On 27 April 2010 20:50, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Nihiltres wrote:
<snip> I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of review a given article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and the perceived level of quality involved, is a good thing. The Wikipedia 1.0 assessment system (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA…) seems to serve as a decent start for that sort of thing.
If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we really need levels 1 to 10 for articles. It seems already to be hard to get an A, fairly much impossible to get GA for an "average" topic, and as we know only 1 in 1000 is FA (in round terms). And "expert review" = FA+ is another quite defensible level. I think cutting to the chase, setting substub = 1 and reviewed FA = 10 might be a great timesaver, and help a process in which less "mystique" attached to the whole business. Rebooting with FA = 9 sounds quite fun.
I realised a few months ago that it had been ages since I'd actually done anything significant in the main namespace, so I decided to have a go at writing an article. With a little help from someone that turned up and started improving the article (in true wiki-fashion), I got it to GA fairly easily. It was at best an "average" topic - it was my local (about 700 year old) church. FAC is very difficult to get through, but GA is entirely doable.
I think adding more levels would make the distinctions more arbitrary, which seems like a bad thing to me. I think we should remove a level, in fact. The current system at the top with A, GA and FA is very confusing. I think GA and A should be merged somehow (perhaps just get rid of A).