On 16 April 2010 16:38, Amory Meltzer <amorymeltzer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Three were "on the fence" so while the
article may report a 55%
success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate.
It's hard to tell from their scoring system which the three borderline
ones were, though.
Interestingly, the seven "clear failures" exhibit a strong correlation
between quality and time - the points get lower as they get older. For
the other articles, there's little or no correlation between the time
since they passed FAC (or FAR) and their quality.
http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2010/quality-versus-age-of-wikipedias-fea…
I suspect this points up a problem with maintenance more than initial
quality, but we shall see.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk