User:Robert K S/Tag count experiment

I repeated the experiment described by User:Kildor at the current discussion on the utility and appropriateness of "drive-by tagging". I went to 200 articles by using the Random article feature. This took me about an hour and 45 minutes. (Whenever I landed on an article marked as a disambig, stub, list, or calendar year, I moved on to the next without counting it.) In almost every article I visited, it was clear within 1 second of looking at the article that it required copyediting, MoS conforming, proofreading, additional sourcing, POV removal, or some other type of cleanup. Not discussed here is the large number of stubs needlessly marked with tags such as "no sources cited". (Marking an article as a stub should be sufficient warning that the article has deficiencies.) Additionally I felt that, were I a drive-by-tagger, I could have found reasons to place tags at more than 95% of the articles I visited.

Articles with (non-subject-informative) tags at the top: 30

Articles with cleanup/multiple issues tags (does not count "no sources cited"/"needs additional citations" tags): 10

* non-subject-informative tag at the top
** cleanup or multiple issues tag or more than two separate tags