On 27 April 2010 20:50, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> 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).