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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. ~ Rob Talk 05:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. Clear consensus for a move and this variant of the proposed title (de-capped, singular) had the most support. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment →
Wikipedia:WikiProject assessments – (Or alike.) It's actually WikiProject assessments, so it's a redundant separate category. Furthermore it's not just "1.0" but simply not related to any version of Wikipedia. Note: in addition I also proposed a merge of the
Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments.
Fixuture (
talk)
01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there any plan to use this page to give an overview of importance/priority ratings used by WikiProjects? This is currently tucked away at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I am thinking this article's assessment should be revised. It should be downgraded to a stub-class article. Not sure it yet qualifies for start-class status. SecretName101 ( talk) 22:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Which class of quality does this article belong to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plnml ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I recently started an article on Ana Estefanía Dominga Riglos, a woman whose husband was interim head of state of Argentina in 1816. All I could find was birth / marriages / children / death and a few snippets about minor incidents. The article was assessed Start, which seems reasonable. It is quite incomplete. But if there really is no more available information, it could be argued that the article is A. Readers may want more but they are not going to get more. The article is as complete as it ever will be.
Should we adjust "Start: Readers's experience" to say "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more – and more information is available". Something like that? Aymatth2 ( talk) 11:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
There are several questions/comments I have about the assessment process which are not covered in the article:
I will confess my own experience - did a lot a work reworking the via ferrata article a while ago to get it about as good as I could feel it could be without original research, using the limited formal sources to the full - to then have somebody give it a C rating without so much as a comment. Rather disheartening for new or inexperienced editors and not in keeping with the constructive spirit of Wikipedia. Marqaz ( talk) 00:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Is {{
Importance Scheme}}
still a proposed template? Or is no longer just "proposed" but a template?
Thinker78 (
talk)
19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The interpretation of criteria changes over time, even if the descriptions do not. I suggest to replace the examples by 2017 or 2018 versions of articles to get a more recent view how these types look like. -- mfb ( talk) 06:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Category:Bplus-Class articles, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am wondering if this essay should be moved up from a user essay to a Wikipedia essay. The main points are that assessments often do not follow the guidelines, articles are often rated too strictly, and there should be more emphasis on C class – good enough for most readers. But it seems a bit long and, perhaps lacks a clear prescriptive focus. Any comments on what should first be changed, added, removed? Aymatth2 ( talk) 21:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"The article is one of the core topics about" site:en.wikipedia.org
in Google (or your favorite search engine that supports domain-specific searches) and you'll quickly find lots of other WikiProjects with a similar definition. To what extent these WikiProjects are still active I do not know. Cheers,
Nettrom (
talk)
18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
We need a set of instructions for how (and when/why) to create an assessment system for a wikiproject. If this advice exists somewhere(s) else, it should be merged into here, because it's hard to find. I think it should cover:
{{
WPBannerMeta}}
to create the wikiproject's talk page banner; it auto-supports all the standard assessments.That last point might see some argument/revision (e.g. that an /Assessment page should be created for the templates, just without verbiage that implies an active process exists when it doesn't.)
What else should be covered? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
PS: Alternatively, the project instructions could live under WP:WikiProject Council, as long as we point to the page from here. I favor centralization, but technically providing wikiproject management advice is within the scope of WP:COUNCIL. The question hinges on whether such advice is guideline material or essay-level. I would suggest the former, because creation of dead /Assessment and /Peer_review pages is a maintenance problem and should be discouraged; "process-forking" incompatible assessment classes and criteria is even worse. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page(s) moved. With further complexities. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 10:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
– " Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment" is confusing and misleading:
– I've suggested "WP:Content assessment" rather than "WP:Article assessment" because non-articles are also assessed, with classifiers (e.g. as "Redirect", "Category", "Disambiguation", etc.), and there is a
portal quality-assessment system in development as we speak [type, whatever] at
WT:WPPORTALS/G.
