On 27 April 2010 20:50, Charles Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > Nihiltres wrote: >> <snip> >> I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of review a >> given article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and the >> perceived level of quality involved, is a good thing. The Wikipedia 1.0 >> assessment system (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA…) seems to serve as a decent >> start for that sort of thing. > If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we really need > levels 1 to 10 for articles. It seems already to be hard to get an A, > fairly much impossible to get GA for an "average" topic, and as we know > only 1 in 1000 is FA (in round terms). And "expert review" = FA+ is > another quite defensible level. I think cutting to the chase, setting > substub = 1 and reviewed FA = 10 might be a great timesaver, and help a > process in which less "mystique" attached to the whole business. > Rebooting with FA = 9 sounds quite fun.
I realised a few months ago that it had been ages since I'd actually done anything significant in the main namespace, so I decided to have a go at writing an article. With a little help from someone that turned up and started improving the article (in true wiki-fashion), I got it to GA fairly easily. It was at best an "average" topic - it was my local (about 700 year old) church. FAC is very difficult to get through, but GA is entirely doable. I think adding more levels would make the distinctions more arbitrary, which seems like a bad thing to me. I think we should remove a level, in fact. The current system at the top with A, GA and FA is very confusing. I think GA and A should be merged somehow (perhaps just get rid of A). _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
