User talk:Mike Peel/Wikidata descriptions

Suggested review
, with your permission I would like to go through this list and allocate each description with my valuation as a short description. I propose a scale of:
 * +5 for excellent - hard to think of a better short description, and defines the subject nearly perfectly
 * +4 for very good
 * +3 for quite good
 * +2 for usable, but lots of room for improvement
 * +1 for marginally useful
 * 0 for not useful, but not harmful
 * -1 for slightly worse than nothing
 * -2 for very inadequate or slightly misleading
 * -3 for factually wrong, quite misleading
 * -4 for highly misleading
 * -5 for extremely bad, offensively wrong
 * n/a for does not need a description - better without - title alone is sufficient.
 * ? for cases where I really cannot tell if the description is good, bad or indifferent. This may happen.

I intend to read the lead paragraph of each article rated at the very least, before rating, to make sure that my rating is reasonably appropriate. I would welcome anyone else doing the same in parallel. To identify my ratings I will use a commented identifier after each rating and suggest any other contributors do similar. I suggest each person starting with an offset of 100 from the previous, as I think more coverage would be more useful than multiple coverage, but if anyone thinks multiple coverage would be more useful, go ahead and redo some, but please avoid cherrypicking, and try to be neutral and objective No guarantee that I will finish, or how long it might take, but a pattern may emerge. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you copy the list to a subpage of your username and edit there instead please? I may re-generate this list in the future (using the same / modified code). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will do that, and leave a link here when it is done. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Although, watching your edits at User talk:Pbsouthwood/Wikidata description Quality Assessment experiment, I'm puzzled that you're ranking no description as "worse than nothing"? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is not as simple as I had hoped, I am trying to work out a more useful metric but having difficulty. It is good that I moved it to my own page where I can fumble around without confusing too many people. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A rating of -2 meaning very inadequate or slightly misleading is a reasonable classification of "no description where a description is needed" the meaning of -1 should probably be improved. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)