Talk:World Wide Web: Difference between revisions
imported>Konstantin Tchernov (Major problems) |
imported>Larry Sanger |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
# Poor prose, does not flow. Some inconsistent writing style. Sometimes boring and technical sometimes full of unnecessary flowery words like "dispersed around the planet in time and space" | # Poor prose, does not flow. Some inconsistent writing style. Sometimes boring and technical sometimes full of unnecessary flowery words like "dispersed around the planet in time and space" | ||
# The "basic terms" section is rather strange, I think if needed these terms should be defined in other places as they are mentioned.--[[User:Konstantin Tchernov|Konstantin Tchernov]] 08:21, 17 January 2007 (CST) | # The "basic terms" section is rather strange, I think if needed these terms should be defined in other places as they are mentioned.--[[User:Konstantin Tchernov|Konstantin Tchernov]] 08:21, 17 January 2007 (CST) | ||
Question: would a better article result more quickly if you were to (1) blank the article, and then (2) write a new one that lacks the above enumerated problems, while using the WP article (linked handily from our own article) as a rough guide? I ask out of curiosity. I know that's how I feel about the [[Philosophy]] article... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:51, 17 January 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 08:51, 17 January 2007
Technical details
I have re-written the "How the web works" section to be a more understandable high-level description. I will put the technical details about the DNS, TCP/IP, HTML, CSS, etc back into the article some time soon. Not quite sure where they should go, maybe a sub-category under "how the web works", but I just thought it was important to give a simple description first rather than throwing a whole lot of terminology at the reader.--Konstantin Tchernov 07:36, 17 January 2007 (CST)
Major problems
What I see that is majorly wrong here (just a very brief quick list):
- Dreadful structure - order of sections is ridiculous
- No in-line citations and hardly any references
- Poor prose, does not flow. Some inconsistent writing style. Sometimes boring and technical sometimes full of unnecessary flowery words like "dispersed around the planet in time and space"
- The "basic terms" section is rather strange, I think if needed these terms should be defined in other places as they are mentioned.--Konstantin Tchernov 08:21, 17 January 2007 (CST)
Question: would a better article result more quickly if you were to (1) blank the article, and then (2) write a new one that lacks the above enumerated problems, while using the WP article (linked handily from our own article) as a rough guide? I ask out of curiosity. I know that's how I feel about the Philosophy article... --Larry Sanger 08:51, 17 January 2007 (CST)