CZ Talk:Politics Workgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Anthony Argyriou |
imported>Shamira Gelbman (moved content from main page) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Reply here or at the article's discussion page. Thanks, [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 15:22, 7 May 2007 (CDT) | Reply here or at the article's discussion page. Thanks, [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 15:22, 7 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Some tentative attempts at drafting== | |||
In drafting an article on ''Politics'' and a linked article on ''Political Party'', I have been conscious of the danger of stepping on the toes of people better qualified for that purpose. I was encouraged, however, by the belief that what was available appeared to be incomplete or obscure. But in drafting all-inclusive articles of that sort, the difficulty is how to hold the reader’s interest in the main issues without misleading him by over-simplification – and I am far from confident that I have got the balance right. I will readily withdraw if my drafts are beyond redemption in that respect, but my hope is that my fellow CZ writers will help by correcting what is misleading, and expanding the text where necessary, without insisting upon the inclusion of excessive detail that would better be in linked articles. | |||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:48, 1 December 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 16:19, 11 August 2009
Electoral College
I'd like to get Electoral College started towards approval. I'm certain that some expert eyes will find plenty of things which should be improved. So, please have at! In particular:
- Is there anything important which should be in this article but isn't yet?
- Is any of the exposition unclear or confusing?
- Are there any factual errors?
- Is the overall structure of the article sound?
Reply here or at the article's discussion page. Thanks, Anthony Argyriou 15:22, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Some tentative attempts at drafting
In drafting an article on Politics and a linked article on Political Party, I have been conscious of the danger of stepping on the toes of people better qualified for that purpose. I was encouraged, however, by the belief that what was available appeared to be incomplete or obscure. But in drafting all-inclusive articles of that sort, the difficulty is how to hold the reader’s interest in the main issues without misleading him by over-simplification – and I am far from confident that I have got the balance right. I will readily withdraw if my drafts are beyond redemption in that respect, but my hope is that my fellow CZ writers will help by correcting what is misleading, and expanding the text where necessary, without insisting upon the inclusion of excessive detail that would better be in linked articles. Nick Gardner 16:48, 1 December 2007 (CST)