Further to my comments at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles , I thought I would track the improvements in readability of this article.
| This article used to be a very good article. It was promoted on 13 September 2008 and demoted on 9 May 2011. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here. |
Further to my comments at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles , I thought I would track the improvements in readability of this article.
| Measure | Version of 00:17 8 Sep 2008 | Version of 4:21 10 Sep 2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Word count | 412 | 933 | |
| Number of paragraphs | 13 | 16 | |
| Number of sentences | 17 | 50 | |
| Sentences per paragraph | 4.2 | 12.5 | |
| Words per sentence | 22.0 | 18.3 | |
| Characters per word | 5 | 4.6 | |
| Passive sentences | ~ | 30% | |
| Flesch reading ease | 13.6 | 46.1 | |
| Flesch-Kinkaid grade level | 16.8 | 11.2 | |
| Spelling or grammar errors | yes | none apparent | |
| Comments | spelling and grammar errors have been eliminated sentences are a bit shorter calculated reading ease has improved |
Flesch Reading Ease score = Rates text on a 100-point scale; the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. For most standard documents, aim for a score of approximately 60 to 70. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score = Rates text on a U.S. school grade level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. For most documents, aim for a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0. Both scores look at average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences) and the average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by the number of words).
I am well aware that statistics are merely indicators and the proof is whether the article is readable - long words are not always difficult for example. However, improvements in the indicators is probably a useful target, especially given the intended readership of articles on this wikipedia.
The measurement of the stats is a bit tricky - I copy and paste into Microsoft Word and run it through the spelloing and grammar checker. Not sure if I trust it absolutely - it is only indicative. --Matilda (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I did some copyediting. Changes (per the prose count on toolserver readability checker - similar to the above) are given below:
| Pre c/e | post c/e | |
|---|---|---|
| Words | 1684 | 1736 |
| Sentences | 98 | 143 |
| Letters | 7347 | 7452 |
| Syllables | 2413 | 2464 |
| Polysyllabic words 3+ syllables |
117 | 114 |
| Syllables per word | 1.63 | 1.61 |
| Words per sentence | 17.18 | 12.14 |
| Flesch Reading Ease | 51.6 | 57.9 |
| readablility Test | grade/age | |
| Pre | Post | |
| Automated Readability Index (ARI) | 7.71/13 | 4.86/10 |
| Flesch-Kincaid | 10.34/15 | 8.20/13 |
| Coleman-Liau | 9.88/15 | 9.46/14 |
| Gunning Fog | 9.65/14 | 7.48/12 |
| SMOG | 9.37/14 | 8.23/13 |
| Average age | 14.2 years | 12.4 years |
The tests are a bit high due to the polysyllabic word counts, but with the subject being polysyllabic there is little that can be done about that. The average drop in age of reader is almost two years with one test showing almost three.
This did create a few new redlinks though and fact templates though. The facts should be fairly easy (2006 census estimate, conspiracy theory on the bombing). The five new redlinks are pretty obvious and should not present a major issue to take care of them.
All measurements were shifted over to convert templates. There was a discreptancy in area between the infobox and the geography section. I set the number in geography to match the data in the infobox and the lead-in. There is a slight difference there between 69,960 total (infobox) with 1.8% water (68,701 land) and 68,667 land (lead-in) so I took the one most likely to be rounded (%water) to be the problem and used the other numbers to get the data (resulting in a %water of 1.848 instead of 1.8 - within reason for rounding to the nearest 1/10th).
Also the error with reference 15 was fixed (extra carriage return in the title made it screwy). -- Creol(talk) 19:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of these issues are minor, but they defiantly should be fixed. Thanks, Albacore (talk · changes) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
During the American Civil War (1861–1865), several Indian tribes sided with the Confederacy. How many? an estimate would be nice
This caused much of the Indian Territory to be under Confederate control... How much?
He dreamed of an all-Indian state with power held by the United States Superintendent of Indian Affairs. should be rewritten
from above Oklahoma has only been a state for a little over a century, but its history is much longer is a peacock term. At least something is wrong with it, if it isn't a peacock term.
The oil pools found in the area caused the population of towns to grow very quickly. how quickly? stats, not weasel words
The oil was a large part of the state's early economy how large/how much money did it generate?
Not all the tribes sided with the Confederacy. Some tribes had taken control of several forts. how many forts, whose forts did they take?
A year later, the western part of the territory was turned into Oklahoma territory. kind of vague, where's the west?
Article is full of weasel words and phrases like the ones above. Should be fixed. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As part of maintenance efforts for the list of VGAs and GAs, the article's promotion and demotion details were updated and the following noted for general information:
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.