Changes

Conservapedia:Quality

349 bytes added, 21:20, April 19, 2007
well done
:::See [[Wikipedia:Quality]]. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::: Ah, I see now. The random entries are listed below for us, and you list the ones for Wikipedia on its Quality page. Well done!!! We do far better than Wikipedia!
 
:::: In fact, I'm going to post a comparison from your good work on other pages so that others will be sure to see it. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia: judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article. That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Siteadmin, bureaucrat, check user, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrator
116,830
edits