Possible "major points and findings" (BROAD focus)

What could we try to measure in order to test this notion?

1) The easiest. Take a list of 50 internationally recognized scholars in different field, ask them to pick up two articles in their fields and give a mark 1 to 10 (1 = substandard or non-existent; 10 = excellent quality).

2) More difficult. Tag important specialized articles (may be ask projects to deliver a list) and look at the dynamics of their volume increase. I am sure most of them are small and not expanding.

On WP in en, fr and hu you can look at the quality statistics from the assessment schemes. If you want to locate the poor-quality-but-important articles, you can do this with our new bot that is likely to go live very soon. The new bot will also give an importance score, which uses quite a sophisticated algorithm based on 3 (or often 4) parameters. I would encourage this task force to take a look at what the Elements project on en has done with this sort of information - they often focus their collective effort on specific articles they think are important but most needing work. They use this graphic to show very clearly where the work needs to be done. The result - this small but active WikiProject now has 14 FAs and 18 GAs - about a quarter of all their articles in total, and probably more FAs than all of the rest of chemistry combined (I'm ashamed to say!).

My basic point - if you give a tool to editors that helps them find and track the articles that need work in their area of interest, they will use that tool to focus their efforts. Walkerma 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)