Talk:World Press Freedom Index/Archive 1

Archive 1

Updates for 2011/2012

Updated press freedom indexes are available at http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043 121.54.22.106 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done The 2011-2012 data was included in the article sometime ago. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is unclear

Having read this article I am still no better informed as to what the "Press Freedom Index" is than I was before I read it. It fails to explain what all the numbers actually mean. For example, Australia and New Zealand are two very closely related and similar countries yet Australia has a PFI of 5.38 while NZ is only 1.5. Why, and what does the difference between them mean in the real world? Looking at the references, the questionnaire seems incredibly subjective and there is no explanation of the methodology used to come up with the final numbers. The colouring used in the table is not explained and doesn't correspond to the image. Using Oz and NZ again, both are blue yet, in 2009 when the image was created, both countries are green in the table. The article needs to be expanded to give the table context and explain to readers what the numbers mean, colouring needs to be fixed and the image updated, with appropriate referencing to establish notability of the subject. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

 Partly done The text of the article has been expanded which I hope at least partly addresses some of these concerns. Data for 2013 still needs to be added and the map needs to be updated and should use the same colors as the table. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 Partly done Data from the 2013 report has been added. Still need to update the map. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done The map has been updated using data from the RWB 2013 report. The colors in the map are now similar to the colors in the table. The map uses five categories, while the table uses seven categories. RWB uses five categories in their map. I think it would be good to switch the table to use five categories as well, but that will take a bit of work to do for all of the prior years and so, I at least, won't be doing it soon. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

New report 2013

http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054 --Martina Moreau (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 Partly done Data from the 2013 report has been added. Still need to update the map. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Map updated to use data from the 2013 report. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Color intervals

Color intervals for 2013

      x < 10 is 98FB98 dark green
10 <= x < 15 is ccffcc light green
15 <= x < 25 is ccffff light blue
25 <= x < 35 is FFD    light yellow
35 <= x < 50 is ffff66 dark yellow
50 <= x < 70 is FDD    light red
70 >= x      is F9D    dark red

The color intervals used may need some additional adjustment. RWB uses 5 intervals rather than the 7 we use in the Wikipedia article. It might be good to switch to the RWB scheme. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The three-character color codes are showing up as black in the color key in IE8, though they look correct in the full table. The colors look correct in Chrome. (And for the moment let's pretend "Don't use IE8" is not an option.) Morfusmax (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Color intervals for 2011-2012 (the scale of this is about 1.5 times wider)

[-10, -5) = 99ff99 (dark green)
[ -5,  0) = ccffcc (light green)
[  0, 12) = ccffff (blue)
[ 12, 42) = ffffcc (beige)
[ 42, 65) = ffff66 (yellow)
[ 65, 95) = ff9900 (orange)
[ 95, ..) = ff3333 (red)

Color intervals for 2002 to 2010

[ 0, 4) = 99ff99 (dark green)
[ 4, 7) = ccffcc (light green)
[ 7,15) = ccffff (blue)
[15,35) = ffffcc (beige)
[35,50) = ffff66 (yellow)
[50,70) = ff9900 (orange)
[70,..) = ff3333 (red)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasStrohmann (talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 

It is quite interesting really, the colors here. Notice the huge difference between 19 and 20. The change itself says little on its own, but seeing the UK and US among other nations in that obviously different shade than the "free" world is a push to make a point. Most graphs change color at 11 21 31 etc. Ironically I was led here by a media manipulation article. c'est la vie. 75.214.180.96 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

One would have to know what the basis for this ranking is to draw any conclusions. I don't know who is supposedly being censored in the US for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.220.22 (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that these numbers are meaningless without full details of the methodology. --Arthur Borges 17:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs)

When Finland is at the top it looks trustworthy, but Estonia at 9, meant "free"... it's quite strange. See Johan_Bäckman whose "controversial thoughts" are allowed in Finland but banned in Estonia--213.208.170.194 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

Discrepancies between Map and Table

I just made a brief comment on the article about how although five colors are used for the map seven colors are used for the below table.

