This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How or where do I go to request a page to be graded? I dont want to do it, because I wrote the article. Chaldean 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a list of articles that are FA class A class GA class and so forth? I remember seeing it before.
"THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Why most former featured articles automatically go to class B, not class A or good article on that scale if they are downgraded? -- 195.50.207.164 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that I am rating a lot of articles as Start class where other projects are rating them at a B. The discrepancy is most likely the fact that I give almost no weight to facts stated that are not referenced. In the eyes of other contributors, I am curious if others feel we should give a higher rating to a well written article that has not been verified. Alan.ca 08:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If you spot a list of works, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per the manual of style at WP:LOW, or tag it with the template {{ MOSLOW}}. This PHP script may also be useful: User:Whilding87/ListReverser.
I think it would be better if A-Class articles should come before GAs. A articles are rated on a single user's decision, where GAs require the review of an outside editor. At the moment, when an FA is demoted it isn't simple to give a GA rating, so A-Class is used instead. According to the current table, that article is of better quality than a GA even tough it hasn't been formally reviewed. -- Selmo ( talk) 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem goes deeper. An A-class article does not have to have passed GAC. But a better-than-B but not-quite-an-A article that nobody bothered to put through GAC yet cannot be 'GA-class'. This means that some B-class articles may actually be as good as - or perhape even better than GA-class articles. Furthermore, An A-class article might actually be FA quality - but because it hasn't been through the formal step, it can't be classed 'FA' here. So we have a wierd situation where going through the formal processes is a requirement to reach two of the grades - but it's possible to skip the GA step and still be A-class. Very, very strange. I think this may explain why we have an enormous 'bulge' of articles down at B-class and a sudden drop-off in their numbers at GA. I strongly suspect that most assessors are ignoring the bit that says that you can be at A-class without going through GAC and artificially holding all non-GAC articles at B-class. That's really bad news because it's causing people to assume that the encyclopedia is totally snowed under with B-class articles that just aren't being made better. The reality is more likely to be that there are a lot of articles that are actually up to the standard of FA's, A's or GA's - but because their author isn't interested in the fame, the fortune (and the *babes*) that comes with GA status - they are essentially doomed to stay in B-class forever.
The 'fix' for this is to add two new classes - B+ and A+. B+ is intended to be precisely the same quality level as GA and A+ is identical to FA. The only difference being that an article can be graded B+ if the assessor believes this article could make it through GAC if it were submitted - and A+ if the belief is that it would likely make it through FAC if submitted. It may be argued that assessors should not be 'second guessing' the formal processes - but in fact we are already doing that by allowing A-class articles that have never passed GAC.
SteveBaker 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to add yet another change to the bot - now that the system is so widely used I think no one (esp. Oleg) wants to tinker with the code unless necessary. But if people think (a) this idea is very useful and (b) Oleg can make the change easily, it may be worth looking at. Is this a workable solution? Walkerma 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I'd abolish the GA system entirely, but essentially it is the assessment class that bothers me the most. I feel as if the entire point of the project is so that editors who don't feel like putting in the legwork to actually pass FAC muster can still get a pat on the back. Ironically, they've upped the standards so close to FAC now that it's almost as much work to get that GA. Which is why it should go - the single reviewer standard is identical to how assessments work. Making the assessment ladder a straight path which anyone can assign any of the values for, aside from the final FA distinction, is the most efficient and effective scale IMHO.
I also also oppose any attempts to create any new classes. Stub, Start, B, A, and FA are more than enough - people have forgotten the purpose of the assessment - to get a broad, coarsely-grained idea of where a large number of articles collectively stand. While individual articles' assessments give an idea of the overall progress the article will need to make (if any), editors should not take them too closely to heart, as a peer review will be a better indicator of where the article needs to go. Please let's not get too attached to these "grades" as if this were a measure of academic accomplishment. Assessment classification is primarily a method of statistical analysis of groups, not nuanced reviews of individual articles. Girolamo Savonarola 01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can someone give me some examples of how the {{ list-Class}} is intended to be used? Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've developed a proof-of-concept javascript tool that will display an article's assessed rating on the article page itself. It currently does so by prepending the rating to the phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"—so it becomes, for example, "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." It also changes the color of the article title to roughly match the color scheme of the grades.
