User:Brant/Unfair Rating?

I don't know if many of you have noticed this, but Penstubal and I were discussing it on IRC the other day, and I've decided to bring the issue to light. What we've noticed is that some pages get better ratings than others, despite both being of around equal size, among other qualities. I've brought the issue to the admins themselves, who are responsible for rating articles, though I've received no solution. (no offense Wonder) Right now I'm just wondering for others' and the admins' input on this, so I'm not asking for any changes yet. As far as I've seen, I wouldn't say any articles are undeserving of their status, but some are given lower ratings than they should. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 04:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * The article you referred to is held to a different standard than the one you referenced because they are two different types of article: character and country (former in your case). Country articles typically require more materials to be justifiable in terms of quality, whilst character articles tend to be briefer than country articles (with a few exceptions), therefore having more lenient requirements to be AQA, HQA, etc. I said this when you asked me on IRC and I'll say it here: your article is borderline AQA; you need to add relatively trivial things, like an expansion on your culture, geography, etc., and it's almost guaranteed to be AQA. The main thing to remember here is that byte size is less of a factor than quality of the bytes in question. -  Wonderweez  ( Talk · Contribs ) 05:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)