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

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l