Difference between revisions of "Thread:Issuepedia talk:Page Structure/Standard sidebar for individual issues"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (New thread: Standard sidebar for individual issues)
 
m
 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
* Quality of analysis (also difficult to measure)
 
* Quality of analysis (also difficult to measure)
 
* Stylistic quality (writing, links to other pages, images, etc)
 
* Stylistic quality (writing, links to other pages, images, etc)
−
 
−
It would also be beneficial to create a template for the citations themselves, again with some kind of "quality" rating, as well as a category (opinion/primary source/secondary/etc) and links to pages about the authors and publications involved. These pages could be used to discuss any perceived bias in the source authors or publications.
 

Latest revision as of 19:20, 11 June 2013

Each issue page should have a descriptive sidebar that helps categorize the issue (using one or more categories), provides a map of where the issue fits within its category, and provides a short description of how well-developed the issue page is.

"Well-developed" will require some definition and consensus. Some suggested axes to look at when determining overall quality:

  • Number of sources cited
  • Quality of sources cited (difficult to measure!)
  • Quality of analysis (also difficult to measure)
  • Stylistic quality (writing, links to other pages, images, etc)
Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Thread:Issuepedia_talk:Page_Structure/Standard_sidebar_for_individual_issues&oldid=31652"