Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/ω

Wide exposure?

• Does this algorithm have any wider exposure in other projects? While I'm twitchy about putting objective figures on subjective content quality, it sounds like an interesting "rule of thumb" to see how "good" Wikipedia is generally. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:CRWP uses the same algorithm and the same basic assessment criteria to enable a comparison between the groups of articles for each province and the states and territories. We have some plans to enable a global leaderboard for all of the subprojects and taskforces of WP:HWY (which would also include WP:UKRD at a future date. It would look similar to the tables at WP:USRD/A/S and WP:CRWP/A/P.
    I remember WP:TROP using the original WikiWork formula (which predated the concept of C-Class) that used a five-point scale. After C-Class was added, they assigned a value of 2.5 for C-Class articles, while USRD expanded the scale from five to six points. Imzadi 1979 → 11:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • When I said "wider exposure" I was thinking of something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball or Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexuality (just to pull two random examples out of thin air). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Like I said though, WP:TROP used the original WikiWork formula as well, and modified it differently to account for the introduction of C-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 11:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, we (the tropical cyclone project) use the current WikiWork formula, on a six point scale. It's great, I love it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Woah. Where did this come from and why haven't I heard of it before? This is an ingenious idea, albeit a little simplified considering the complex work that goes into GAs and FAs. Anyone interested in introducing this to the world as part of a special issue of the WikiProject Report in the Signpost? –Mabeenot (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)