Carnildo wrote:
Not surprisingly, the average coverage of subjects is
fairly poor. 64% of
articles were rated "low" or "stub", indicating they did not have even
a
basic chronology of the subject's life, and 29% were rated "medium",
indicating a basic chronology but nothing more. 6% were rated "good", with
a relatively complete chronology, and one article was approaching "featured"
quality. While doing the survey, one of the biographies was deleted for
lack of notability, one as being unverifiable, and two were listed as
copyvios.
Unfortunately, I've found that a lot of people don't get a good bio in
Wikipedia until they die and there are nicely-researched obituaries to
use as sources.
- d.