Done! All the stubs, at least. A couple of thoughts:
a) As expected, most of the stubs weren't :-). BLPs are not my forte,
but I'd say there's nine at most, and two or three of those are
marginal to be uprated.
[This is a pretty systemic problem with our talkpage ratings and stub
tags: as Risker says, they get very stale. The sheer labour that would
be required to keep them up-to-date on a systematic basis is
daunting...]
b) Lots of mid-range start/C mediocrity as is so often the case with
Wikipedia, lots of it with a reasonable amount of content but needing
some hacking around to get into shape
c) If anyone is looking for a weekend project and is comfortable with
political BLPs, I'd say Helen Clark is able to be pushed to GA with a
bit of polishing and tidying, and Michelle Bachelet likewise. 10% of
the list properly-reviewed would be nothing to sniff at.
(Bachelet has an odd gap in that the article doesn't seem to have
anything from her current presidency, but otherwise it's quite
well-structured and not overly recentist, which is unusual for a
politician's biography!).
Andrew.
On 17 June 2014 02:01, Toby Hudson <tobyyy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Absolutely! Please do.
Yes, it was nice to see some FA and GAs in the mix. Maybe we should compare
a list of 100 most powerful men?
Toby
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
wrote:
Stub tags are notoriously bad for this (I've just rerated half a dozen
of these; Toby, are you happy for me to update the list?)
On the other hand, we can take away a somewhat positive message from
this as well:
Two articles are FA and 6 are GA/equivalent. Across enwiki as a whole,
approximately 0.6% of articles are FA or GA class. So this subset of
articles is perhaps ten times better than the average...
Andrew.
On 16 June 2014 15:06, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While I will agree that many of those articles
could use significant
improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot
of
those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening
improvements.
Risker
On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson <tobyyy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly
check
out our articles on these women. The good news is that we have an
article
for each of them. The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim
if
these are truly the 100 most powerful women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen
Toby/99of9
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the
> job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
>
http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/
>
>
> Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a
> top
> priority.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk