Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-31/Dispatches

Suggestion[edit]

For clarity, rather than using the main and see also templates, which generate long lists, how about using the same (standardized) format list for each different content type to include: the content page, the criteria page, the candidate page, and the peer review page. Like this:

See Featured articles, criteria, candidates, review, removed, statistics and peer review

See Featured lists, criteria, candidates and peer review

See Featured pictures, criteria, candidates, peer review and picture of the day

It's shorter, standardized, and puts everything readers need about each content type on one line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's no section on featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardised format: done.
Featured articles: My original intention was to cover the non-article processes and compare them. I put a bit into the intro about FA, but 1) I'll miss the deadline if I wrote about it (I'm UTC +8), 2) it probably deserves its own item anyway or can be lumped in with the history of FA and 3) it's long enough already.

That said, I think it's ready for publication. MER-C 12:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you can't have section headings, but will see what Ral315 does. Thanks MER-C !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]