Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Better naming for rating criteria

I do not think the current naming of the criteria to rate are ideal, and they may even be misleading: I see indication for this in that each criterion seems to be rated almost alike by readers. Do you think this could be improved by renaming the criteria to (1) trustworthy, (2) balanced (objective is ambiguous: is it the way sources are represented? or does it mean a neutral point of view?), (3) comprehensive (I honestly don't think an article could ever be classified as "complete"), and (4) accessible (there is more to well written and well structured, such as sufficiently illustrated and well-chosen examples in technical articles)?

(Concerning (1), I reiterate that I think this is actually not something we should ask our readers (see Thread:Talk:Article_feedback/Please_stop/reply_(98)).)