Hello Ditty,
It is difficult for me to understand your question if you are not more specific of what you consider a "poorly written article". "Poorly" can refer her to many different things, like readability, grammar, balance, statements supported by 'sources', good division of knowledge over several articles etc.
I think that software tools can only give a hint, but the judgement (how "good" is an article) can be done only by a human, on the basis of concrete criteria what is meant to be "good", and for what target group. I tend to say that some Wikipedia articles are "good" for experts but at the same time unsuitable for the general public.
E.g., a software tool can count the words per sentence, but long sentences are not necessarily good or bad by themselves.
Etc. :-)
Kind regards Ziko
2014-10-25 1:47 GMT+02:00 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com:
On Sat, Oct 25 2014, WereSpielChequers wrote:
And just to add to the complexity of James' comments; there are some people who think that a general interest encyclopaedia should be written for a general audience. So articles with long sentences should be improved by rewriting into more but shorter sentences,
How about an even simpler version of the problem: an encyclopedia written by robots for robots. I speak, of course, of DBPedia. We could equally ask, what makes for quality entries there?
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l