2009/2/17 Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com>om>:
That would be interesting. I wonder if this could be
something that
could be integrated into the 1.0 rating scheme... another, parallel
rating for "scope" or "generality". Naturally, any such
determinations will be subjective, but so are article ratings and yet
the semi-codified Stub-Start-C-B ratings tend to work out pretty well.
It would be great to have the breakdown of general vs. specific
articles not just for FAs, but for everything.
That might be good. It would also help when determining if an article
being an orphan is a problem. Very specific articles probably won't be
linked to much, more general articles will be. So, if a general
article is an orphan, we have a problem, if a specific article is, we
probably don't.