To try it, you would add the following text to your User:YourUserName/monobook.js file (cut and paste from display page, not edit page):
// Script from [[User:Outriggr/metadata.js]] document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Outriggr/metadata.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></s'+'cript>');
Purposes:
I welcome any feedback or ideas. Thanks, – Outriggr § 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does "List class" not appear here? There seem to be a bunch of them: Category:List-Class articles. Is it an oversight or should "List class" not exist? Thanks. jhawkinson 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's say I just want to assess any old article - how do I do that? I've only in my experience ever seen and used project banners to assess articles. Often there is no appropriate banner or project, and if there is it may not allow for a rating field. Is there some way to just assess it as in 'This article has been rated as X on the assessment scale'? Richard001 08:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The ratings are a bit silly. The concept that featured articles don't need any work unless new information were to come to light is absurd. -- User At Work 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we require articles to, in order to aquire A-class status, to undergo an A-class review? I know some WikiProjects do this, but the vast majority of articles receive the A-class sticker arbitrarily, usually the day before an FAC is filed. Also, we do require that the articles for GA-class and FA go through their respective processes, so why can't we do the same with A? Diez2 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If I wanted to, (as a joke more of) can i put the tab most articles have on their discussion pages saying it's start class, a class, FA class, or whatever and say it's FA Class high importance? -- LtWinters 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh my bad, I did not even finish my entree. I meant on my talk page, could I put that on so it looks cool?(it seems as though up there I gave the impression I would vandalize, my bad)
See Wikipedia:Assessment overhaul ( Discuss). The idea is to take the focus off of grade letter advancement and move it towards a system that encourages and recognizes real article improvement. Noclip 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
At the 'B' grade stage, does it not matter at all if the information in an article is sourced? To put it another way can an article gain a 'B' grade even if it contains no sources? EvilRedEye 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused over non-standard grades such as List-Class, Category-Class etc. Do they serve any purpose beyond individual WikiProjects? How do they fall into the overall assessment - are they counted as "Unassessed" or are they not counted at all? And would it be preferable for a WikiProject to assess lists in the article namespace as you would any other article? Thanks in advance if anyone can clear things up for me! PC78 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What and where are the criteria for importance in assessments? Hyacinth 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that we have nothing between Start-class and B-class. There are some articles that are just plain bad. I was just about to downgrade a B-class article but discovered that its grade is already at the bottom. It seems inappropriate to change it to 'Start' since it's not a new article (and 'Start' implies that its in the process of being developed). What do we do about an article that used to be good, or that was a promising 'Start', but that later simply deteriorated?
