- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
Difference between revisions of "Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Quality"
m (Reverted edits by 76.24.133.63 (talk) to last revision by Quietust) |
|||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
If you encounter these, please evaluate and rate them according to the criteria below. | If you encounter these, please evaluate and rate them according to the criteria below. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Tattered=== | ===Tattered=== | ||
Revision as of 00:14, 25 September 2012
| 50.14 | 0.31.25 | 0.28.181.40d | 0.23.130.23a | |
| Tattered | Division by zero.% (0) | 1.4% (20) | 2.7% (32) | 0% (0) |
| Fine | Division by zero.% (0) | 44.9% (625) | 46.7% (563) | 57.6% (414) |
| Exceptional | Division by zero.% (0) | 48.4% (674) | 38.3% (462) | 37.1% (267) |
| Masterwork | Division by zero.% (0) | 2.4% (34) | 5.4% (65) | 0.8% (6) |
| Unknown | 0 | 3 | 2 | 7 |
| Total | 0 | 1393 | 1206 | 719 |
| Rating | Division by zero. out of 100 | 77.6 out of 100 | 75.6 out of 100 | 73.6 out of 100 |
Quality Template Problems
Quality templates should include a timestamp to let us gauge how old a rating is. Quality ratings that do not have proper timestamps are in Category:Quality ranks without proper timestamps. Quality templates that were placed more than 10 weeks ago (and thus should be re-ranked) are in Category:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks.
Ratings
In order to rate articles, click the "rate" tab when on the page you wish to rank, then fill out the form in order to suggest an appropriate rating. If you feel the suggested rating is incorrect, you may override it and force a specific rating.
There are 4 official ratings (plus an additional "unknown" for any manually applied ratings which do not match), all described below.
Unknown
Unknown Quality Articles have been tagged with a quality level not recognized by the wiki, whether accidentally (incorrect spelling or capitalization) or intentionally (to request that somebody else rate the article).
If you encounter these, please evaluate and rate them according to the criteria below.
Tattered
Tattered Quality Articles have many of the following characteristics:
- May be a stub article
- Lacks information
- Contains inaccurate information
- Is not categorized
This rating should only be used for articles that strictly need improvement. For example, pages for creatures, vermin, or stone types should not be rated as Tattered unless they are missing key components: infobox, description (creatures/vermin only), raws, and navigation box.
Fine
Fine Quality Articles have many of the following characteristics:
- Has a substantial number of redlinks, very few links or no links at all
- Contains little to no inaccurate information
- Contains some information that needs to be verified
Exceptional
Exceptional Quality Articles have ALL of the following characteristics:
- Is properly categorized
- Has a decent amount of information (is "complete" for the purposes of new players looking for information)
- Has all appropriate templates
- DOES NOT have any pink text at the bottom of the Article Version template (these indicate some kind of problem; for details, view the Template:ArticleVersion page)
- Is properly/sufficiently linked to other articles
- Contains no inaccurate information, but may have a small amount of information that needs to be completely verified.
- Has multiple editors
Masterwork
Masterwork Quality Articles are the best of the best. We do not expect all articles to reach this quality; in fact, the guidelines for this quality are set so that most articles are actually incapable of ever reaching this high mark. Masterwork quality articles have ALL of the following characteristics:
- Covers an important "must-read" topic
- Is comprehensive on the subject
- Contains no unverified information
- Has an appropriate number of outbound links
- No redlinks are present
- Article is aesthetically pleasing
- Is properly categorized
- The article has multiple editors