RationalWiki talk:Article rating/Archive1
Contents |
[edit] Excellent!
This is just the thing. So do we start festooning articles with brains now? - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- yes, let's clog recent changes for a week! Totnesmartin (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to stop for now. Having the brain symbol up against the first line or two of text just looks wrong. We should try to find a way of getting on the same line as the title. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from that - sounds like a plan! - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can we go slow until we've fixed some presentation issues?
bomination 17:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- You mean, until we work out how not to break every featured page on the wiki? But but but I'm back at work tomorrow! - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nx&oldid=578846 -- Nx / talk 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Did you just hack the crap out of DISPLAYTITLE?
bomination 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nice :-) Does it work with 50px brainstars? The 20px ones look like smudges, not brains - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- 50px would be a little overkill. I've redone them with 25px and it seems infinitely better without it being too big. Trouble is that the other skins may be an issue, particularly the blue one as the 20px version fitted quite snuggly into that blue band at the top.
bomination 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Modern is a bit silly at 50px. Monobook looks great, though - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- 50px would be a little overkill. I've redone them with 25px and it seems infinitely better without it being too big. Trouble is that the other skins may be an issue, particularly the blue one as the 20px version fitted quite snuggly into that blue band at the top.
- Did you just hack the crap out of DISPLAYTITLE?
- http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nx&oldid=578846 -- Nx / talk 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- You mean, until we work out how not to break every featured page on the wiki? But but but I'm back at work tomorrow! - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can we go slow until we've fixed some presentation issues?
- Apart from that - sounds like a plan! - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to stop for now. Having the brain symbol up against the first line or two of text just looks wrong. We should try to find a way of getting on the same line as the title. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Nomination
I move that my excellent Corrs Conundrum be given gold cover story status. Immediately. And for ever. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Only if my John Woo gets the same. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Corrs Conundrum gets my vote for a bronze or silver. --
Ask me about our kite 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- We have a "best of amusement" and "best of conservapedia" categories, I think we should exclude non-mainspace articles from this.
bomination 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I don't know - how are we going to find the genuinely funny articles among the thousands of "this is crap, move it to fun" entries? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- We have a "best of amusement" and "best of conservapedia" categories, I think we should exclude non-mainspace articles from this.
- Corrs Conundrum gets my vote for a bronze or silver. --
[edit] Okay
I've given "random page" a whirl and added some stars to what I'd consider passes. I should have actually kept count but I've finding about 1 in 5 are getting bronze. Which is pretty good. I originally thought this first level would be a fairly high attainment. So, the question now remains of whether to continue as I am, or try to boost the criteria a little to make it somewhat more exclusive.
bomination 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Try going via Special:popularpages and special:longpages, as the top-ranked entries are likely to have enough decent content. That'll save you randomly getting loads of stubs. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- The idea behind "random" was also to get a feel for how many there would be out of the entire bunch - and I think it'd be a better than going by popular pages downward for that purpose. But yeah, for figuring it out, that'd be a better place to start. However, quality isn't always about absolute size.
bomination 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Aye, we (ie you) have to be careful to keep it quite exclusive, otherwise it becomes pointless and devalued if everything's got one (kind of like getting 98% on an Assfly exam) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. I think we should be seriously tight with Silver, and not do Gold without discussion (unless it's hellishly obvious, and even then, stick a note on the talk page with a justification and let people squabble) but the Bronze we can get away with being a little more lax with, sort of just sorting wheat from the chaff, as it were.
bomination 18:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. I think we should be seriously tight with Silver, and not do Gold without discussion (unless it's hellishly obvious, and even then, stick a note on the talk page with a justification and let people squabble) but the Bronze we can get away with being a little more lax with, sort of just sorting wheat from the chaff, as it were.
- Aye, we (ie you) have to be careful to keep it quite exclusive, otherwise it becomes pointless and devalued if everything's got one (kind of like getting 98% on an Assfly exam) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- The idea behind "random" was also to get a feel for how many there would be out of the entire bunch - and I think it'd be a better than going by popular pages downward for that purpose. But yeah, for figuring it out, that'd be a better place to start. However, quality isn't always about absolute size.