– The defunct
WP:Article assessment page should be moved to
WP:Article assessment (historical) so that its current name can redirect to the active page on the topic (i.e. the one that is presently
WP:WikiProject assessment and nominated to be
Wikipedia:Content assessment). While we do not delete old process and advice pages, we should not hesitate to usurp useful redirect names from them when they are tagged with {{
Superseded}}
, as in this case. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Not yet moved.
— Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 10:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see the discussions at
Template talk:Importance/colour#Color scheme doesn't meet accessibility requirements and
Template talk:Class/colour#Color scheme doesn't meet accessibility requirements. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I find this topic puzzling. There are some conflicting criteria:
My view is that importance should be based on the number of hits averaged for a year - let the users drive it. Somebody needs to come up with a table and some method of scaling that can be used across all projects in order to gain some commonality, simplicity and consistency, eg:
Rating | Top | High | Mid | Low |
Points | 400 | 300 | 200 | 100 |
In summary, give me a tool that is consistent and accepted across Wikipedia and I will start doing assessments, but currently that tool does not exist. William Harris • (talk) • 12:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Under the detailed B-class criteria, "Diagrams and an infobox etc." should be "Diagrams, an infobox etc.". I can't figure out where this text actually comes from, as it's hidden behind nested transclusions. Kranix ( talk | contribs) 15:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
After having fun with
Talk:Ping project, please add instructions how interested contributors with a login allergy can suggest a re-assessment of an "obviously wrong" class + importance (C + low instead of B + high,
WP:42 references exist).
If it's "spam TEAHOUSE" or similar, fine, I'd do that; if it's add attention=yes, no, it needs no "immediate attention", it needs a bored volunteer looking for fun work; and if it's "shoot for a GA peer review", no, the idea is to get as near to GA as possible before this.
While at it, is there a place for an external link to a shared Google Photos album with 100% clean CC-BY photos, where I could ask for a "copy to commons" volunteer? Only the existing commonscat has to be correct, I'd fix anything else in need of fixing: Add License review request, add attribution parameter to the CC-BY template, check date + real source = not me, I only extracted 19 images from a CC-BY video, etc.
My login allergy is perfectly harmless, alternative fact: a global spam filter did not allow me to put a link to the
mw: custom search engine on my
c: user talk page, real reason: there is no ex in ex-Wikiholic. –
84.46.53.151 (
talk)
14:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Can an article be re-assessed at a later date, after it has been developed? If so, what is the process for seeking re-assessment? Headhitter ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Being in a mildly irritated state of mind, let me bring up what I believe is poor and careless article assessment. Many of the articles I have created have been rated "start." That assessment may be correct in a few cases--but not many. Let me give an example of an article I recently created that has been rated "start." The Sánchez Navarro latifundio article contains 1,979 words and 16,159 bytes. The article has 33 footnotes from 7 different scholarly sources, four photographs, and one map (which I made myself). I won't claim the article is perfect or even "good", but it is certainly better than "start." What seems to be the prevailing assessment process is that assessors automatically rate articles "start" without evaluating the article for quality and completeness. I think it would be better not to assess articles than to do so in a perfunctory manner. Serious editors, e.g. yours truly, don't like to see their efforts rated "start."
The way things are, this system is mostly useless. There are over 3 million stub articles, and almost 2 million start articles. Perhaps 90% of those I have looked at are wrong - a stub article of several paragraphs with multiple footnotes, for example. No one is ever going to look comprehensively at these articles and correct their assessment. There are nowhere near enough editors to do so.
Suggestion: set up a bot or multiple bots to assess them. As is done now with the multiple new article bots. Please note that I am NOT proposing that a bot replace humans with A, FA, GA. But for the lower categories of stub, start, C, and B, and candidates for A, a bot could only help. With consensus-decided rules: how long is it? Does its length reflect the topic assessment? Does it have citations? Are they correctly formatted? Does it have wikilinks? And so on.
I know I'm not the first one to suggest some automation of the process. deisenbe ( talk) 00:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
At the top of the article, there is a sentence saying that "For a more general overview of assessment at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Assessment." However, clicking the "Wikipedia:Assessment" simply reloads the page (i.e. redirects it to itself). Should I just remove the sentence? Thank you. William2001( talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
In this version, the entire paragraph is
The paragraph transcluded reads
So far so good.
