Research talk:Expanding Wikipedia articles across languages/Inter language approach/Feedback
Please create a new section on this talkpage to provide more detailed feedback on the section recommendations for individual articles. You can use this template to track the individual article, language and recommended sections.
- 1 Feedback on specific articles
- 2 General feedback or questions
- 3 Mixed results
Feedback on specific articles
Please post your feedback on specific recommendations here. Copy/paste the recommendation feedback template from the web tool here so that we can interpret your feedback.
Экранное считывающее устройство@ruwiki
|Экранное считывающее устройство|
|link||https://secrec.wmflabs.org/?lang=ru&title=Экранное считывающее устройство|
|recommendation 1||См. также|
- Thank you for both of these pieces of feedback, Vort. Please don't hesitate to reach out again if you have more opportunities to test the tool. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- I just tired this on a new stub I made to see what would happen, but I got a null recommendation - is this dependent on the article existing in other languages? — xaosflux Talk 20:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Diego: If the article don't exists in other 5 languages (currently we cover en,ar,fr,es,pt and ja), you are likely to not get recommendations. That's why this approach would work better for under resourced languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diego (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2019
Kanto Pro Championship@enwiki
|Kanto Pro Championship|
|link||https://secrec.wmflabs.org/?lang=en&title=Kanto Pro Championship|
- I don't know how useful a recommendation like this would be. Would it be a good idea to filter out extremely common suggestions like "References", "See also", and "Notes"? Rchard2scout (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Diego: We have checked that, but there is not a clear cut for the most popular sections. We could remove the top-N sections, but the N value it's not clear, moreover changes depending on the language. And, more important, especially for newbies, if an article is missing a very obvious section, it would be important to be aware that section is missing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diego (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2019
Since the article is a very short stub, the recs are very appropriate. I took the opportunity to actually adding sections as advised by the tool. Noted so in the article’s Talkpage. --Omotecho (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
From the surface, or at least using the tool, I don’t know how short this article is compared to the other page or was 1,280bytes short (submitted report above) this article is 3,600 bytes short against the other jawp page I have submitted a report as above. However, nothing is recommended in this article.
- Tool tells me “Current sections and subsections in this article are:
The current article has no sections yet.”
- I expected some recs, any set of hints to start with, but
- the tool simply states “Recommended sections: We can't provide section recommendations for this article”.
Tool’s job is done, and the following is off topic. It would be great if tool gave me a hint, or more so a set of general section titles, on this case applicable to fashion items or handicraft using fiber cords as material. Or how I can expand/add sections such as:
- Maybe suggesting pages where I will find hints to create section titles:
- Maybe encourage me to look into the category of that very wp page ? In case I am familiar with the subject, I might come up with a section title, by browsing other articles under the same category.
- Maybe hint me to go to Wikipedia, open the wikidata link above the page title.
- Thanks for your comments and your suggestions. We will take that in account for future work. Diego (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
General feedback or questions
If you have questions about the project, or feedback on the design of the rating tool, please add that here.
Removing non-applicable questions
- The question "Are redundant or conflict with the existing sections in the article" is not applicable if there are currently no sections in the article. Similarly, the question "Are redundant or conflict with other recommended sections" is not applicable if there's only one recommended section. Would it be possible and/or useful to remove those questions? Rchard2scout (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
en:Joe Garagiola Sr.--> Recommends Career, Awards, Playing career, Bibliography. Horribly wrong for all of them. When there's already a section of Baseball career why are the two sections about career recommended? Awards duplicates honor. Please remove sections like Bibliography from being ever recommended. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please allow us to review the recommendations on a per-section basis. Also, where's the code for this tool? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
key additional question
Is the material for this section already present within another section of the article, or is the material not present in the article at all? Examples might be a "Life and Work" section, which in most cases I would separate into a section "Biography" and a section "Professional Career" , or a needed section "List of Works" where the titles of the works might either be present in a more general section, or not given at all. In practice, most of the organizational changes I make in revising an article are like this. DGG (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's good point, and I can see two cases here: partial overlap of sections, and the other is about hierarchy, sections that might be subsections of other. Learning hierarchies across sections, it's complex, but we should research on that direction. Diego (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Layout of rating tool if a thumbnail is included
Hi, I suggest changing the layout of the first 2 segments on the rating tool page, to fix the problem with the "Current sections ..." bulletpoints that sometimes wrap around (and partially overlap with) the image in a confusing way. Cf screenshot. Perhaps either (A) add something to <clear> the floated content before the "Current sections ..." header, or (B) move the image to the right of the text (in LTR languages). Cheers. Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback, we will consider this for future versions of this tool. Diego (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Lack of parallelism in redundancy questions
Right now, I press "agree" for the first two questions if the recommendations are good. But for the third and fourth questions, about redundancy, I press "agree" is there is a problem. That's somewhat confusing, and while I know convention wisdom is to avoid using "not" in questions, I think this is a case where it would be an improvement. MarginalCost (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Got your point, and we will take this in account for future versions of this tool. Diego (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Interlang mapping for section title needs to be expanded
updated comment title. Anyway to better match section titles? Maybe on the gapfinder-tools.wmflabs.org Tested on a jawp page, and the recommended section has been in that jawp article, and so does the translated enwp article.
Tried on ja and was recommended “Sister cities” 日本語 (ja) , while the jawp article actually has a section equivalent to recommended "Sister city relations", or in jawp. You can say the actual section title is a variant of the recommended. Looked at its enwp page, Itō, Shizuoka, a translation from jawp, and it has section titled #Sister city relations. --Omotecho (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC) -> updated 06:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you Omotecho. Diego (WMF) has been actively working on the automated section-matching capability of the tool. We'll make sure that we look for this kind of issue from now on. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Two pieces of localization feedback
"Concerning the testing tool, it always switches back to en.wikipedia, and the ‘Skip Article’ button apparently takes articles only from en.wikipedia. I feel it’s a bit restrictive." --(from translators-l@ by Frigory). Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for relating this Quiddity (WMF)! I'll log this issue. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
So far recommendations I've seen mixed results. For example:
For an article about "Su (kana)" on enwiki, I've got recommendations for: "Route" and "Early life". Both make zero sense for a Japanese kana character.
For "Progress Stadium" I've got: References, Overview, Access. The first might be relevant, and the latter I guess could be about getting to the stadium or accessibility (though it took me couple of minutes of thinking to figure out what kind of "access" could be relevant here) but way not the most obvious ones that you want to see on an article about a stadium.
For "Bonnie Gadusek" I got "Grand Slam Singles performance timeline" when "Grand Slam singles performance timeline" section already exists. The suggested section would be a great hit if not the fact it already exists :) I guess there's a bug that does not check for presence of sections with different capitalization? Should be easy to fix I imagine. "Honors" one is a good one for a tennis player though.
For "Jean Baptiste Pompallier" I've got "Biography" which is nice except the article already has pretty extensive biography, just under different sections.
Finally, for "Theodor Berkelmann" I got a good set of recommendations: Awards, References, World War II, Interwar years, World War I. Of course, since the person in question was born on 1894, he'd be barely out of his teens at the time of WWI, but that is nitpicking, I'm actually impressed with the result on this one.
So, the algorithm seems to get some good ones sometimes, but I'd recommend fixing the mixed case bug and looking into grouping categories somehow - e.g. "Biography", "Early life" and such are probably the same thing and there's no need to offer one if the other is there. I'll continue playing with it (will try Russian too) and see if I have more insights.