- Try going via Special:popularpages and special:longpages, as the top-ranked entries are likely to have enough decent content. That'll save you randomly getting loads of stubs. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of a "non-exclusive" level that signifies quality work that can be built upon. I think one of the criteria for bronze should be "extendability" or something of the like. That the article has potential to move up the ranks. Some of our articles have less room for expansion than others. Bronze should signify that it meets basic standards, but should also serve as an entry point for people that really want to try and improve the site by improving existing articles. I think silver and gold can certainly be much more discerning. Just my thoughts. tmtoulouse 18:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Heh heh, "extendability", I like the sound of that! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hurr hurr... but a very good point nonetheless. However, while "extendibility" is certainly a worthwhile factor, I wouldn't want to use that to stop certain articles getting some recognition. I fully envisage that some articles may never get into a higher bracket because the material just isn't right for it.
bomination 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hurr hurr... but a very good point nonetheless. However, while "extendibility" is certainly a worthwhile factor, I wouldn't want to use that to stop certain articles getting some recognition. I fully envisage that some articles may never get into a higher bracket because the material just isn't right for it.
One in five is fine by me and constitutes not doing too badly IMO - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- And may I say that continuous requirement creep on Wikipedia has always really pissed me off - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Steelbrain and fun
If steelbrain isn't ever going to be used, should it be in the article? also, if this rating system comes off I'd like to do a simpler version for fun articles, with baloons instead of brains. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like that. What about the Conservapedia: namespace? Golden buttocks? - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like that idea. Should be a .gif as well. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Bronze criterion
"Article contains references and external links" - does this mean external links separate from references, or do refs which are ELs count? At the moment I'm not bronzing perfectly good articles like Judaism and Michelle Malkin for want only of ELs which aren't refs. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds kinda silly - we'll get people adding external links just for the sake of it to articles which don't really need them. If it's a good article, it's a good article, irrespective of how many links it has. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK then. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Like all "rules" on RW, there's a lot of wiggle room and people are free to change it if they like - it's not hard and fast by any means. I only added something about references in the proposal as a proxy for the reliability of the article and as an indicator that actual research was done to back it up. They also give readers somewhere else to go to learn more if necessary, which is the main reason these articles exist.
bomination 14:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I did a quick clarification on that. When it says external links, it should really mean a link off-site to back up the content of the article. Doesn't matter if it's in a ref tag or not but they should be grouped preferably.
bomination 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- It has just occured to me that there isn't really a benchmark for what silver actually is. Currently it seems to be using the quality + quantity of the referencing as a proxy of quality, but there should also be something about length and writing style there. The lack of excessive snark and humour is already in the criteria for bronze, there needs to be another easy to spot and quantify factor for silver.
bomination 13:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- It has just occured to me that there isn't really a benchmark for what silver actually is. Currently it seems to be using the quality + quantity of the referencing as a proxy of quality, but there should also be something about length and writing style there. The lack of excessive snark and humour is already in the criteria for bronze, there needs to be another easy to spot and quantify factor for silver.
- Okay, I did a quick clarification on that. When it says external links, it should really mean a link off-site to back up the content of the article. Doesn't matter if it's in a ref tag or not but they should be grouped preferably.
- Like all "rules" on RW, there's a lot of wiggle room and people are free to change it if they like - it's not hard and fast by any means. I only added something about references in the proposal as a proxy for the reliability of the article and as an indicator that actual research was done to back it up. They also give readers somewhere else to go to learn more if necessary, which is the main reason these articles exist.
- OK then. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Internal links
There's a lot in these guidelines about external links but almost nothing about internal links, which are much more important in terms of building & maintaining a navigable wiki. Every article should have see-alsos, wikilinks & at least one category. I reckon that rated articles should probably be in multiple categories. And, equally importantly, they should also be linked to from other articles where appropriate. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wiki links both ways are vital, yes. See also may be unnecessary, though, if all relevant topics are linked in the text. And sometimes an article only belongs in one category. However, "one" should obviously be the minimum number of cats. ħuman
23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I take your point on categories, in that a few articles genuinely fit in only one category & shouldn't be barred from bronze status or whatever because of this. But we have a lot of categories & most article subjects relates to multiple ones, so if an article only has one, users should at least check for other appropriate categories. I disagree on see-alsos - I think all substantial articles should have them, in order to look like a proper wiki article & not a dead end page, even if they repeat links which are already in the article text. Not all readers will read the whole article, and those who scan it or only read parts of it may miss important links if they are buried in one of the middle sections and not repeated in "see also". Those who do read the whole thing can then proceed to a relevant page when they reach the end, without needing to scroll back up & find the link in the text again. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Huh. I tend to remove those as redundant - "see also" is for stuff that isn't already in the text. And if they're not going to read, too bad.
