User:Rune.welsh/10 random pages test

This page is a rip-off of User:Ambi's original idea, but with a subjective scoring system of my own. Here are the results of the current test:

Test of 20 December 2005[edit]

1. Thomas Ulmer - "Bad" MEP bio-stub. Has external link and reference (on stub tag at least). Score (4).

2. Golden Gate Railroad Museum - "Mediocre" stub. Lacks references, but maybe external link is enough. Score (3).

3. Bill Dickey - Baseball player bio. Pretty decent, will try to get a picture. A bit of copy-edit might help. (1).

4. José Otávio - Another "mediocre" (almost bad) bio-stub. Lacks references, external links, has cleanup tag (since March!). Score (7).

5. Thirty-fifth United States Congress - Bad stub, needs cleanup, references and external links. (9).

6. Bodegon - "Bad" stub, should be a full-length article. No sources, references or links. Needs a copyedit too. (9).

7. Paul Berryman - "Bad" rockstar bio stub. Probably needs to be created a redirect into the main band article. (9) for the same reasons as Bodegon.

8. Empedocles - Awesome article! Score (0).

9. Pittsburgh Locomotive and Car Works - Good article, referenced and with links. Will try to expand it. (0).

10. Patripassionism - "Mediocre" stub. Needs references, external links and such. Score (7).

Average score before: 4.9' / after: '

Working on these now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Scoring criteria[edit]

All articles start with a score of zero points. Keep in mind that scoring is subjective and criteria may be changed/refined at any time. If you're interested you can write constructive criticism/feedback in the talk page.

The article...

... lacks sources: 2 (I'm willing to accept some external links as sources even if not labeled as such)
- ... or lacks external links: 1 (If reasonable that one may exist)
... lacks categories: 1
... has one of the cleanup tags: 2
- ... has additonal cleanup tags: 1 per tag
... has a dispute tag: 4
... is not wikified: 2
... is in another language: 2
... is a "good" stub (no list, fairly complete, missing small details): 1
... ia a "mediocre" stub (no list, missing important info): 2
... is a "bad" stub (no list, one line barely asserting notability): 4
... is a "will never be complete" list type: 3
... is an "incomplete list" or a list stub (but could be complete eventually): 2
... needs attention, albeit not tagged as such: 2
- ...could benefit from infoboxes: 1 more
... should be nominated for AfD: 3

No points are given for articles tagged as AfDs, copyvios, or CSDs. Undisputed FAs get automatic 0. Articles turned into redirects or merged are not considered for the "after" average.

/Archive