Within the WikiProject Contract bridge assessment function, article assessment is made on two basis:
This article provides guidelines about the relative notability of bridge people, and consequently about the importance assessment of biographies of contract bridge related people as assessed by the contract bridge project.
Assessment of the importance of an article on a person is with respect to WikiProject Contract bridge and not the world view at large; this later view is determined by others. This means that a person may be very important as far as the bridge world is concerned and be classed as of high importance but may be of low (or lower) importance as far as the world view is concerned. The opposite may also be true. Articles can receive different importance ratings from different perspectives.
Explicit criteria and examples would be very helpful as the assessment process is initiated. In time as more and more articles get assessed, a peer comparison will also assist in becoming more consistent and in finetuning the initial assessments.
A mathematical scoresheet and rating scheme could be developed as an assisting tool or a more subjective but explicit checklist could be developed. The later may be a better alternative given the inexactness of the assessment activity.
More permissive, see other Bridge Wiki talk pages.
Within the WikiProject Contract bridge assessment function, article assessment is made on two basis:
This article provides guidelines about the relative notability of bridge people, and consequently about the importance assessment of biographies of contract bridge related people as assessed by the contract bridge project.
Assessment of the importance of an article on a person is with respect to WikiProject Contract bridge and not the world view at large; this later view is determined by others. This means that a person may be very important as far as the bridge world is concerned and be classed as of high importance but may be of low (or lower) importance as far as the world view is concerned. The opposite may also be true. Articles can receive different importance ratings from different perspectives.
Explicit criteria and examples would be very helpful as the assessment process is initiated. In time as more and more articles get assessed, a peer comparison will also assist in becoming more consistent and in finetuning the initial assessments.
A mathematical scoresheet and rating scheme could be developed as an assisting tool or a more subjective but explicit checklist could be developed. The later may be a better alternative given the inexactness of the assessment activity.
More permissive, see other Bridge Wiki talk pages.