- At this point I must most strongly caution against arbitrarily adding requirements. Instruction creep is real. DO NOT ADD HARD REQUIREMENTS, EVER, UNLESS YOU REALLY HAVE TO. You can't legislate good taste - David Gerard (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- But internal links & categories are a pretty basic criterion for good wiki content. I find it strange that external links are listed as a hard requirement (when a short article can sometimes do without them, IMO) while internal links aren't even mentioned. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 09:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- That actually made little sense. Although, are El's listed as a criterion? Kill that. ħuman
09:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, they're listed under bronze, silver & gold on this page. Which part made little sense? Essentially I'm suggesting that instead of requiring "appropriate references and/or external links", rated article should require "appropriate internal and external links, categories, and references if appropriate". Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 09:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect I wasn't responding to you. Sometimes I edit "stale" versions and don't notice the more recent edits, my bad. What you said made sense. ħuman
11:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect I wasn't responding to you. Sometimes I edit "stale" versions and don't notice the more recent edits, my bad. What you said made sense. ħuman
- Yes, they're listed under bronze, silver & gold on this page. Which part made little sense? Essentially I'm suggesting that instead of requiring "appropriate references and/or external links", rated article should require "appropriate internal and external links, categories, and references if appropriate". Wèàšèìòìď
- That actually made little sense. Although, are El's listed as a criterion? Kill that. ħuman
- But internal links & categories are a pretty basic criterion for good wiki content. I find it strange that external links are listed as a hard requirement (when a short article can sometimes do without them, IMO) while internal links aren't even mentioned. Wèàšèìòìď
- I take your point on categories, in that a few articles genuinely fit in only one category & shouldn't be barred from bronze status or whatever because of this. But we have a lot of categories & most article subjects relates to multiple ones, so if an article only has one, users should at least check for other appropriate categories. I disagree on see-alsos - I think all substantial articles should have them, in order to look like a proper wiki article & not a dead end page, even if they repeat links which are already in the article text. Not all readers will read the whole article, and those who scan it or only read parts of it may miss important links if they are buried in one of the middle sections and not repeated in "see also". Those who do read the whole thing can then proceed to a relevant page when they reach the end, without needing to scroll back up & find the link in the text again. Wèàšèìòìď
[edit] Wow
I actually just read this crap for the first time. I am embarrassed for us. People too lazy to link to "manual of style" want to tell us how to rate articles??? Wow. I gave up after "bronze". ħuman
09:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- In retrospect, I think this whole "project" is a total disaster, based on what some people think makes a good RW article, but can't really articulate it, but like to write "rules". ħuman
09:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, what a stupid idea. Actually, what's the point in writing articles anyway, everyone knows RW only exists to troll Conservapedia. -- Nx / talk 11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you finally noticed that this pile of turd was here after, what, a month or so? It was proposed in a forum post. It was liked. It was copied here. The fact that no one really complained about the content of it made everyone assume it was acceptable.
bomination 08:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, now that some of us are going back to the basics on this site, me thinks that the discussion on what qualifies something as (fill in the blank) rating should be re-opened. Conservative Punk (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think "re-opened" is the word as it was never "closed" to begin with. But if you mean that people want to take a break from the main focus of the site, which is self-evidently being drama queens and discussing what to do with troublesome wank stains, and move onto those fiddly little background details like the quality of our articles and the validity of the information contained within them.
bomination 09:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- David Gerard's response in the section above didn't exactly reassure me that the rating criteria were still open for discussion & improvement. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whuh? Sorry if I came across as unduly snippy. I think the rating criteria are open for discussion and improvement. I just strongly caution against instruction creep, having seen how it developed on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- David Gerard's response in the section above didn't exactly reassure me that the rating criteria were still open for discussion & improvement. Wèàšèìòìď
- I don't think "re-opened" is the word as it was never "closed" to begin with. But if you mean that people want to take a break from the main focus of the site, which is self-evidently being drama queens and discussing what to do with troublesome wank stains, and move onto those fiddly little background details like the quality of our articles and the validity of the information contained within them.
- Agreed. Wèàšèìòìď
- Well, now that some of us are going back to the basics on this site, me thinks that the discussion on what qualifies something as (fill in the blank) rating should be re-opened. Conservative Punk (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you finally noticed that this pile of turd was here after, what, a month or so? It was proposed in a forum post. It was liked. It was copied here. The fact that no one really complained about the content of it made everyone assume it was acceptable.
- You're right, what a stupid idea. Actually, what's the point in writing articles anyway, everyone knows RW only exists to troll Conservapedia. -- Nx / talk 11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think in practice this is a great idea, even if it somehow happened without Human noticing. It's an incentive to actually make our article text better. To make our good articles great and our on-topic articles good. I suggest it's actually working too, therefore is a good thing. In moderation - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] "White" Articles instead of ordinary?
I think that, instead of having an "Ordinary" articles category, we should call those articles "White" articles or something, so that we can have a brainstar for them. That way, they can be categorized accordingly, and people can look at those first for improvement. Conservative Punk (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nah. Setting white as default would imply that articles have already been assessed & rated when they haven't. & Manually tagging everything white would be a massive time-wasting exercise. If we are to go through articles one by one, it should be to improve them up to rated standard, not just stamp them with a white non-rating rating. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think a dpl list might be able to do it. We have the stub category of course, but every article that is not in stub or bronze or silver or gold would be the ones in question? ħuman
19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think a dpl list might be able to do it. We have the stub category of course, but every article that is not in stub or bronze or silver or gold would be the ones in question? ħuman
[edit] Suggestions / amendments
- Articles should contain original content, not text copied & pasted from elsewhere (even from non-copyright sources) - bronze / all rated articles.
- Current text on silver says "article is free of basic errors". What the hell does this mean? Are basic errors OK in bronze articles? Can silver articles contain complex errors but not basic errors? What's the difference? What the fuck does this mean? Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it means bronze might have a typo or simple spelling error once in a while, but silvers may not. Silver articles have built-in autospellcheckers to maintain this policy. ħuman
00:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I like that one. As for the "basic errors" thing, it meant blatant spelling errors and grammar errors, i.e., the content was completely readable. But remember, this was copied in from a rough draft I did quite quickly and it hasn't been modified much, I assume it will need clarifying.
bomination 11:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I like that one. As for the "basic errors" thing, it meant blatant spelling errors and grammar errors, i.e., the content was completely readable. But remember, this was copied in from a rough draft I did quite quickly and it hasn't been modified much, I assume it will need clarifying.
[edit] I want to move a criterion
Can we move "Article is free of blatant spelling and grammar errors" to bronze? It would seem to be such a basic requirement, after all. ħuman
02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- +1. Literary infelicities are more opinion, but basic spelling and grammar should be in place - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wholly agree with changing this for two reasons:
- Articles SHOULD not be recognised as a "Good Article" unless it is well spelt.
- This is a good opportunity for checking. We have 34 silver articles, and 373 bronze articles. That's to say A LOT of new articles will reach bronze status, then never reach silver. Once an article becomes bronze, it's more likely to just get left to stagnate. However, if someone wants to make it bronze and has to copyedit it properly, it will get done. Pending an objection in the next week, can we just move this?
EXTERMINATE 14:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion here:
Forum:Article Rating System <--- here.
EXTERMINATE 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Revive?
Giving a gold article a rating of 3, silver 2, and bronze 1, Our average is about ~.1. I've nominated several articles for bronze, it seems that nobody has noticed. As bronze criteria seems to be rather simple, if nobody objects, I'm going to start going through mainspace and marking articles I feel bronze worthy as bronze as bronze. ТyYAUA 13:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Go ahead. - π 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Pre-bronze
There are a significant number of articles that nearly meet the bronze criteria, but shouldn't get that brainstar. I think we should implement a pre-bronze level, called tin or copper.
Acer Blue 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Voila:
[edit] Pre-bronze-level articles
Add {{Pre-bronze}} to bronze-rated articles. (List of pre-bronze-rated articles)
Pre-bronze: Not quite a good article
- Article must not be a stub or VSA and should not be tagged with any of the "articles requiring attention" categories.
- Article should be close to achieving the bronze criteria without a major overhaul
- Article must have at least a few footnotes and references, and be in at least one content category
- Article should contain at least one subsection
... For your consideration.
Acer Blue 23:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Prebronze sounds clunky. Copper perhaps?

23:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, the criteria is fine btw. ![]()
01:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it basically is a way of saying "We've got something to work with here." I wouldn't mind copper if we can't think of anything better.
Acer Blue 03:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- All in favor of copper for the patina brain?
Acer Blue 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, fine. Aye.

22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Bunp.
Acer Blue 00:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The silence is deafening. Tytalk 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to go through with the change and let God sort it out.
Acer Blue 19:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- What about that jelly brain I've heard about? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- File:Jellybrain.png?
Acer Blue 19:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- File:Jellybrain.png?
- What about that jelly brain I've heard about? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to go through with the change and let God sort it out.
- The silence is deafening. Tytalk 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bunp.
- Oh, fine. Aye.
- All in favor of copper for the patina brain?
This is a ridiculous concept. What's next, "stone" articles? ħuman
02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)