- 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"
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
For a period of time, all articles ranked using the "Rate" link at the top of the page were given the timestamp "08:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)" due to a bug. These pages are in [[:Category:Quality ranks with bad timestamps]] and should be rerated. | For a period of time, all articles ranked using the "Rate" link at the top of the page were given the timestamp "08:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)" due to a bug. These pages are in [[:Category:Quality ranks with bad timestamps]] and should be rerated. | ||
| − | ==Unknown== | + | ==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=== | ||
[[:Category:Unknown Quality Articles|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). | [[:Category:Unknown Quality Articles|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. | If you encounter these, please evaluate and rate them according to the criteria below. | ||
| − | ==Tattered== | + | ===Tattered=== |
[[:Category:Tattered Quality Articles|Tattered Quality Articles]] have many of the following characteristics: | [[:Category:Tattered Quality Articles|Tattered Quality Articles]] have many of the following characteristics: | ||
* May be a stub article | * May be a stub article | ||
| Line 59: | Line 64: | ||
* Is not categorized | * Is not categorized | ||
| − | + | This rating should only be used for articles that strictly need improvement - for example, pages for creatures or stone types that don't strictly ''need'' more information should be rated as Fine. | |
| − | ==Fine== | + | ===Fine=== |
[[:Category:Fine Quality Articles|Fine Quality Articles]] have many of the following characteristics: | [[:Category:Fine Quality Articles|Fine Quality Articles]] have many of the following characteristics: | ||
* Has a substantial number of redlinks, very few links or no links at all | * Has a substantial number of redlinks, very few links or no links at all | ||
| Line 67: | Line 72: | ||
* Contains some information that needs to be verified | * Contains some information that needs to be verified | ||
| − | + | ===Exceptional=== | |
| − | |||
| − | ==Exceptional== | ||
[[:Category:Exceptional Quality Articles|Exceptional Quality Articles]] have ALL of the following characteristics: | [[:Category:Exceptional Quality Articles|Exceptional Quality Articles]] have ALL of the following characteristics: | ||
* Is properly categorized | * Is properly categorized | ||
| Line 79: | Line 82: | ||
* Has multiple editors | * Has multiple editors | ||
| − | + | ===Masterwork=== | |
| − | |||
| − | ==Masterwork== | ||
[[:Category:Masterwork Quality Articles|Masterwork Quality Articles]] are the best of the best. Masterwork quality articles have ALL of the following characteristics: | [[:Category:Masterwork Quality Articles|Masterwork Quality Articles]] are the best of the best. Masterwork quality articles have ALL of the following characteristics: | ||
* Covers an important "must-read" topic | * Covers an important "must-read" topic | ||
| Line 92: | Line 93: | ||
* Is properly categorized | * Is properly categorized | ||
* The article has multiple editors | * The article has multiple editors | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category:Wikiprojects]] | [[Category:Wikiprojects]] | ||
Revision as of 22:09, 23 September 2010
| 50.12 | 0.28.181.40d | 0.23.130.23a | |
| Tattered | Division by zero.% (0) | 2.7% (32) | 0% (0) |
| Fine | Division by zero.% (0) | 46.6% (561) | 57.6% (412) |
| Exceptional | Division by zero.% (0) | 38.4% (462) | 37.2% (266) |
| Masterwork | Division by zero.% (0) | 5.4% (65) | 0.8% (6) |
| Unknown | 0 | 2 | 7 |
| Total | 0 | 1203 | 715 |
| Rating | Division by zero. 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.
For a period of time, all articles ranked using the "Rate" link at the top of the page were given the timestamp "08:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)" due to a bug. These pages are in Category:Quality ranks with bad timestamps and should be rerated.
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 or stone types that don't strictly need more information should be rated as Fine.
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. 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
- Links only contain links of type {{l|linkname}} except where a link to another namespace is required
- Article is aesthetically pleasing
- Is properly categorized
- The article has multiple editors