For example, Canada is colored dark green on the map, but is light green in the table.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we change the colors used? We could (i) change the WP map to agree with the table, (ii) change the table to agree with the map, or (iii) leave things as they are? Which approach would be better? For myself, I like (ii) best since five colors are used on the RWB map (not the same five), we have good names to go with the five colors and it might be hard to come up with good names for seven. I also think that seven categories is too many for people to hold in their minds as they look at a map. Five colors seem more workable to me. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think option (ii) would be okay.

Or just leaving it the same (option (iii)) would also be fine. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenland

There isn't any ranking for Greenland, and so perhaps Greenland is just taking the same color as for Denmark.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I assume that this is the case too (Greenland is the same as Denmark). --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

okay, Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies between Wikipedia's Map and Reporters Without Borders' Map

There seem to be some discrepancies between the Wikipedia's Map and Reporters Without Borders' Map

Japan takes the second color in RWB's map, while it takes the third color in Wikipedia's map.

Nigeria takes the fourth color in RWB's map, while it takes the third color in Wikipedia's map.

Angola takes the third color in RWB's map, while it takes the fourth color in Wikipedia's map.

Color	Wikipedia	Reporters Without Borders
First	Dark Green	White
Second	Light Green	Yellow
Third	Light Yellow	Orange
Fourth	Light Red	Red
Fifth	Dark Red	Black

My theory as to how this came about:

I'm thinking that the Wikipedia map came directly from the rankings. (all countries with values within some range got the first color, all countries with values within the next range got the second color, etc.).

The RWB map is based on the rankings, but then they changed some, perhaps based on factors other than the raw number that came out from the analysis.

(one additional factor might include how the country dealt with coverage of events or situations that occurred after all the questionnaires had already been returned....) Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is all just speculation on our part. We don't know anything for sure. But, if RWB was going to make last minute adjustments, shouldn't they make them to both the scores and the map, rather than just the map? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For example: Nigeria at rank 115 is colored red in the RWB map while other countries with a lower rank are colored orange: Macedonia (116), Venezula (117), Nepal (118), Ecuador (119), Cameroon (120) and South Sudan (124).

Tanzania is yellow at rank 70 while higher ranked countries such as Argentina (54), Hungary (56), Italy (57), and Central African Republic (65) are orange.

Angola is orange at rank 130 while higher ranked countries such as Afghanistan (128), Colombia (129), Honduras (127) and Ukraine (126) are red.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this when I was working on the table and the map and sent a note to the US RWB office asking about it. I got no reply.

Here is a copy of the note I sent to RWB:

From: Jeff Ogden <jeff.ogden@umich.edu>
Subject: question about the 2013 Press Freedom Index map
Date: February 11, 2013 4:12:54 PM EST
To: dcdesk@rsf.org

Hello,

I've been looking at the Reporters Without Borders' 2013 Press Freedom Index 
report and the associated world map.

Is it possible that a few countries on the map are shown with the wrong colors? 
The classifications as shown by the colors on the map, don't seem to agree with 
the rankings and scores from the report and the classifications of other countries 
with slightly higher or lower rankings and scores in a handful of cases. In particular:
* Angola shown as Noticeable Problems, but possibly should be Difficult Problems
* Chad shown as Difficult Situation, but possibly should be Noticeable Problems
* Brunei shown as Difficult Situation, but possibly should be Noticeable Problems
* Nigeria shown as Difficult Situation, but possibly should be Noticeable Problems
* South Sudan shown as Difficult Situation, but possibly should be Noticeable Problems
* Tajikistan shown as Difficult Situation, but possibly should be Noticeable Problems
* Tanzania shown as Satisfactory Situation, but possibly should be Noticeable Problems
Or, if the classifications shown on the map for the above countries are correct, then 
are there mistakes in the classifications for other countries with rankings and scores 
that are slightly higher or lower than the ones listed above?