Since B-class is considered the "highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process" it seems strange to me that the worst non-Start article would get the same grade as the best article prior to formal review. However I am sure this topic has been discussed; I am probably missing some vital factoid that will make it all seem logical. Trevor Hanson 09:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be most helpful if the bot would list changes to an article being listed in a proposed deletion category, be it a prod, speedy or regular deletion discussion. I would propose this being done to a separate subpage which then could be transcluded onto the automated assessment changes page or if the project wanted, even to the main project page itself. __ meco 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
There are currently two types of stubs on Wikipedia, those assessed as Stubs and those under WP:Stub sorting, causing an odd double-standard. Please help reach a solution at the Village pump. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I know this prolly has been asked a lot, but I was wondering that with a project, is there a way to add our other classes such as List, Image, etc to our assessment. I work with the Illinois Project, and on our Assessment Page we have that list off to the right. Is there a way currently for us to add the other classes to this list so that we can keep track of them better and know what we have. If there isn't, is this something that could be created? I am sure there are other projects that would be interested in knowing this, so any help in this matter would be much appreciated. Thank you!-- Kranar drogin 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Article class |
Project | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation | Aircraft | Airlines | Airports | Military Aviation |
Aviation accident |
Rotorcraft | Gliding | Defunct Airlines |
Air sports | Biography | Aero engine | |||
FA | 148 | 19 | 1 | 4 | 193 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 81 | 2 | ||
FL | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | ||
A | 23 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 93 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 1 | ||
GA | 150 | 173 | 25 | 57 | 542 | 69 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 2 | 141 | 2 | ||
B | 783 | 2,143 | 85 | 402 | 3,329 | 349 | 128 | 177 | 69 | 44 | 744 | 171 | ||
C | 2805 | 4,613 | 219 | 912 | 7,951 | 584 | 293 | 397 | 93 | 371 | 1,141 | 427 | ||
Start | 10811 | 5,818 | 1,049 | 4,662 | 12,335 | 974 | 471 | 632 | 754 | 342 | 1,966 | 938 | ||
Stub | 17340 | 1,347 | 1,438 | 9,128 | 2,658 | 169 | 91 | 85 | 555 | 223 | 1,373 | 90 | ||
List | 1579 | 449 | 478 | 596 | 589 | 146 | 22 | 13 | 74 | 6 | 98 | 10 | ||
Template | 1260 | 1,244 | 267 | 566 | 799 | 202 | 25 | 10 | 6 | 96 | 21 | 122 | ||
Category | 6053 | 5,558 | 860 | 1,490 | 2,920 | 987 | 93 | 100 | 436 | 84 | 453 | 193 | ||
Disambig | 511 | 22 | 25 | 467 | 57 | 34 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
File | 250 | 233 | 1,194 | 338 | 571 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 27 | 139 | ||
Portal | 632 | 36 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | ||
Project | 45 | 18 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 7 | ||
Unassessed | 425 | 19 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 62 | 0 | ||
Total | 78,149 | 22,211 | 5,990 | 19,326 | 34,826 | 3,697 | 1,174 | 1,446 | 2,075 | 1,198 | 6,431 | 2,171 |
.
I also use it to create a multitude of maintenance pages, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 02:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure if this has been brought up before or not, or if this is the place to suggest this. But I was wondering if there has been any discussion as to using a symbol to distinguish the A Class, much like GA has the and FA has the . I think because those two have a symbol and the B, Start, and Stub, use text, people confuse the A class, which also uses text, as being something less than what it is. Perhaps assigning a symbol to it will help people better understand it and in turn generate more use of the A Class process. The symbol I had in mind would be modeled after the GA star, but would be blue with the letter "A" on it rather than a cross. I think this would help people associate it closer to the higher classes, specifically GA Class, but still show it to be different than the two. To better illustrate the symbol, I could upload something as an example. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
There is an A-class symbol and it looks like this: -- Krm500 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I must say that stumbling onto this page has been a great help! I know that the WikiProject Military history uses the A-class a lot. With Illinois I would like to see us use it also more often, and I like that +symbol for the A-Class.-- Kranar drogin 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the examples use different articles? Surely it would be better if one article was highlighted at different points in its history to show how it went all the way from stub to FA class? Carcharoth 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I would think that articles must have at least one reference to go beyond Start Class. Although The B-Class instructions mention the need for more references, I think the issue of the best assessment articles lacking sources can be given needs to be explicitly mentioned.-- BirgitteSB 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Although it's easy to see current assessment details ( Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index), how would one go about gathering data on how this has changed over time? For example, how has the average assessed article's quality changed? How has the total number of assessments made changed? Richard001 01:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone know that I performed a basic assessment of all articles listed under WikiProject Fire Service, which is about 790 articles. I actually assessed around 650 of those, the rest being assessed by other editors. I will continue to monitor those articles classified as unassessed and will classify them as appropriate. Thanks, Daysleeper47 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was jsut wondering if anyone would be able to implement a similar but simpler system of article rating to Train Spotting World. All we would really need is basic quality: Stub, Start, D, C, A ,B and the WP importance stuff.
Any takers?
