Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Better naming for rating criteria/reply (2)

I would also put in a vote for comprehensive over complete. I understand the concerns for limited English speakers but I actually think that overall comprehensive is a more clear and simpler thing to ask about.

"Complete" seems to ask for an ideal, nearly perfect state which, as we all know, Wikipedia will always be a work in progress. "Complete" also seems to put the reader on the spot to judge the completeness of coverage for a subject that they may have little background knowledge on.

"Comprehensive" is more flexible and instead just ask the readers to evaluate if they found the article comprehensive enough to meet their needs (a far less lofty standard than "completeness").

For the others, I would actually prefer "Clarity" to both accessible and well-written (and, indeed, the hover over text utilizes this approach) and "Well referenced" to Trustworthy. Objective vs Balance is a bit of a wash and both sides have valid points.