If you click the first link, you end up at page that says it is inactive and is kept around for historical reasons. Proposal Let's merge the operative text for this sub-topic into this page so we don't have to root around in
WP:MULTI places, and then be confused when those targets are marked "historical".
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
17:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
For the second time in a couple of weeks, an editor has been marking assessments on articles. See User talk:GeneralPoxter#Please stop setting article "importance". This is the second editor I've seen doing this; the earlier one was blocked. Mathglot ( talk) 05:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't need two pages on this. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ should merge into Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment either as a section or as integrated content. The merge should happen in this direction, because this is the better-developed page, and because assessment is a community process instituted under Wikipedia:Version 0.7 and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 then broadened into a site-wide article classification system (not just for producing CD-ROMs, an old goal); it's not under the thumb of WP:WikiProject Council, the wikiproject about wikiprojects. While the assessments are typically done by topical wikiproject participants, this is not at all required (anyone can assess, they just need to do it well), and even when it is, it has nothing to do with WP:WikiProject Council, which is mostly a gatekeeper for whether you should create "WP:WikiProject underwater basketweaving" or not, and home of the list of wikiprojects.
PS: it's wrongheaded for
WP:ASSESSMENT and
WP:Assessment to go to two different pages;
WP:Redirects for discussion doesn't tolerate such a confusing situation.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
18:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
What is the meaning of "broad in coverage" according to a B-checklist? Does this breadth needed to be treated with a degree of substantive breadth as well? I am looking at Sara Sheffield. It is well written and well sourced, but there does not seem to be enough content to warrant a B-rating. Am I misinterpreting the B-class criteria? Oldsanfelipe2 ( talk) 15:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As can be seen here, this user removed the stub tag due to its "uglify"'ing of an article. Is this a valid reason for its removal? Rob van vee 13:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
One of the biggest things we can do to improve Wikipedia's reputation for trustworthiness is to be clear to readers about which content we have the most confidence in — otherwise, the less-trustworthy content (which, we need to acknowledge, exists in some amount despite our best efforts) they encounter will color the project as a whole. Our main way to do this is through our indications of article assessments on article pages (since casual readers essentially never visit talk pages), so I want to open a discussion about ways we might change how they are presented. Currently, what we have is:
There are a few problems here:
What do you all think? Sdkb ( talk) 01:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
good article}}
and {{
featured article}}
icons are under the control of
WP:GA and
WP:FA respectively. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
13:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to see the Montreal artist Michel Pagliaro added. He had big hits in French and English on pop music 23:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC) 70.29.120.38 ( talk)charts in the 1960's and 1970's.
Thanks, Tim Reed
I have been trying to order a Toronto Star for the last week by phone and there is no answer. All I want is to have a Star delivered. How am I to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:496A:FE00:A41F:1787:16BD:810B ( talk) 15:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Am I allowed to rate my own articles when they're still new? Prana1111 ( talk) 23:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I was recently asked about possibly contributing to assessment of biography articles, and I wondered whether it's possible to view a subset of biographies that involved translations from other languages, or by extension, biographies in some particular topic area. Mathglot ( talk) 06:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know a ton about the history of the class system, but it does seem fairly clear that in practice A-class is pretty much deprecated. If someone who knows the history better feels similarly, it might be time to make a formal proposal to deprecate it. In the meantime, we should definitely be explaining better what the difference between A-class and GA is, since our documentation on that currently doesn't make it clear. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
List-Class has gone missing - the page describes FL-Class and also SL-Class, and most WikiProjects still recognise |class=list
, so why is it not described? Has it been removed at some point? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
<noinclude>
tag that prevented everything below Stub-class from being transcluded. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
04:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
<noinclude>
? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)This grade was previously used by WikiProject Firearms, but is now unused. A proposal at the WikiProject by User:Molestash to discontinue this grade met with no objections, and currently there are no articles in Category:Deferred-Class Firearms articles. Therefore, I am proposing to discontinue support for this grade at Template:WPBannerMeta and remove it from this page. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Atom has recently been delisted from FA status and is now currently C-class. Should we keep the atom example of how article classes progress over time, or should we use another example now? Lazman321 ( talk) 16:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
How about a system similar to those widely used in commercial sites (e.g., Amazon) where the rating (N of stars) is presented along with the number of raters? would this make the rating more transparent and less influenced by individual whims ? or show them as such? Tytire ( talk) 17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm perpetually confused by the assessment system, and getting more so by the day!