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How or where do I go to request a page to be graded? I dont want to do it, because I wrote the article. Chaldean 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a list of articles that are FA class A class GA class and so forth? I remember seeing it before.
"THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Why most former featured articles automatically go to class B, not class A or good article on that scale if they are downgraded? -- 195.50.207.164 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that I am rating a lot of articles as Start class where other projects are rating them at a B. The discrepancy is most likely the fact that I give almost no weight to facts stated that are not referenced. In the eyes of other contributors, I am curious if others feel we should give a higher rating to a well written article that has not been verified. Alan.ca 08:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If you spot a list of works, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per the manual of style at WP:LOW, or tag it with the template {{ MOSLOW}}. This PHP script may also be useful: User:Whilding87/ListReverser.
I think it would be better if A-Class articles should come before GAs. A articles are rated on a single user's decision, where GAs require the review of an outside editor. At the moment, when an FA is demoted it isn't simple to give a GA rating, so A-Class is used instead. According to the current table, that article is of better quality than a GA even tough it hasn't been formally reviewed. -- Selmo ( talk) 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem goes deeper. An A-class article does not have to have passed GAC. But a better-than-B but not-quite-an-A article that nobody bothered to put through GAC yet cannot be 'GA-class'. This means that some B-class articles may actually be as good as - or perhape even better than GA-class articles. Furthermore, An A-class article might actually be FA quality - but because it hasn't been through the formal step, it can't be classed 'FA' here. So we have a wierd situation where going through the formal processes is a requirement to reach two of the grades - but it's possible to skip the GA step and still be A-class. Very, very strange. I think this may explain why we have an enormous 'bulge' of articles down at B-class and a sudden drop-off in their numbers at GA. I strongly suspect that most assessors are ignoring the bit that says that you can be at A-class without going through GAC and artificially holding all non-GAC articles at B-class. That's really bad news because it's causing people to assume that the encyclopedia is totally snowed under with B-class articles that just aren't being made better. The reality is more likely to be that there are a lot of articles that are actually up to the standard of FA's, A's or GA's - but because their author isn't interested in the fame, the fortune (and the *babes*) that comes with GA status - they are essentially doomed to stay in B-class forever.
The 'fix' for this is to add two new classes - B+ and A+. B+ is intended to be precisely the same quality level as GA and A+ is identical to FA. The only difference being that an article can be graded B+ if the assessor believes this article could make it through GAC if it were submitted - and A+ if the belief is that it would likely make it through FAC if submitted. It may be argued that assessors should not be 'second guessing' the formal processes - but in fact we are already doing that by allowing A-class articles that have never passed GAC.
SteveBaker 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to add yet another change to the bot - now that the system is so widely used I think no one (esp. Oleg) wants to tinker with the code unless necessary. But if people think (a) this idea is very useful and (b) Oleg can make the change easily, it may be worth looking at. Is this a workable solution? Walkerma 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I'd abolish the GA system entirely, but essentially it is the assessment class that bothers me the most. I feel as if the entire point of the project is so that editors who don't feel like putting in the legwork to actually pass FAC muster can still get a pat on the back. Ironically, they've upped the standards so close to FAC now that it's almost as much work to get that GA. Which is why it should go - the single reviewer standard is identical to how assessments work. Making the assessment ladder a straight path which anyone can assign any of the values for, aside from the final FA distinction, is the most efficient and effective scale IMHO.
I also also oppose any attempts to create any new classes. Stub, Start, B, A, and FA are more than enough - people have forgotten the purpose of the assessment - to get a broad, coarsely-grained idea of where a large number of articles collectively stand. While individual articles' assessments give an idea of the overall progress the article will need to make (if any), editors should not take them too closely to heart, as a peer review will be a better indicator of where the article needs to go. Please let's not get too attached to these "grades" as if this were a measure of academic accomplishment. Assessment classification is primarily a method of statistical analysis of groups, not nuanced reviews of individual articles. Girolamo Savonarola 01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can someone give me some examples of how the {{ list-Class}} is intended to be used? Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've developed a proof-of-concept javascript tool that will display an article's assessed rating on the article page itself. It currently does so by prepending the rating to the phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"—so it becomes, for example, "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." It also changes the color of the article title to roughly match the color scheme of the grades.
