Content deleted Content added
→Revert: add |
→Revert: Reply |
||
Line 8:
::For starters, in the very first sentence you change "New articles" to "All new articles". "All" adds nothing of value, it is just wordiness that makes the page longer. Then you changed "articles" to "articles and redirect". This page is about articles. It is irrelevant that redirects are also reviewed. A new user who is writing their first article probably doesn't know what a redirect is. More distracting clutter. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 15:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I thought "all" flowed better and added "redirects" because that is mentioned in the next paragraph, but I'm happy to take that out. Anything else? – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Joe, I was giving examples from the first sentence as an illustration of how it was unnecessarily wordy. I did not mean those were the only "extra words". You have just put back a version that is substantially longer than the way it was. Please revert yourself. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 05:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
::I think links are helpful to give context on wiki-insider jargon that new users may not be familiar with, and are widely used across help pages for that reason. However, I can tone it down and we can discuss them on a case-by-case basis.
::For example, I really think it's helpful to link "Wikipedia's core content policies"/"core policies" to something. A long-standing problem with NPP's communication has been the use of phrases like "not ready" or "minimum standard" without actually saying what that standard is. Linking to [[Wikipedia:Core content policies]] right at the start tells users what we actually expect from articles, which may be obvious to reviewers but can be opaque to new users. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
| |||