On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > Interestingly, the seven "clear failures" exhibit a strong correlation > between quality and time - the points get lower as they get older. For > the other articles, there's little or no correlation between the time > since they passed FAC (or FAR) and their quality. > > http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2010/quality-versus-age-of-wikipedias-featured-articles/ > > I suspect this points up a problem with maintenance more than initial > quality, but we shall see. > > -- > - Andrew Gray > [email protected]
I had the same thought - the [[Max Weber]] article had the lowest (and lowest possible) score of 1. This article was promoted following a nomination from Piotrus in September 2006, and it's had some substantial revisions since then. On the other hand, Piotrus remains actively involved - his last edit to this article was this past April 8th. Given the continuous involvement of the primary author, the problem here may reflect evolving standards of quality more than maintenance. Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
