Wikipedia talk:The perfect article

message: 1.  Shows a clear structure to aid comprehension, not a "laundry list". (note present article does not follow this).
:A.  Groups like with like.
:B.  Does not duplicate content in different parts of the article.
:C.  Orders information to aid the reader (largest to smallest, chronological, alphabetical, etc.), preferably in whichever manner most supports understanding.
:D.  Has a heirarchy of categoriations.
2.  Has scholarship:
:A.  Reflects non-Internet ("library") research, as most subjects are not yet well covered by good sources on the net.
:B.  Has been reviewed by a genuine subject matter expert in the field.
72.82.33.250 (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to your list 

message: Artworks, seriously? Why don't we just change it to the conventional artwork and try to ignore the fact that English plurals are not consistent. (Maybe I'm just ignorant.) PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, apparently artwork is technically "uncountable". I looked in several online dictionaries and found no mention of plural form of artwork. Wiktionary does list it though. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artworks 

message: Concerning this passage:
I believe that it would better reflect "perfection" if it also mentioned other sorts of media content:
I've already read What Wikipedia is not and to me it's clear that it's not forbidden to make these articles have a more "multimedia" look & feel: actually, it should be stimulated, since it tends to catch more of the reader's attention. We just need to be careful not to call too much of the reader's attention, since it can make the reader stop reading (getting distracted by the audio, visual, and audiovisual contents) and never resume reading the rest of the article. That aside, other media contents can provide information that sometimes can't be so efficiently or completely (or shortly) explained by spelled words (typed or written text).
PS: I had previously removed the word "portraits", since a human-made portrait is always a form of artwork (more frequently, a photograph, but can also be a painting or a drawing. Actually, using the word "artwork" sort of encompasses all forms of humam-made portraits and photographs). However, we can't say the same when it comes to non-human-made artwork, like those made by machines: machines can also take photos and portraits (e.g. surveillance cameras and photobooths). That's why I ended up not removing the word "portraits", neither "photographs", on my proposed text above.►[Sampayu] 16:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About media content 

message: The original paragraph reads:
:Is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.
At first glance, "Is completely neutral and unbiased [...] pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints" seems contradictory with "The most factual and accepted views are emphasized", but that has always been a difficult issue to express without more context, and which is commonly misinterpreted.  My impression is that reading more on the context of "neutral point of view", and the inclusion of WP:NOTABLE helps greatly to understand what "neutral and unbiased", "all sides", "emphasized" and "lower priority" really mean.  I will not modify this article myself without first getting approval, as my interpretation could be erroneous, but would suggest something like:
:Is neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all notable sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references to reliable sources are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.
The "neutral", "unbiased" and "pointing out all sides", without a mention of notability and reliable source, or without understanding NPOV (especially in the context of scientific topics), is otherwise often interpreted as encouraging the collection of trivia and fringe ideas (recent example).  I guess, however, that the perfect sentence also May not be attainable :)  Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This would be good to merge with essay WP:Readers first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readers first 

message: I suggest that the appropriate length for every encyclopedic article aim for 1 printed page (say 12pt).  If it is longer than that, you probably haven't architected the article well, or are not sufficiently adept on the topic in order to understand how it (the knowledge you're trying to convey) breaks down into parseable nuggets.  Most of these wikipedia pages, while nicely formatted with headers, don't give the reader a sense of authority because they're so strung out.  User:Dreamer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.112.9 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...of appropriate length 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Wikipedia:TPA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 8#Wikipedia:TPA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:TPA" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]