Je vais essayer de rédiger ce qui suit dans un anglais acceptable.


Wikiversité hosts content that is already given a status, describing at what level of completion a lesson is thought to be ( ,  ,  ,  ,  ). While this enables us to check whether the subject is thoroughfully discussed, this gives no indication concerning pedagogic aspects of the document, whether it is easy to read, well-documented and so forth.

I hereby propose several points I feel fundamental, albeit obvious.

Content is nothing if you can't read it

When you read a document, you expect it to be readable, that is, not only well-written from a grammatical angle, but also typographically speaking, and with some logic behind it. It's even more important when several persons work on the same thing to remain consistent. The way content is displayed, built, should not only reveal what the authors meant — it must enable the reader to understand, hence a clear and simple language.

Lessons don't have an end

A lesson can be fully finished, technically speaking, yet useless because either too long, too complicated, too technical… Even exercises do not mean much as soon as they're either too numérous or difficult for someone to even read them all. Once every bit of knowledge — compatible with the supposed difficulty and scope of the lesson — had been put in it, the work isn't over. That's why focusing on the completeness is not, I think, a good way to say the work is done.

Evaluating lessons emphasises quality

Being able to display lessons of superior quality would both stimulate readers' interest for the project, and give a precise goal for writers. The current system does not fulfill these objectives in my view. Furthermore, featuring lessons may help writers understand what we expect and guide them in the right direction. And of course, evaluating enables grammar, readability, consistency and documentation checks. This may as well point out what's wrong, so that we'll know what to improve.


The main idea is to evaluate lessons to potentially award them a « star » and call them « Featured lessons » (Leçons de qualité in French) if and only if they meet several community-chosen requirements. For instance, those criteria could include :

  • Presentation quality, æsthetics :
    • Perfect typography, perfect grammar ;
    • A clear presentation and outline of the contents ;
  • Content quality, pedagogy :
    • Teachers (at least 3 ?) should have read the lesson, without pointing out mistakes or errors ;
    • (At least 3 ?) learners should have read and understood every point of the lesson, including exercices (but excluding appendices) ;
  • Verifiability, rigour, honesty :
    • Lessons should give a complete list of references, for instance books or websites, whose content is widely accepted and considered serious ;
    • Conflicts about the content of a lesson disables its ability to be featured.