To try it, you would add the following text to your User:YourUserName/monobook.js file (cut and paste from display page, not edit page):
// Script from [[User:Outriggr/metadata.js]] document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Outriggr/metadata.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></s'+'cript>');
Purposes:
I welcome any feedback or ideas. Thanks, – Outriggr § 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does "List class" not appear here? There seem to be a bunch of them: Category:List-Class articles. Is it an oversight or should "List class" not exist? Thanks. jhawkinson 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's say I just want to assess any old article - how do I do that? I've only in my experience ever seen and used project banners to assess articles. Often there is no appropriate banner or project, and if there is it may not allow for a rating field. Is there some way to just assess it as in 'This article has been rated as X on the assessment scale'? Richard001 08:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The ratings are a bit silly. The concept that featured articles don't need any work unless new information were to come to light is absurd. -- User At Work 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we require articles to, in order to aquire A-class status, to undergo an A-class review? I know some WikiProjects do this, but the vast majority of articles receive the A-class sticker arbitrarily, usually the day before an FAC is filed. Also, we do require that the articles for GA-class and FA go through their respective processes, so why can't we do the same with A? Diez2 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If I wanted to, (as a joke more of) can i put the tab most articles have on their discussion pages saying it's start class, a class, FA class, or whatever and say it's FA Class high importance? -- LtWinters 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh my bad, I did not even finish my entree. I meant on my talk page, could I put that on so it looks cool?(it seems as though up there I gave the impression I would vandalize, my bad)
See Wikipedia:Assessment overhaul ( Discuss). The idea is to take the focus off of grade letter advancement and move it towards a system that encourages and recognizes real article improvement. Noclip 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
At the 'B' grade stage, does it not matter at all if the information in an article is sourced? To put it another way can an article gain a 'B' grade even if it contains no sources? EvilRedEye 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused over non-standard grades such as List-Class, Category-Class etc. Do they serve any purpose beyond individual WikiProjects? How do they fall into the overall assessment - are they counted as "Unassessed" or are they not counted at all? And would it be preferable for a WikiProject to assess lists in the article namespace as you would any other article? Thanks in advance if anyone can clear things up for me! PC78 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What and where are the criteria for importance in assessments? Hyacinth 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that we have nothing between Start-class and B-class. There are some articles that are just plain bad. I was just about to downgrade a B-class article but discovered that its grade is already at the bottom. It seems inappropriate to change it to 'Start' since it's not a new article (and 'Start' implies that its in the process of being developed). What do we do about an article that used to be good, or that was a promising 'Start', but that later simply deteriorated?