Clearly I'm too thick to understand — can anyone advice what, if anything, I should be doing regarding assessments in the articles I create (and also more widely, but let's start with that)? Many thanks in advance, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
|importance=
filled in (if it's clear to me), sometimes they don't; but I always leave |class=
blank unless the page is in mainspace and it's a disambiguation page, in which case I set |class=dab
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The tool suggested C (for all projects), and I just accepted the suggestion.That doesn't sound like any kind of bot to me - they work in the background, performing edits like this - notice the user name, if you click it you're told
This user account is a botwith some more explanatory text - try clicking some of those links. Indeed, User:Evad37/rater is not a bot, it's a user script. If you trigger it into action, anything and everything that it does to a page when you click Publish changes is your responsibility. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I've just created Help:Assessing article quality, which is aimed specifically at helping non-editing readers understand and make use of the quality assessments. Feedback is welcome! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The stub-class example article is no longer a stub, so we need a new example for a stub-class article. Maybe Twickler Cone or Kongde Ri? I don't know if we need anything special with these examples or not. - Mr-Ace ( talk) 03:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Grading scheme, which is transcluded here, gives Special:Permalink/845953970 as an example of a start class article. I'm having a hard time seeing how that fits with the criteria. The "Editing suggestions" column for start class says:
Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
But this article already has many references to what appear to be reliable sources. The organization seems reasonable. I don't see any problems with spelling/grammar/writing style, other than maybe one sentence fragment and some issues with the placement of refs relative to punctuation. On the whole, I'd say it's in a much better state than our C-class example, which has a significantly lower citation density (with many {{ cn}} tags), poor reference formatting, and much more questionable organization. Colin M ( talk) 22:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this page terribly outdated? This page currently makes it sound like the end goal of the stub-class to featured article pipeline is to produce a CD-ROM version of Wikipedia for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team (when will they make a Macbook with an optical drive again? enquiring minds want to know.) The content assessment scale serves a more general purpose now, which is mostly to drive readers to exceptional content, and editors to unexceptional articles which are in dire need of editing help. Can I attempt a re-write of this page so that the historical purpose of this page is noted, but its present purpose is more understandable? Schierbecker ( talk) 06:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Substantial changes have been made to Homotopia (festival), could someone please re-assess the article on the quality scale? It is currently C-Class. Many thanks. Richie wright1980 ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there a way for the bot that populates this table to make lists of the intersection cell contents? If you want to find (for example) the Mid-Importance B-Class articles you currently have a choice between looking through ~150,000 B-class articles or (even worse) >800,000 Mid-Importance ones. The bot obviously has this information or else it couldn't populate the table so why isn't there a clickable link in the cell to list those ~45,000 articles? Or any other combination of ratings? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
B-Class articles
Mid-importance articles
As of now, it is quite difficult to find out when the content assessment was made and often the assessment may be several years old and not corresponding to the current level of the article. Would it be possible to add a time stamp on these assessments (in the same way as for the templates indicating need of editing in the article itself)? Ideally, this would be done retroactively with robots going through and adding time stamps to all those assessments already made. -- Olle Terenius (UU) ( talk) 10:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thinker78, if you want to snark and complain, you can do it where it leaves a record instead of in dummy edits. What do you want to snark and complain about from my removal of "Once an article reaches the A-Class , it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made"? Vaticidal prophet 08:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every user is expected to be civil, it seems that you are being too friendly. Please use Jimbo Wales' user page for any test "friendliness" you might have, and our guideline to when you have to be serious, even when sleeping. Thank you No problem. Thinker78 ( talk) 01:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello there. I have expanded and imrpoved the article about Jalal al-Din Mangburnu significantly. Can anyone assess it? I think it can be as high as A. -- 81.213.215.83 ( talk) 20:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm hoping someone with experience in quality assessment could offer some feedback at this user talk page discussion concerning bot-like quality assessment, with some other relatively minor issues mixed in. