...I went through....in what took weeks, and Wikidata'd the heck out of everyone on this list.The worst articles, the one's that need a lot of work, are the bottom half, for sure. The funniest to read is the Gisele Bundchen article. It needs a lot of work...to say the least and doesn't seem to be written by someone with a fashion background, to say the least.The last half have articles that just seem like they were written by PR firms at times. My favorite take from the Bundchen article is:"In 2008 Bündchen and Brady dished out turkey and all the trimmings unannounced to over 400 job trainees in Roxbury Massachusetts for Goodwill Industries International"HA HA! Dishing it out..I have now read all 100 articles. Shakira is my new favorite celebrity and Adriana Huffington is good at plagiarizing. And there are some REALLY rich women in China.-Sarah--On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
Done! All the stubs, at least. A couple of thoughts:
a) As expected, most of the stubs weren't :-). BLPs are not my forte,
but I'd say there's nine at most, and two or three of those are
marginal to be uprated.
[This is a pretty systemic problem with our talkpage ratings and stub
tags: as Risker says, they get very stale. The sheer labour that would
be required to keep them up-to-date on a systematic basis is
daunting...]
b) Lots of mid-range start/C mediocrity as is so often the case with
Wikipedia, lots of it with a reasonable amount of content but needing
some hacking around to get into shape
c) If anyone is looking for a weekend project and is comfortable with
political BLPs, I'd say Helen Clark is able to be pushed to GA with a
bit of polishing and tidying, and Michelle Bachelet likewise. 10% of
the list properly-reviewed would be nothing to sniff at.
(Bachelet has an odd gap in that the article doesn't seem to have
anything from her current presidency, but otherwise it's quite
well-structured and not overly recentist, which is unusual for a
politician's biography!).
Andrew.
On 17 June 2014 02:01, Toby Hudson <tobyyy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Absolutely! Please do.
> Yes, it was nice to see some FA and GAs in the mix. Maybe we should compare
> a list of 100 most powerful men?
> Toby
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> Stub tags are notoriously bad for this (I've just rerated half a dozen
>> of these; Toby, are you happy for me to update the list?)
>>
>> On the other hand, we can take away a somewhat positive message from
>> this as well:
>>
>> Two articles are FA and 6 are GA/equivalent. Across enwiki as a whole,
>> approximately 0.6% of articles are FA or GA class. So this subset of
>> articles is perhaps ten times better than the average...
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> On 16 June 2014 15:06, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant
>> > improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot
>> > of
>> > those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening
>> > improvements.
>> >
>> > Risker
>> >
>> >
>> > On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson <tobyyy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly
>> >> check
>> >> out our articles on these women. The good news is that we have an
>> >> article
>> >> for each of them. The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim
>> >> if
>> >> these are truly the 100 most powerful women.
>> >>
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen
>> >>
>> >> Toby/99of9
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the
>> >>> job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
>> >>> http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a
>> >>> top
>> >>> priority.
>> >>>
>> >>> Risker/Anne
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Gendergap mailing list
>> >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Gendergap mailing list
>> >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gendergap mailing list
>> > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Andrew Gray
>> andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap