« Modèle:QualityScore » : différence entre les versions

• No lead section or just a single, unhelpful sentence

• Summary missing or lacks most key ideas

• Doesn’t provide enough information to determine what the article is about

• Lacks definitional, introductory sentence

• Summary lacks some key ideas

• Includes excessive, irrelevant or background information

• Introductory sentence exists but is weak

• Summary lacks a few key points

• Includes some irrelevant information

• Strong, definitional introductory sentence

• Comprehensive summary (who, where, when, why)

• Comprises of strictly relevant information

• No sections; blatantly overlaps with other pages

• Explains no key terms

• Lacks “relevant quotations” section

• Lacks “Apologetic Arguments (and Rebuttals)” section

• Includes “conclusion”

• Lacks mention of associated pages or “see also:” section

• Some relevant sections included; partially overlaps with other pages

• Explains some key terms

• Lacks some key sections

• Poor flow between sections; sections are poorly ordered

• Includes “conclusion”

• Scant mention of associated pages and weak “see also:” section

• Most relevant sections included; negligible overlap with other pages

• Explains most key terms

• Lacks few key sections

• Some flow between sections; one or two sections out of place

• No “conclusion”

• Good mention of associated pages and strong “see also:” sectio

• All relevant sections included; no overlap with other pages

• Explains all key terms

• Lacks no key sections

• Good flow between sections; sections are well-ordered

• No “conclusion”

• Comprehensive mention of associated pages and thorough “see also:” section

• Totally disengaged with subject matter

• Presents fringe view as if it were mainstream

• Misses key portions of the topic, but is self-aware

• Presents mainstream view while actively marginalizing minority views

• Covers most key portions of the topic, but admits missing content

• Presents mainstream narrative view while (perhaps admittedly) ignoring minority views

• Comprehensive coverage of all relevant topic areas

• Presents mainstream and minority views deservingly and without favor

• Argumentative rather than informative; openly seeks to “debunk”

• English is poorly constructed; partially unintelligible; speaks categorically and with absolutes

• Chatty or angry in tone; uses first person

• Partially informative and partially argumentative; openly attempts to sway reader

• English contains many errors; unpolished language; long winded or lacking nuance

• Blatantly persuasive in tone

• Mostly informative but includes argumentative portions; slights counter narrative

• English is fairly produced with some typos; mostly clear; admits nuance in subject matter

• Mostly appropriate tone, choppy in places

• Strictly informative; allows reader to arrive at their own conclusion

• Strong english without typos; clear and to-the-point; handles nuance academically

• Neutral tone appropriate for encyclopedia audience

• Any number of false claims; very few or no sources

• References unreliable internet sources

• Citations are incorrectly formatted; sources are impossible to track down; broken links

Depends heavily on biased, low-quality sources

Most citations are correctly formatted; sources are difficult to track down; broken links

• No false claims; some less important content has unclear sourcing

• Mostly uses reliable sources, but includes some low-quality sources

• Few mistakes in citations; sources can be easily tracked down; all links clickable to source

• No false claims; all sources are clear

• Most sources are the best sources available on the topic; includes multiple sources when useful

• All citations properly formatted and trackable; direct links included when possible; all links clickable to source