radcliffe article was because it does not have the same quality as other college articles. I saw on your user page that you are an alum of Harvard. If you would like to help wikify the Radcliffe article, please see my edits of UMass Amherst. As for your comment as to why I didn't do the editing myself, an article doesn't just become wikified by the insertion of link tags. Even your own Harvard College is far more wikified than the Radcliffe page. 

 In the future, please pose questions as to tags in the Discussion page of the article in question, thanks! 

   (copied from  

 :Hi, Varun. I think you may be misunderstanding the word "wikify". Wikification isn't so much a question of content as of how that content is formatted — in particular, is there a healthy dose of internal wikipedia links? Typically, the "wikify" tag is used for articles with large chunks of undigested text, often cut-and-pasted from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica or other public domain source. They need formatting, links, and often lots of rewriting to make them encyclopedic in tone. Adding the tag to an article automatically adds it to the huge (currently ca. 2000 articles) Category:Articles that need to be wikified; for the sake of the sanity of the brave souls who try, largely in vain, to rescue articles like this from this category, we should only send articles there which really need it. 

 :As far as article quality is concerned, I would argue that Radcliffe College is actually a much better article than Harvard College right now. The latter is rambling, poorly-organized, and gives too much attention to some things and not enough attention to others; since I know something about the college I feel I really ought to make it a better article — but it's a daunting task. The Radcliffe College article, on the other hand, is direct and to-the-point; it makes the most important points about that college clearly. It is shorter, of course; but that's a separate issue from quality, I would argue. Harvard College has lots of info but is a crummy article; Radcliffe College is brief but well-written and -organized. 

 :Should Radcliffe College be longer? Maybe. But let me point out that Radcliffe College no longer exists; it has been defunct in law since 1999 and in practice since the mid 1970s. It's only natural that living colleges will have more active articles. And, even aside from that, I believe that article quality is as least as important as quantity of information, as long as all the important bases are covered. Don't get me wrong  it's always possible to add interesting new info to articles; and I'm not opposed to the possibility of growth for the Radcliffe College article. I just don't think it's a priority, when so many Wikipedia articles are crummy. 

 :By the way, I presume you know this already; but in case you don't — if you come across a really short article (just a paragraph or two) which isn't already marked as a stub, you can use the {{stub}} tag to do so. But again, like the {{wikify}} tag, we should only use it where truly appropriate. 

 :Cheers,  |