« Modèle:QualityScore » : différence entre les versions

• Pas de chapeau ou juste une phrase unique inutile

• Absence d'un chapeau ou des idées les plus importantes

• Ne donne pas d'informations suffisantes pour déterminer le sujet de l'article

• Absence de phrase introductoire et définitoire

• Manque de quelques idées clés dans le chapeau

• Comprend des renseignements généraux excessifs ou non-pertinents

• Présence d'une phrase introductoire mais qui est faible

• Le chapeau manque un peu d'idées clés

• Contient des informations non-pertinentes

• Phrase introductoire forte et définitoire

• Résumé détaillé (qui, où, quand, pourquoi)

• Comprend des informations strictement pertinentes

• Pas de sections; chevauchement clair avec d'autres pages

• N'explique aucun terme clé

• Manque la section des “citations pertinentes”

• Manque la section des “Arguments (et réfutations) apologétiques”

• Comprend une “conclusion”

• Ne mentionne pas les pages associées ou la section "see also"

• Certaines sections pertinentes sont incluses; chevauchement partiel avec d’autres pages

• Explique quelques termes principaux

• Manque quelques sections importantes

• Pas de fluidité entre les sections; sections mal classées

• Comprend une “conclusion”

• Peu de mention des pages associées et section « see also: » faible

• 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