[WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles

[Nathan]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> 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-featured-articles/
>
> I suspect this points up a problem with maintenance more than initial
> quality, but we shall see.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


I had the same thought - the [[Max Weber]] article had the lowest (and
lowest possible) score of 1. This article was promoted following a
nomination from Piotrus in September 2006, and it's had some
substantial revisions since then. On the other hand, Piotrus remains
actively involved - his last edit to this article was this past April
8th. Given the continuous involvement of the primary author, the
problem here may reflect evolving standards of quality more than
maintenance.

Nathan