From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
WIP DISCLAIMER: this article is a work in progress, and an suggestion at the moment
This page is intended to help newer reviewers give out scores more consistent with accepted standards. Often, a new reviewer will be overly generous, and give out overly generous scores. Conversely, they may over-react and give out overly picky scores. This list aims at including a selection of articles whose scores are generally agreed upon, within the expected margins of error. Articles which some people get and others don't shouldn't be on this list. If you know of any article that you think would be a good standard candle, if you think the scoring here is wrong, please mention it on the talk page.
For an article it be a good "standard candle" it should:
- First and foremost, there should be a general consensus on its quality.
- Use the generic format, and not rely on complex formatting. For example, Yahoo!_Answers and especially Uncyclopedia!_Answers wouldn't be good for this list.
- be relatively short, or at least not overly long. If its too long, it will take to long to read.
This list is based on the scoring table given in Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Guidelines, here is the table for reference:
- ==Brilliant. No mistakes. (50 holy crap, I wet my pants!).
- ===Way above average: probably VFH (45)
- ===More than adequate: might be VFH (40)
- ===Adequate, the average article (35)
- ===Nearly adequate (30)
- ===Inadequate. Might be Rewrite. (25)
- ===Might be VFD/NRV/Rewrite (20)
- ===Probably VFD/NRV (15)
- ===Probably VFD/QVFD (10)
- ===Probably QVFD (5)
- ===Doesn't exist, no attempt. Reserved for the Iscore of articles without pictures ONLY.
The major issue with the list if the definition of "adequate" & "average". In this table "adequate" & "average" mean good, but not quite VFH quality; while to some people, such terms would have the connotation of being more along the lines of "above waste of bandwidth quality". Generally, most reviewers view anything above 30 or so as "good, or at least decent".
edit The List
This list is by total article score, divided into 5 point sections.
edit Low single digits(0-4.9)
these scores are reserved more one-liners, vanity, and other non-attempts. These articles of of QVFD quality, and an ICU or VFD would be overly generous. Notice any articles in this quality are protected in-jokes.
edit High Single Digits (5-9.9)
These article are still in the really bad category, but there evidence is some effort, however poor, half-assed, or mis directed. These articles are still probably QVFD deletion quality.
edit Lower Teens (10-14.9)
These are articles are above the QVFD quality, still probably wouldn't make it on VFD beyond their in-joke or legacy value. Many articles in the ICU are in the quality range.
edit Upper Teens (15-19.9)
These articles are quite bad. These ones may or not may pass VFD. The in all likelihood deserve a rewrite, icu or fix tag, depending on the situation.
edit Lower Twenties (20-24.9)
These articles should pass VFD, but may still be be slapped with a maintenance tag. If you were to hit the random page button several times, the average article would probably be in this level. This is generally the lowest end of the "it seemed like a good idea at the time"-type articles.
edit Upper Twenties (25-29.9)
These articles are ok, and probably shouldn't have a maintenance tag, but might deserve a soft re-write.
edit Lower Thirties (30-34.9)
These articles are above average for the wiki, but are well below VFH worthy.
edit Upper Thirties (35-39.9)
These article are generally either funny articles which aren't quite VFH worthy, or articles which are a bit of editing away from being VFH worthy.
- Ussher: this one is a good article, but I think it will fall short of VFH nom quality
edit Lower Forties (40-44.9)
These articles are deserving of a VFH nomination, probably deserve a Quasi-Feature, and may be Feature worthy.
edit Upper Forties (45-50)
These articles are probably feature worthy, and strong candidates for top 3 articles of the month