I've been trying to figure out the range of rankings or the range of scores that 
corresponds to each of the five classifications. I haven't found that information 
explicitly written down, so I have been working to figure it out empirically by 
looking at the map. But some of the classifications seem to be out of order with respect 
to the rankings and scores. Are the ranges of rankings or scores for the different 
classifications written down somewhere?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

 -Jeff Ogden
   retired University of Michigan staff member
   Ann Arbor, Michigan  48103 
   USA

I don't think that there is much that can be done about this at this point. If I have to choose, I'd rather that the WP map be consistent with the table than with the RWB map since I can't explain why the RWB map is colored the way it is. What do others think? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that a number of mistakes got into the RWB map. However, as stated above, I think it is more likely that the staff made various judgments on the coloring for different countries aside from the rankings.

I remember reading in the Wikipedia article on the Corruption Perceptions Index that people raised the question of how much the CPI gives a full picture of how things go on in a particular country, and so I think one could raise that general comment about any index or rating whether it be applied to countries, companies, stocks, sports teams, athletes, etc.

Two different patients might go to the doctor on the same day, and have the same or similar vitals and numeric data, but very different health and life situations.

Of course in the CPI case the goal was to measure corruption which as the article said is by nature hidden.

Anyway, I can send Reporters Without Borders another note.

To: internet@rsf.org
From: david.kit.friedman@gmail.com 

Dear Reporters Without Borders, 

I have been working on the Wikipedia article for the 
Press Freedom Index that Reporters Without Borders has 
been publishing since 2002. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

Thank you very much for providing this information 
to the public on the Internet. 

The records of the index going back to 2002 
are available in a tabular form in the article; 
however there is something that we don't 
understand about the current map for 2013: 

Some countries seem to be colored out of order 
with their rank.  

For example, Nigeria is ranked 115, while Macedonia 
is ranked 116, Venezuela is 117, Nepal is 118, Ecuador 
is 119, Cameroon is 120 and South Sudan is 124. 

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

Yet Macedonia, Venezuela, Nepal, Ecuador, Cameroon, 
and South Sudan are all orange while Nigeria is red. 

http://fr.rsf.org/IMG/jpg/2013-carte-liberte-presse_1900.jpg

Since Nigeria is ranked higher it would seem that 
Nigeria should be orange or lighter. 

Angola is at rank 130 while Ukraine is at 126, 
Honduras is at 127, Afghanistan is at 128, 
and Colombia is at 129. 

Yet Angola is orange while Ukraine, Honduras, 
Afghanistan, and Colombia are all red. 

Since Angola is ranked lower it would seem that
Angola should be red or darker. 

Please let us know if you have any information on 
how the colors for those particular countries 
were picked for the map. 

David Friedman 

P.S. The discussion page for the article is available here:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Press_Freedom_Index 

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I'm sorry I don't know the proper way to request this.

Should this page maybe be protected? It gets a lot of vandalism, particularly on the US ranking.2001:470:1F14:F3A:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It means the article is important. It shouldn't be protected. It should receive more patrol and attention. Still, update is required now.--95.51.1.101 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 update

Needs updating--80.53.5.108 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The following was posted to my talk page this afternoon. I'm moving a copy together with my reply here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

hey, could you update your map to the newest report: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php --80.53.5.108 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume the map you are talking about is File:RWB-PressFreedomIndex2013-WorldMap.svg. It isn't my map, but I'll look into updating it. It may take awhile. I took a quick look at the RWB website and I didn't see a list of countries with their 2014 ratings. All I found were text descriptions and a map without a key. Perhaps I missed it. Hints welcome. The RWB article is dated 12 February, which is tomorrow, so perhaps they are still in the process of putting everything in place. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As noted on the file talk, Jeff Ogden (W163), this image is used on pages with only the occasional interested contributor updating them, or in articles where there only appear to be relatively high traffic based on edit-warring over other matters. Since this is time sensitive (and we have no idea as to the extent of changes in rankings over the coming year), it's probably better to enter info as text at this point and generate a map much later in the year. Are there any other interested contributors with an opinion on the matter? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The report has been published today, Irina... And updating a map is not a difficult task. I suppose you could do that, instead of visiting the page and writing your comment :) There you go the link: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php --94.118.41.74 (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So could you, 94.118.41.74. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't.--194.181.135.164 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

