Wikipedia talk:An article is the sum of its parts

I had been working on a similar page in user space and I've just slapped in. I intend to spend some more time fleshing this out to get a coherent thought (so we don't fall victim to the problem we argue against). Also, I'd like to think about the title. What about something like "Seeing the forest amongst the trees". . .?Ronnotel (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good essay. Deserves to be cited more. Earmarked. -- J N  466  19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. In the length of time it takes to figure out that a section of an article is undersized, you can find key references and stake out at least an outline of the facts that need to go in. It is futile to "weight" sections in an article that is so incomplete that one section can be expanded to the point where it eclipses the others. Editing by section is only natural when sources often cover only things that belong to one section. When a section grows naturally beyond all reasonable bounds, that's the clue that indicates when it's time to give it its own article. Wnt (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)