Brian J Mingus wrote: > o Note that featured articles are easy to predict. > * *A* articles are /correlated/ with Number of references, PageRank, > Number of external links, Number of images, Article age (page-id). > o Note that A articles are extremely hard to predict. All of > the above A predictors are weaker than all of the featured > predictors. This class should be merged with another quality > class.
I wonder if this is because most projects don't have a proper A-class grading scheme, and often editors will just give A-grade article to GA (or even pre-GA class article) without much thought. I wonder if your results would be stronger if you limited the analysis to A-class articles of projects that have an A-class review process (MILHIST and...?). > * *G *articles are /correlated/ with Number of external links, > Number of templates, Number of references, Automated Readability > Index, Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level > * *G* articles are /negatively correlated/ with Length of article > HTML, Flesch Reading Ease, Smog Grading > o Note that G articles are extremely hard to predict and > should be merged with another quality class. Interesting. I presume you mean Good Article (GA) class here. I wonder why those results are week - is it because Good Article reviewers standards vary much more widely than the Featured Article reviewers standards? -- Piotr Konieczny "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Piłsudski _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
