[WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...

[Mark Wagner]

On 11/8/05, kosebamse at gmx.net <kosebamse at gmx.net> wrote:
> ...regarding the quality of our work:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test

On this subject, I recently did a survey of 100 randomly-selected
articles.  The results are at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100

Of the articles, there were two that I speedy-deleted, two that I
listed on VfD, one that I tagged as a copyvio, and one that someone
else had already tagged.  There were nine articles I would classify as
"good" and 14 that I considered as having covered most of the basics. 
There were 44 I would consider stubs, and 20 one-line or two-line
substubs.  There were six disambiguation pages, three lists, and four
articles I couldn't classify.  There were no articles I would be
willing to list on FAC, although one came close.

Of articles in need of sourcing, 14 out of 90 had some form of source
information.  There were 33 sources listed at the ends of articles,
although 14 of those came from a single article.

In the good news department, free images outnumbered non-free by 2:1,
while only about 15% were effectively unsourced. Almost half of them
could be developed into featured articles without too much difficulty.

In terms of article subjects, there were four articles on fictional
subjects, three of them on Digimon.  There were ten articles related
to popular music: four bands, four musicians, one album, and one
record label.  There were ten cities, only one of which was a Rambot
stub.  There were two schools.

I'll be updating the survey every month or two.  It'll be interesting
to see how the articles change over time.

--
[[User:Carnildo]]