94.118.41.74, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not compulsory and is dependent on volunteers to work on articles as, and when, they wish to... and not on what someone demands of them. If this is a crucial issue, please go ahead and update the information on the page. In fact, shortly after responding to Jeff Ogden (W163) yesterday, I was informed of a family emergency and have been unable to update entries according to the link you provided. At the moment, I have neither the time nor the inclination to update anything. Your courteous response is greatly appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Iryna Harpy, please bear in mind that spite is not compulsory. I am referring to your behaviour in the Central Europe article. I am sorry for your family emergency, but IF you had one, why did you go on Wikipedia if, as you already said, Wikipedia is not compulsory. Your courteous response is greatly appreciated.--194.181.135.164 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

'Family emergency' does not always translate into a lengthy, ongoing event (for which I can only be thankful). I'm even more grateful for the fact that admin recognised you as being the multiple identity disorder contributor you are and that you've been blocked, along with your latest username incarnation. I have no doubt that you'll return, but there are a multitude of users who know your MO inside-out. Fear not, you'll be recognised quickly and blocked again for your POV push on the same issues over and over. Time to start a blog or join a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It is better to use different accounts, than to be a homophobe, a vandal and a liar, like you. I can only regret that your bias will go unpunished in any way. I could take you to the court, but they will be others, I could explain in huge essays where you are wrong, but you wouldn't listen. So I do the only thing I can do - I walk away.--95.19.107.64 (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

RWB has posted more 2014 information on their website, including a spreadsheet with ranks and scores for individual countries and a downloadable PNG file with a version of the world map that uses a different color scheme than their fancy online map that is available on the web site. The PNG map has a key. So with this additional information we can map the classifications from the RWB PNG map to the countries in the RWB spreadsheet and from that we can update the table in the article and the SVG map that we maintain on the Commons. It shouldn't be hard, but it will take a little bit of time to make sure we do it accurately. I'll try to do that over the next few days. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

But the map is an immediate resource from which you can go towards the rankings, hence the link.--194.181.135.164 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Jeff Ogden (W163). Could you please ping me from the new file location (I assume it'll be on Wiki Commons) when you've completed it? I'll try to get the new sections together beforehand, but can't be certain that I will. Knowing the map is completed will give me the impetus to do so. Thanks for all of your help! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php . Goof luck.--194.181.135.164 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Is the the fact that denial of holocaust is verbotten contribute to lowering of the country's index? Can you doubt holocaust in Finland's newpapers? I hope so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autismal (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Why don't you contact the agency directly? You can write them a message and indicate that they might have missed something. It is human thing to err. However, on the other side, perhaps this is the essence of human rights? Very complex it is. I wish you luck! :)

--Martina Moreau (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed a very interesting topic: Is it forbidden to write lies and unproven things? In a real free world it should be allowed, but how to prevent any form of extremism and irrationalism then? Actually, in a free world you can only prevent it by teaching the people to be aware of any kind of propaganda. And that's exactly what Western schools miss out (also Eastern schools...). So I'm basically just waiting for the next Hitler, although the Bush family already matches many Hitler patterns, backed by the NSA/CIA as the next SS. --178.197.226.90 (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

178.197.226.90, this is a Wikipedia talk page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

2015 World Press Freedom Index

Qlwa (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC) This article needs updating. Newest report is here: https://index.rsf.org/#!/index-details

Color categories

The description of the color categories was recently changed by these edits. However, neither the former descriptions nor the current ones match anything I've been able to find on RSF's website. In fact, the only guide I've located so far is here and provides these descriptions: "Very bad", "Bad", "Problematic", "Fairly good", and "Good". Is there any reason we should not use these descriptions? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Graph with trends

A simple graph showing the totals is needed. From the table it seems press freedom is dying worldwide. Zezen (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

USA good situation?

