kosebamse@gmx.net wrote:
...regarding the quality of our work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Kosebamse
Just did it myself; opened 20 "random article" tabs and checked them for cohesiveness and such.
The "good" articles were: 1. [[Massachusetts State Police]] 2. [[Owl Creek Mountains]] 3. [[Palmer Lake, Colorado]] (rambot) 4. [[Hopewell Junction, New York]] (rambot) 5. [[Dewey Square]] 6. [[Robber baron (industrialist)]]
The "bad" articles were: 1. [[Raycom National Tower]] 2. [[Jean Paré]] 3. [[Serge]] 4. [[Hartogs' lemma]] 5. [[Armus]]
The "marginal" articles were: 1. [[D M Vasudevan]] 2. [[Munsu Cup Stadium]] 3. [[Donald Oliver]] 4. [[Treaty of Passarowitz]] 5. [[Ernest Vessiot]]
Apart from that I got two lists and two articles that I really wasn't sure about.
So: 30% good, 25% bad, 25% marginal bordering on bad, and 20% neutral. I'd guess that the actual proportion of "good" aritcles is somewhere between 20 and 30 percent.