I have looked at the validation option on test, and want to make the
following remarks:
* Can the categories be changed/extended? Outside WikipediaEN (maybe
de), suitability for 1.0 is not an interesting point, and legality is
I think not an issue to do via page validation (most pages are fully
legal anyway). On the other hand, I would like to add options as
"neutrality" and "balance" (although perhaps only 'neutrality'
might
also be enough); also, the possibility to specify the validator's own
knowledge of the subject would be good (if an expert considers an
article "solid as a rock" or "extensive" that means more than when
someone off the street does so).
* Putting suitability for 1.0 in a single binary choice is too
simplistic. There are different reasons to consider an article
unsuitable, and various in-between possibilities. I can think of at
least:
** Suitable
** Subject unsuitable
** Subject suitable but article unsuitable
** Suitable in shortened form
** Suitable after improving style/completeness/factuality/neutrality
* Comments given with the validation seem to be discarded; at least I
cannot find them back
* Would it not be better to change the validation statistics. Those
percentages and numbers seem to be more confusing than helping,
whereas getting the separate validations (instead of just the totals)
would be interesting. I am thinking of something like (I hope it looks
a bit ok in everyone's favorite font...)
version blabla | validation 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| validation 2 | 3 | - | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| validation 3 | 4 | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| average | 3.7 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 0.7|
* Nicks of validators are not given; is this on purpose? I can see
both advantages and disadvantages. Advantage is that one will be less
inclined to give a better judgement because of personal reasons, or to
attack the messenger. Disadvantage is that one cannot check whether a
high or low rating is real or just created by sockpuppets or such.
Andre Engels