Talk:Readability

Possible Improvement
This article explains the formula well as the last user mentioned, but it could use improvement with the introductory section. The section should be more direct and not mention anything that is not followed up in the article. The section labeled "applications" is not well expounded upon and is not the relevant to the topic. There is also citations missing in the "Popular readability formulas" section and "Early children's readability formulas" section, which should be fixed. Also I think more recent sources can be used for the article as well. C.pinkston (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
I find this a very good encyclopedia article. Perhaps it just happens to hit upon all my questions and concerns. It has bad links. But by moving through the experimental works historically, including summarizing their formulae, it provides excellent understanding. BrianMCoyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I will look forward to using this encyclopedia for many future dates. Keep it interesting. Julianriverajr76 (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I like that it is kept nice and understandable. Julianriverajr76 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Julianriverajr76 is very pleased. Julianriverajr76 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Organization
There is so much research available on readability, I propose that treatment of the formulas should take place in a separate article. Also, the Readability Tests article should be folded into a new article on Readability formulas. I hope to contribute more to this article soon.Bdubay (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the amount of information dedicated to the formulas in this article would warrant a separate article. However, I plan to reduce the amount of information in these sections and expand about the general facets of readability. This would give the article a better flow and make the other sections more cohesive as they work together to create a more general background of readability. Savmanbanans (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy
This article should link to a discussion of the readability of articles in Wikipedia.

Here is an example of a comment from one of the mathematically-oriented articles (M-theory): "the article is unreadable to non-experts and probably useless to experts".JWSchmidt 13:33, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have something about how accurate / useful these are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.96.65 (talk) 6 April 2006


 * Maybe there should be a readability comparison section. It could use the same passage through many of the readability algorithms.  This would really help people understand how the scores differ between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.38.83 (talk) 20 May 2006

Understandability
Why does this redirect here while related words redirect to understanding? (like understood and understandable) TheBlazikenMaster 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Readability concerns itself with texts, this is different to understanding. Changing redirect.  — Dispenser 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Understanding is part of reading comprehension. Readability--ease of reading--contributes to comprehension, but is distinct from it.Bdubay (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Grade
When many high-school graduates read at the 8th-grade level, at which level do 8th-graders usually read? Or put in another way: how did someone come up with categorization in nth-grade levels? --Abdull (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is determined experimentally. A sample of writing is given to students in that grade, they are to read it and recall certain details of the work. A percentage indicates the number of student were able to recall the details.  — Dispenser 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How often is the categorization re-calibrated? For example writing styles have changed since 1950; on the other hand a frequent re-calibration could mask a declinoe in educational standards. Philcha (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Common measures of readability of text
I've just added this section, which contains:
 * A list of common measures.
 * Notes on computerised tools. Disclosure: I have no financial or other interest in the promotion of the tools mentioned. Philcha (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed these (as I've done so earlier) as it was redundant to Category:Readability tests. — Dispenser 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In Computer Programming
Talk about the relationship between readability and programming style. Link to Programming style. Gandalfgeek (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC) gandalfgeek

Hard reading
I ran the intro through edit central, reading ease was 42, fog index 18. I think the whole article needs a rewrite. TonyClarke (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Easier?
Rewrote it, definitely easier if we can write it right the first time than having to amend it sentence by sentence. ; < TonyClarke (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph needs readability edit
I quote the following paragraph from the beginning of the article:


 * It has been long known that text which is easy to read helps people to enjoy and to learn from their reading.[5] When you pick up a book which you find too hard to read, unless you are strongly driven to read it, you will put it down and forget it. Improved understanding and knowledge is why we read, so making what we write easy to read is crucial.

For an article about ease of understanding and quality of writing, this paragraph isn't exactly great, not to mention containing the odd weasel phrase ("it has long been known"). The sentence structure is also all over the shop, more akin to a narrative than an enyclopedia entry; WP:WORDS says second person pronouns should be avoided. The flow is is pretty bad too, particularly the second sentence, which is awkward at best.

Since others seem to be maintaining this article I won't rewrite it, but can I suggest that someone else does? 94.174.54.232 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede
The lede should be a summary of the article. I expanded it a bit, but it still doesn't adequately summarize the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Article should add typographic aspect of readability
As the lede correctly states, typography affects readability. However, the article discusses only text content. It says nothing about typographic readability. Perhaps the article should be renamed (i.e., moved to) Understandability, with a separate article on Readability (typographic) and a disambiguation page titled Readability that points to the two articles.—Finell 20:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Use typography page
Would it not be better to include the legibility aspects under the existing 'Typography' page? That would avoid the rather clunky 'Understandability' title. That word has seven syllables, which is in itself a violation of readability!

It would also more clearly separate the different issues of being able to discern characters and letters, from the issue of ease of interpretation of words and sentences. The latter uses our understanding, the former uses our eyesight.

The typography page currently has issues, but I think it is a better option to use this rather than chopping readability in two.

TonyClarke (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Readability of Wikipedia
@Arjayay Thanks for pointing out a manual of style point that I was not aware of:

“In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (and even in that case with care – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid).”

Perhaps the answer is for me to start a section on the readability of Wikipedia - from which I could have a see also to User:Phlsph7/Readability Chidgk1 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication
— Assignment last updated by Savmanbanans (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What I Edited and Changed in This Article
I was very impressed with the amount of content and information use in this article. However, a lot of it was historical research so I did find more modern sources to supplement the information. I also filtered and deleted a few sentences and sections (see in view history) in the lead and a few other sections that were either not expanded upon enough to be relevant or not supported enough by sources. I also did some face editing to both run-on and choppy sentences that I found to be distracting as the article was about readability and much of the writing needed to be more clear. Please review my edits and documentation comments and let me know what editing skills are in need of improvement. Savmanbanans (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Chidgk1 (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)