|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Readability article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Linguistics / Theoretical Linguistics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I find this a very good encyclopedia article. Perhaps it just happens to hit upon all my questions and concerns. It has bad links. But by moving through the experimental works historically, including summarizing their formulae, it provides excellent understanding. BrianMCoyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
There is so much research available on readability, I propose that treatment of the formulas should take place in a separate article. Also, the Readability Tests article should be folded into a new article on Readability formulas. I hope to contribute more to this article soon.Bdubay (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This article should link to a discussion of the readability of articles in Wikipedia.
Here is an example of a comment from one of the mathematically-oriented articles (M-theory): "the article is unreadable to non-experts and probably useless to experts".JWSchmidt 13:33, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It would be nice to have something about how accurate / useful these are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 6 April 2006
- Maybe there should be a readability comparison section. It could use the same passage through many of the readability algorithms. This would really help people understand how the scores differ between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20 May 2006
- Readability concerns itself with texts, this is different to understanding. Changing redirect. — Dispenser 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
When many high-school graduates read at the 8th-grade level, at which level do 8th-graders usually read? Or put in another way: how did someone come up with categorization in nth-grade levels? --Abdull (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is determined experimentally. A sample of writing is given to students in that grade, they are to read it and recall certain details of the work. A percentage indicates the number of student were able to recall the details. — Dispenser 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- How often is the categorization re-calibrated? For example writing styles have changed since 1950; on the other hand a frequent re-calibration could mask a declinoe in educational standards. Philcha (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Common measures of readability of text
I've just added this section, which contains:
- A list of common measures.
- Notes on computerised tools. Disclosure: I have no financial or other interest in the promotion of the tools mentioned. Philcha (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed these (as I've done so earlier) as it was redundant to Category:Readability tests. — Dispenser 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
In Computer Programming
Paragraph needs readability edit
I quote the following paragraph from the beginning of the article:
- It has been long known that text which is easy to read helps people to enjoy and to learn from their reading. When you pick up a book which you find too hard to read, unless you are strongly driven to read it, you will put it down and forget it. Improved understanding and knowledge is why we read, so making what we write easy to read is crucial.
For an article about ease of understanding and quality of writing, this paragraph isn't exactly great, not to mention containing the odd weasel phrase ("it has long been known"). The sentence structure is also all over the shop, more akin to a narrative than an enyclopedia entry; WP:WORDS says second person pronouns should be avoided. The flow is is pretty bad too, particularly the second sentence, which is awkward at best.
Article should add typographic aspect of readability
As the lede correctly states, typography affects readability. However, the article discusses only text content. It says nothing about typographic readability. Perhaps the article should be renamed (i.e., moved to) Understandability, with a separate article on Readability (typographic) and a disambiguation page titled Readability that points to the two articles.—Finell 20:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Use typography page
Would it not be better to include the legibility aspects under the existing 'Typography' page? That would avoid the rather clunky 'Understandability' title. That word has seven syllables, which is in itself a violation of readability!
It would also more clearly separate the different issues of being able to discern characters and letters, from the issue of ease of interpretation of words and sentences. The latter uses our understanding, the former uses our eyesight.
The typography page currently has issues, but I think it is a better option to use this rather than chopping readability in two.