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.
Doesn't have to be a single-factor explanation: the goalposts are
undoubtedly moved as far as quality at time of assessment is concerned;
some writers of FAs will continue to work on them while others will
devote time to other articles; some past FAs will be neglected because
the editors mainly concerned are no longer around.
In terms of project management (not that we do any such thing) what
conclusions to draw? We certainly have seen little cost-benefit analysis
on the FA system as a whole.
Charles