Two years since my last attempt (WQA 1) to assess the quality of the Pedia, here comes an update. On the one hand, I have included the same measures as last time, allowing for a comparison where possible. On the other hand, I have included a few extra measures. Please feel free to edit this page if you feel the presentation could be improved.
The other quality assessment I am aware of was by Adam Carr, carried out in October 2003: English Wikipedia Quality Survey.
I have sampled 275 articles on 18 December 2005, using the random article function. This means, in contrast to WQA 1, WQA 2 uses a representative random sample with a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of 5%. I have not assessed the quality of the articles themselves, something Nature have recently done with their non-representative sample. I have also not assessed the level of plagiarism that I expect the Pedia to be guilty of.