Talk:Yi Siling

Qualitiy
en:WP is kind of the center project of all Wikipedias. But after hours we have an "article" with more than 30 edits - and this is the result! Above are already two projects who claim the competence for the article. But more than "winning the women's 10 metre air rifle contest" is not to read. The woman is actual the World Champion in this Discipline and she hold the world record! It's sad and a shame, that only "to have an article" is of importance, not a bit the quality. For what needs a reader this "article"? People who want to know about her mostly know (and want to know more about her because of that!) about the olympic gold medaille. Wikipedia should give more informations! This is why we exist! Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest this as a start.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Quality on Wikipedia is not necessarily strictly determined by length. Sometimes all there is to say about a subject has already been said, and it's been referenced accordingly. This can constitute a high-quality article. That being said, this isn't quite one of those, but not for lack of trying. Athletes from countries such as China/North Korea etc can be very difficult to write articles on, as there is a significantly smaller pool of international news articles published on them (and when there are some, they're usually simply "This person won X award on this date" with very little background on the athlete in question)--that's exactly what this article says now, that she won a gold medal. There really isn't much more we can add to the article and source well... if you disagree, feel free to edit it! It just kills me to read "Wikipedia should give more information!" when there's really nothing more to add to an article... IShadowed (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While, I do agree it is silly to complain about an article having no info instead of just fixing it, it is equally silly to claim no more could be written about Yi. It took only minimal effort to find the sources necessary to expand this into a decent start-quality article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not equally silly at all. I couldn't find anything more to add from any reliable sources. Good on you if you could. IShadowed (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)