Since B-class is considered the "highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process" it seems strange to me that the worst non-Start article would get the same grade as the best article prior to formal review. However I am sure this topic has been discussed; I am probably missing some vital factoid that will make it all seem logical. Trevor Hanson 09:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be most helpful if the bot would list changes to an article being listed in a proposed deletion category, be it a prod, speedy or regular deletion discussion. I would propose this being done to a separate subpage which then could be transcluded onto the automated assessment changes page or if the project wanted, even to the main project page itself. __ meco 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
There are currently two types of stubs on Wikipedia, those assessed as Stubs and those under WP:Stub sorting, causing an odd double-standard. Please help reach a solution at the Village pump. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I know this prolly has been asked a lot, but I was wondering that with a project, is there a way to add our other classes such as List, Image, etc to our assessment. I work with the Illinois Project, and on our Assessment Page we have that list off to the right. Is there a way currently for us to add the other classes to this list so that we can keep track of them better and know what we have. If there isn't, is this something that could be created? I am sure there are other projects that would be interested in knowing this, so any help in this matter would be much appreciated. Thank you!-- Kranar drogin 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Article class |
Project | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation | Aircraft | Airlines | Airports | Military Aviation |
Aviation accident |
Rotorcraft | Gliding | Defunct Airlines |
Air sports | Biography | Aero engine | |||
FA | 148 | 19 | 1 | 4 | 193 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 81 | 2 | ||
FL | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | ||
A | 23 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 93 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 1 | ||
GA | 150 | 173 | 25 | 57 | 542 | 69 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 2 | 141 | 2 | ||
B | 783 | 2,143 | 85 | 402 | 3,329 | 349 | 128 | 177 | 69 | 44 | 744 | 171 | ||
C | 2805 | 4,613 | 219 | 912 | 7,951 | 584 | 293 | 397 | 93 | 371 | 1,141 | 427 | ||
Start | 10811 | 5,818 | 1,049 | 4,662 | 12,335 | 974 | 471 | 632 | 754 | 342 | 1,966 | 938 | ||
Stub | 17340 | 1,347 | 1,438 | 9,128 | 2,658 | 169 | 91 | 85 | 555 | 223 | 1,373 | 90 | ||
List | 1579 | 449 | 478 | 596 | 589 | 146 | 22 | 13 | 74 | 6 | 98 | 10 | ||
Template | 1260 | 1,244 | 267 | 566 | 799 | 202 | 25 | 10 | 6 | 96 | 21 | 122 | ||
Category | 6053 | 5,558 | 860 | 1,490 | 2,920 | 987 | 93 | 100 | 436 | 84 | 453 | 193 | ||
Disambig | 511 | 22 | 25 | 467 | 57 | 34 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
File | 250 | 233 | 1,194 | 338 | 571 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 27 | 139 | ||
Portal | 632 | 36 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | ||
Project | 45 | 18 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 7 | ||
Unassessed | 425 | 19 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 62 | 0 | ||
Total | 78,149 | 22,211 | 5,990 | 19,326 | 34,826 | 3,697 | 1,174 | 1,446 | 2,075 | 1,198 | 6,431 | 2,171 |
.
I also use it to create a multitude of maintenance pages, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 02:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure if this has been brought up before or not, or if this is the place to suggest this. But I was wondering if there has been any discussion as to using a symbol to distinguish the A Class, much like GA has the and FA has the . I think because those two have a symbol and the B, Start, and Stub, use text, people confuse the A class, which also uses text, as being something less than what it is. Perhaps assigning a symbol to it will help people better understand it and in turn generate more use of the A Class process. The symbol I had in mind would be modeled after the GA star, but would be blue with the letter "A" on it rather than a cross. I think this would help people associate it closer to the higher classes, specifically GA Class, but still show it to be different than the two. To better illustrate the symbol, I could upload something as an example. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
There is an A-class symbol and it looks like this: -- Krm500 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I must say that stumbling onto this page has been a great help! I know that the WikiProject Military history uses the A-class a lot. With Illinois I would like to see us use it also more often, and I like that +symbol for the A-Class.-- Kranar drogin 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the examples use different articles? Surely it would be better if one article was highlighted at different points in its history to show how it went all the way from stub to FA class? Carcharoth 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I would think that articles must have at least one reference to go beyond Start Class. Although The B-Class instructions mention the need for more references, I think the issue of the best assessment articles lacking sources can be given needs to be explicitly mentioned.-- BirgitteSB 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Although it's easy to see current assessment details ( Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index), how would one go about gathering data on how this has changed over time? For example, how has the average assessed article's quality changed? How has the total number of assessments made changed? Richard001 01:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone know that I performed a basic assessment of all articles listed under WikiProject Fire Service, which is about 790 articles. I actually assessed around 650 of those, the rest being assessed by other editors. I will continue to monitor those articles classified as unassessed and will classify them as appropriate. Thanks, Daysleeper47 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was jsut wondering if anyone would be able to implement a similar but simpler system of article rating to Train Spotting World. All we would really need is basic quality: Stub, Start, D, C, A ,B and the WP importance stuff.
Any takers?