The US is marked as being in a good situation despite the current administration repeatedly attacking the press. Is that a colour mistake? 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:A (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The current United States administration has never made any attacks on press freedom. This is not a forum. 2601:646:8301:61D6:7428:6845:FB65:11BB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Duhhhh REALLY?! Because I'm pretty sure that the president of the United States literally stating that "THE PRESS IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE", more than once, and constantly calling the press "FAKE NEWS", are direct attacks upon the press. They have also banned reporters from the White House whom they did not like. --24.161.40.44 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Should Article be Locked?

There are numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this article that are blatant. These include the table listing China, Uzbekistan, and North Korea near the top of the press freedom table. This is obviously incorrect placement.

These nations are also entered into the table twice: once at the top, once at the bottom.

There may also be such inconsistencies and inaccuracies across the whole table.

Due to the risk of this article being used as propaganda, I believe the article should be locked. Bad faith editors could swap countries around to make them appear more or less free for political/propaganda reasons.

Additionally, since the underlying data of the index is not available, there is no way to verify even an unedited list as true and accurate. JohnMaguire1995 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Methodology - Confirmation needed

There needs to be more confirmation of information, such as methodology. The section on methodology is taken from RWB's own literature. However, many journalists here in the U.S. at news outlets large and prominent or small and local can say they have never received a questionnaire and that requests for information as to how to be included in the survey and receive the questionnaires in the future are ignored.

Notably, RWB also does not say how many questionnaires it has sent out and how many are returned and it is not clear they are willing to disclose this number.

It is not clear at all that the methodology is as represented. Also, it is not clear how well the country rankings follow the questionnaire data. There is a lot more research that needs to be done to accurately portray RWB's Freedom Index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eidos2 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If no detailed methodology is available and they refuse to share data, a subsection on reliability or verifiability should be added, highlighting these issues.

Without context, the average reader will view this as factual and proven, even if that is undetermined.

JohnMaguire1995 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Update on my above talk posting:

There is a reference to the described methodology of the index. It gives a detailed explanation of the methods, including a sample questionnaire. However, the underlying data is not published. JohnMaguire1995 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Since they use their own criteria as to how to arrive at the rankings, the resulting list is copyright. For this type of list we usually only show the top ten, or perhaps for a list of this type we might show the top ten for each year or even a few from the top ten and bottom ten for each year. I will list this at WP:CP so interested editors will have a little time to modify the article if there's anyone prepared to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the data content of tables is not copyrightable, unless it's presented in a particular style, in which case presenting the data in that particular style, if it's arbitrary rather than necessary, is copyrightable. I recommend that you revert your edit. I think that despite the warning in the tag, anyone who wishes should feel free to revert the tag, because you've given no evidence at all of any copyright violation. The fact that RSF calculated the numbers doesn't give them copyright over the numbers that they've published. Boud (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Duplication detector gives Matching phrases found: 0
• Earwig's detector gives Violation Unlikely 0.0% similarity

As I expected, not even a hint of any copyright violation. Given the long backlog, I think that anyone should feel free to revert the edit, despite the warning. This is obviously not a copyright violation. Boud (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Earwig's tool and the Duplication Detector are not useful for this particular type of article. Please don't remove the copyvio core template; an administrator needs to assess. I have commented at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 February 18. — Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators implement community decisions and have no more right in making editorial decisions than ordinary Wikipedians; there is no special reason for an administrator to assess this - all we need is community consensus. The two detectors above fail because there is no copyright violation. Wikidata has been accepted as a WMF project and the project is not a copyright violation. Please remove the copyright notice since there is no evidence of any copyright violation. Boud (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 February 18, not here. I see you've already commented there, so that's good. Please don't conduct a parallel discussion here. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No copyright violation; keeping material in place pending further investigation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Color coding discrepancy

The colour coding in the side infobox, and the color coding in the main table do not match. What's worse, the breakdown of sections do not match either. The infobox has 70 points as a break point for 'Satifactory' but the main table has 65 to 75 in the same color... ???

 Good: 85–100 points
 Satisfactory: 70–85 points
 Problematic: 55–70 points
 Difficult: 40–55 points
 Very serious <40 points 

123.205.19.162 (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)