This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Considering the comments made by "Dr T M Asquith" elsewhere about his own knowledge and expertise as the editor, for what that may be worth, of the "ACS journal", one may have anticipated an outstanding contribution of scholarly standards to this article. Sadly, he fails miserably to reach the very high standards maintained by the WP:CRIC project in general and one has felt obliged to intevene and try to restore the article's former readability.
I do not wish to waste much time on this but, if Asquith is open to receipt of constructive criticism in addition to his destructive carping about other people who can actually write readable and correct English, he may find instruction in the following brief notes:
All of Asquith's "facts" have been lifted piecemeal from a Datasport compendium published in 1990. I am not sure if this is a commendable source or not, but it certainly does not meet the "academic" status which "Dr Asquith" so hypocritically demands when he presents condescending claptrap on other people's talk pages.
This article is only a "stub" and it would be rewarding to see it expand but when an article has effectively been ruined by a seriously bad editor like Asquith, good editors are naturally discouraged from trying to improve it as they must first perform a repair. My advice to Mr Asquith is to stay away from Wikipedia unless he is prepared to behave in a civil manner towards the members and make a genuine effort to comply with site standards and produce readable work. Incidentally, he is a blocked user evading his ban and so one must suppose that all his edits could be erased. However, I have tried despite a limit on my available time to make some good out of his poor work. -- Jim Hardie ( talk) 06:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Considering the comments made by "Dr T M Asquith" elsewhere about his own knowledge and expertise as the editor, for what that may be worth, of the "ACS journal", one may have anticipated an outstanding contribution of scholarly standards to this article. Sadly, he fails miserably to reach the very high standards maintained by the WP:CRIC project in general and one has felt obliged to intevene and try to restore the article's former readability.
I do not wish to waste much time on this but, if Asquith is open to receipt of constructive criticism in addition to his destructive carping about other people who can actually write readable and correct English, he may find instruction in the following brief notes:
All of Asquith's "facts" have been lifted piecemeal from a Datasport compendium published in 1990. I am not sure if this is a commendable source or not, but it certainly does not meet the "academic" status which "Dr Asquith" so hypocritically demands when he presents condescending claptrap on other people's talk pages.
This article is only a "stub" and it would be rewarding to see it expand but when an article has effectively been ruined by a seriously bad editor like Asquith, good editors are naturally discouraged from trying to improve it as they must first perform a repair. My advice to Mr Asquith is to stay away from Wikipedia unless he is prepared to behave in a civil manner towards the members and make a genuine effort to comply with site standards and produce readable work. Incidentally, he is a blocked user evading his ban and so one must suppose that all his edits could be erased. However, I have tried despite a limit on my available time to make some good out of his poor work. -- Jim Hardie ( talk) 06:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)