User:Davodd/10

This is my attempt to guage the evolving quality of Wikipedia. I will occasionally select 10 article at random (using the "Random article" feature, of course) and grade each of them using the Wikipedia:Good Article standard below:

What is a good article?
A good article has the following attributes.
1. It is well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

May 21, 2008

1. Harstine Island, Washington
   • Well written? - Yes, although lists could be put in paragraph form to flesh it out.
   • Factually accurate? - Well-referenced and cited.
   • Broad in its coverage? - Yes.
   • NPOV - Yes.
   • Is it stable? - Yes.
   • Images - FAILED. Geographical article needs at least a location graphic map.
2. South Westfield Township, Surry County, North Carolina
   • Well written? FAILED - Stub.
   • Factually accurate? - FAILED - Unknown - unsourced claims; no references.
   • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED.
   • NPOV - Yes.
   • Is it stable? - Yes.
   • Images - Yes. Appropriate.
3. Neath and Brecon Railway
   • Well written? - Yes.
   • Factually accurate? - Well- sourced.
   • Broad in its coverage? - Yes for subject matter.
   • NPOV - Yes.
   • Is it stable? - FAILED. Too many major recent edits.
   • Images - Yes. Outstanding - but page format is odd.
4. Cyclocarya
   • Well written? - FAILED - Stub.
   • Factually accurate? - FAILED - Cites only one source: eflora.org
   • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED.
   • NPOV - Yes.
   • Is it stable? - Yes.
   • Images - None - would seem to be an essential element for a genus of flowering plant.
5. Mauricio J. Tamargo
   • Well written? - FAILED. A mere collection of declarative sentences.
   • Factually accurate? - FAILED - Unknown - no cited sources or references.
   • Broad in its coverage? - Pass.
   • NPOV - Yes.
   • Is it stable? - Yes.
   • Images - Yes, but of poor quality.
6. Dave Engle
   • Well written? - FAILED. A basic accumulation of facts, little more than a list in paragraph form.
   • Factually accurate? - FAILED - Unverifiable. Lacking in citation of claims. Only one source referenced.
   • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED. No personal information given in this biography.
   • NPOV - Yes.
   • Is it stable? - Yes.
   • Images - FAILED.
7. Edith Robinson
   • Well written? - Short and informative.
   • Factually accurate? - Yes. Referenced claims.
   • Broad in its coverage? FAILED - Minimal coverage should be expanded.
   • NPOV - Yes.
   • Is it stable? - FAILED. (Article younger than 90 days)
   • Images - Yes. But could be improved to only picture subject of article.
8. Juridical racialism
   • Well written? - Yes.
   • Factually accurate? - FAILED - One reference and uncited claims made.
   • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED. Only one reference.
   • NPOV - FAILED - Lacking. Reads like an essay/opinion.
   • Is it stable? - Yes.
   • Images - None.
9. In the Pink (album)
   • Well written? - FAILED - Out of date. Needs stylistic clean-up to be fully understandable by non-fans.
   • Factually accurate? - FAILED - Cites biased/unreliable sources.
   • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED.
   • NPOV - Yes.
   • Is it stable? - FAILED.
   • Images - Yes.
10. Centennial Middle School
    • Well written? FAILED - It is a sub-stub, essentially a list. Should probably be merged with Snohomish School District until it has enough information to be a full-fledged article.
    • Factually accurate? FAILED - uncited - flagged with Original Research tag.
    • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED.
    • NPOV - Yes.
    • Is it stable? - Yes.
    • Images - FAILED. Architectural articles should have photographs of structure.

June 15, 2006

1. Four continents
   • Well written? - FAILED - there should not be a list in the lead paragraph WP:LEAD.
   • Factually accurate? - FAILED - only one source.
   • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED - needs to go into more detail about each of the four. This article is little more than a time line.
   • NPOV - PASSED
   • Is it stable? - YES
   • Images - FAILED - "Four Continents" graphic is not explained well at all in the caption - why is Australia pictured?; The placement of the other graphics is bizarre and distracting.
2. Water feature
   • Well written? - FAILED - Lead is little more than a list. One paragraph and a plug of Princess Di. WP:LEAD.
   • Factually accurate? - FAILED - No citations
   • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED - stub
   • NPOV - PASSED
   • Is it stable? - YES
   • Images - FAILED - this article begs for illustrations - one of the sentences is a verbal diagram.
3. Desmond Doss
   • Well written? -
   • Factually accurate? -
   • Broad in its coverage? -
   • NPOV -
   • Is it stable? -
   • Images -
4. Egg timer
   • Well written? -
   • Factually accurate? -
   • Broad in its coverage? -
   • NPOV -
   • Is it stable? -
   • Images -
5. Minnewaska State Park Preserve
   • Well written? -
   • Factually accurate? -
   • Broad in its coverage? -
   • NPOV -
   • Is it stable? -
   • Images -
6. Browne Willis
   • Well written? -
   • Factually accurate? -
   • Broad in its coverage? -
   • NPOV -
   • Is it stable? -
   • Images -
7. One Night in Paris
   • Well written? -
   • Factually accurate? -
   • Broad in its coverage? -
   • NPOV -
   • Is it stable? -
   • Images -
8. New Health Rock
   • Well written? -
   • Factually accurate? -
   • Broad in its coverage? -
   • NPOV -
   • Is it stable? -
   • Images -
9. Alaska's At-large congressional district
   • Well written? - FAILED - not enough to judge (only two paragraphs)
   • Factually accurate? - PASSED
   • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED - stub
   • NPOV - PASSED
   • Is it stable? - YES
   • Images - PASSED - although the caption could be approved
10. Karl Wendlinger
    • Well written? - FAILED; reads like a fansite
    • Factually accurate? - FAILED - no citations
    • Broad in its coverage? - FAILED - doen't mention his life outside of racing aside from birthday and nationality.
    • NPOV - FAILED - "Karl thankfully recovered from his injuries," "granted him an opportunity for 1995 to show he had not lost that sparkle," "sadly it only went to prove that he had lost his cutting edge," "was not the racer he once was."
    • Is it stable? - YES
    • Images - FAILED - no images