Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Better naming for rating criteria/reply (3)

Thank you both for your replies. I understand WhatamIdoing's concern regarding limited English speakers but I do not think it is warranted for a term like "comprehensive", which clearly is not some obscure vocabulary and rather accurately describes what we intend to ask for. IMO, readers that are able to access Wikipedia over the Internet and are willing to vote on an article should also be able to look up unknown vocabulary in online dictionaries. (FYI, I'm not a native English speaker either, so I think it's fair to state this from my side. ;)) I think, at best the concern would be valid for the simple Wikipedia.

I agree that "accessible" could be ambiguous as well. Not sure I prefer "understandable", though. I guess an article could be badly written yet understandable in large. Can't think of better options for the moment.

I very much like anon's suggestion of "well referenced" instead of trustworthy – it makes it immediately clear what is meant.