Talk:Listing Pages By Quality and Completeness
Suggested Rating List
After this talk page was first constructed I looked at what Wikipedia does and think we could follow their main ideas. I've made some modest changes below to reflect this.
At the moment I think we should have Ratings for all image pages (done by administrators and is protected from changes by other than administrators). The rating would appear on the Discussion page of the Math Image page. The ratings would also appear by page title on a Ratings Page.
Finding decent names for ratings seems tough to me and abbreviations is even harder. Here's a start for a page
Annotated Lists of Pages
As this site has evolved, we've come to the conclusion that to be really effective, image pages should have
- a description of the image, a basic explanation of the image, a mathematical explanation, a discussion of why it's interesting.
Not all contributors are able to produce all these for pages they've worked on (and we didn't have these desiderata for early contributors).
There follows a list of current pages with indications of strengths and weaknesses, along with their field of mathematics. Please feel free to work on improving the pages!
- Click here to only view the best pages.
- Starts [rather than "stumps"] A page with little more than an image. [Or, a page lacking an image description, although Abram says these are almost nonexistent].
- Excellent. A page of especially high quality (but not perfect! --- please feel free to improve or make suggestions as to how to do so on its discussion page.)
- Needs more in basic explanation
- Needs more in mathematical explanation
- Needs more in why it's interesting
[How about images related to other fields, that lack good references to basic, sophisticated, etc. references?]
[Anything special needed for pages produced by CS students, students in courses rather than workshops, final reports by REU students, by the general public, etc?]
"Most of these stumps are literally nothing more than an image" -- I think this is fine provided we have them listed somewhere. May give some browsers a nudge to do something.