Jump to navigation Jump to search
- My apologies if the community feels it is important to discuss any quality ratings changes before they are made, but there are thousands of pages and I wanted to start the process of recognizing quality where it exists. At first, I focused on pages with Unknown quality and made an effort to rate them equivalently to pages with similar content and appearance. I then turned my eye to Tattered and Fine quality articles, and found that many of them were rated lower than they seemed to deserve.
- In general, my changes have adhered to the following pattern:
- I added Tattered ratings to unrated creature pages that appeared to be automatically generated with no human edits.
- I upgraded ratings for creature pages with added content and/or pictures. It only takes a few tidbits of useful in-game information to elevate such articles to Exceptional.
- I downgraded some Masterwork articles to Exceptional that either didn't "cover an important 'must-read' topic" or weren't "comprehensive on the subject".
- On the other hand, I upgraded to Masterwork a few pages such as Dwarf and Cave-in that go into much greater depth than would be expected of a typical article.
- I also upgraded a number of pages (e.g. Floor) from Fine to Superior or Exceptional that appeared to meet or exceed the requirements.
- I have since observed that most automatically generated creature pages with no human edits are rated Fine, and given that they already contain a good deal of useful information, designating them Tattered (due to being a stub) does seem inappropriate. I stopped decreasing their ratings after pages starting with "A" and will leave things as they are for the time being. Further, I've now noticed that some of the articles I upgraded to Masterwork bear the Verify tag and so should be excluded if we strictly adhere to the rules.
- I still have a lot of the alphabet to go through under Fine, but if the community prefers, I can pause my efforts to correct any further page ratings until consensus can be reached. --Rriegs (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)