I have several times asked for a professional qualty study of our
different laguage versions, but not seen it exist or being done.
To ?provoke? I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily
looking into the different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being
created on sv.wp) (I list them in order how often I use them to
calibrate the svwp articles).
enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles on
marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even if
rather bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?)
eswp - a very good version, which in the general discussion are not
getting appropriate credit
dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the
elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious
subjects (that after time passes gets very relevant)?
frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage and
the different articles (even in same subject area)
nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality on
articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies
itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered,
nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext
sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one in
other languages
ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume and
accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles are
uneven. I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which I use
very seldom as the different alphabet makes it hard to understand the
article content
(arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated)
(I also use some smaller ones like sqwp and mgwp (hungarian), in these
versions I have seen serious quality problems not to be found in any of
the above ones, I am not sure they even have basic patrolling in place)
Anders