Thread:Talk:Article feedback/more effective to engage casual readers on talk page?

I like the idea of reader feedback, but am concerned that ratings may unduly damage the credibility of individual articles. For instance, I just noticed an article I've worked on was rated 3 out of 5 in every category. The sameness of these ratings is suspect, and it was a particularly unjust rating for "Trustworthy," since virtually every sentence is documented with a high-quality academic source (from publishers such as Cambridge and Oxford UP). It may have been a fair rating in only the "Complete" category, but the casual reader who notices the ratings will now doubt the reliability and usefulness of the article.

I would prefer that the Ratings appear on the talk page; the box at the bottom of the article that is intended to engage readers would be only a link that says "Rate this page" and takes you to the talk page, where the actual ratings would be displayed. This might be a more effective way to engage a reader who doesn't have an account. If they're taken to the talk page, they could not only contribute to and view the reader Ratings box, but would see discussion and project ratings, and would perhaps be encouraged to verbalize their criticisms in addition, which would be infinitely more useful. As it is, the reader ratings have greater visibility than the more informed project ratings. (And graphically, the Ratings box is often as large as the biggest image on the page, which gives it undue weight.)

I also wonder whether the ratings rubrics are the correct ones for the kind of feedback we're looking for. Instead of imagining that the casual reader is going to pause for sober critical analysis, why not give them Yes/No rubrics that correspond to first impressions? Such as: This would be more like a customer-service approach, and wouldn't confuse quality ratings with reader feedback. Thanks. Cynwolfe 13:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you find the information you were looking for? Y/N
 * Does the article need major improvements? Y/N
 * Was the article clear and interesting to read? Y/N
 * Would you recommend this article? Y/N
 * Please leave additional comments here (with a link that opens a new section on the talk page)