2b2t Wiki talk:WikiRating
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2b2t Wiki:WikiRating article. | |
|---|---|
|
|
Refining rating system
Since this is a large wiki wide change, I feel that we should receive input from the wider community for how to go about the logistics of the project before beginning to rate articles. The last attempt at a rating system was similarly handled poorly. There already seems to be opposition from people towards the idea. Please list any suggestions below. — Melofors TC 22:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think six levels is too much and that there should be fewer levels of quality. Also, size doesn't always correlate to quality, so I don't think that should be a requirement. The levels should focus more on if the article is well written (grammar/spelling/concise), well structured, understandable, neutral, illustrated, complying with the manual of style, etc. For example, the only difference between A and B articles (besides size) is "clear classification". I'm proposing four categories, A, B, C, and D. D would be equivalent to a "stub" on Wikipedia, an article that is usually short and does not provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject (the default for a lot of articles). C would be equivalent to a start class article on Wikipedia, an article that's better than stub but still needs expanding (the majority of articles). A B class article would be equivalent to the status of most articles improved by Operation Wikipossible, articles that are well off to perfect in most aspects. And an A-class article would be perfect in every regard. I don't think we even have any A-class articles on the wiki (Valkyria (base) could be a contender). I think the Omega class should be removed. It's hard to define exactly ten articles that are the best on the wiki, and it's not very useful anyway. It doesn't seem accurate looking at the current list as well. For example, 2b2t is listed as one such article, but one of the sections on the article is literally one word. — Melofors TC 03:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I want to say my opinion about these ideas. Melo wrote that the 6-point system is a bad idea. That is true in some respects. After reviewing a number of articles, I realized that the difference between the categories is very narrow. So I want to point out that it would be useful to change the standards of the categories. That is why I also suggest introducing a 4-point system in A, B, C, D categories. As for omega, I have taken the idea from many programs on Wikipedia, where in the end the top 10 are chosen. If you think that there are no such good articles on the wiki, then I will remove it as well. Finally, I would like to mention that the purpose of this program is to select good articles, to show the editors how to edit them correctly. - Tigran 07/ 💬 17:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)