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I realize that rating are fundamentally a "developed matter" to Wikiprojects, but most of them seem to use the standard boilerplate for the "class" criteria, so I thought a central query might be of some benefit. Where does construction of an adequate lede fall? If an article has a "B-Class" body, but a minimal open section, is that arguably a matter of MoS compliance, and thus not something that a "B" must meet? But would likely (and this now gets beyond strict Wikiproject scope) fail to pass GAR? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 14:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm working towards upgrading {{ class}} to use Lua and a JSON definition file. Not least because this affects ~17% of all pages, I would appreciate input and/or review at Template talk:Class#Move to Lua/JSON version. Please respond there, or ping me if you respond here. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
We should update the example articles, as some of them aren't even the same status as they were (Like Crescent Falls). Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk | contribs) 19:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I just joined the project. I've been working on author article: Francisco Tario and I was looking for opinions on what to improve. DemianStratford ( talk) 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Give there are 6 million articles on English WP, how do we end up with yet another Taylor Swift song as the Featured Article on the home page of Wikipedia? GimliDotNet ( talk) 04:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Improper_handling_of_assessment_for_inactive_WikiProjects Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Propose we finally standardize "Disambig" and "Redirect" class. They should be used for all articles once we move to project-independent quality assessments, and I hope we can make this change before the project-independent proposal goes through. DFlhb ( talk) 21:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
First draft, feel free to tweak wording as necessary. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems the draft B-class criteria include something that not even the GA criteria do: coverage so broad that all major topics are covered. GA does not require this, and an article can pass GA with some material of major significance missing. The GA process will encourage inclusion of the additional material, but the criteria do not require it.
Also, a note on wording for "does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies". I would argue that no article ever contains omissions. If they were contained in the article, then they wouldn't be omissions, now would they? So, QED, every article will automatically pass this criterion as worded. :) -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
A shortcut to the six criteria would be extremely helpful. Bradford44 ( talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
...should make the article a viable candidate for FA.
What about articles that are too short to make it to FA? Can they ever become "A class"? Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 21:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
B-class is in many ways the key to the system, so I welcome this page. However I see it says "It should have an infobox where relevant and useful." Can this be changed to "It may have an infobox where relevant and useful." (my emphasis) Infoboxes are generally accepted for quantitative information, but controversial for biographies etc. -- Klein zach 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest this:
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
Best. -- Klein zach 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Per this discussion, we need to revise and expand these criteria, and make them a bit more visible. In order to do this, I'll break this down into a few different discussion points. While discussing these, I think it is important to look at the current criteria but also to keep an open mind about them, and be willing to change them if needed. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
What counts as an A-Class review? Does it need to be a more formal review, kind of like a project-scale FAC, or can a small group of editors simply agree that it is A-Class without a full subpage for discussion? Can these editors be involved with the article, or do they have to be uninvolved like at GAN and FAC? If a more formal review is wanted, the implementation of that for smaller projects can be discussed later. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
class=A
at the same time as you start the review. I know the purists won't like that suggestion, but I don't think it's a huge grade inflation and it might actually motivate people to consider grading articles at A-class. If you say that you have to find the decent article, then organise the review, then follow the review, then decide consensus at the end, then remember to change the class on the article talk page, it all gets a bit bureaucratic, even for something that most projects won't be doing very often.
Physchim62
(talk)
15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
B-, GA-, and FA-Classes all have a firm list of criteria which must be met, but A-Class doesn't have a similar list. Should A-Class have similar criteria to those classes? If so, should it really be its own set of criteria (for example, emphasizing content over style), or should it be based on the GA or FA criteria? If based on GA, the main difference is that a larger number of people will see it. If based on FA, it means that a number of people believe that it should be of Featured quality, but maybe they are to involved with the article to be able to properly review it at FAC? – Drilnoth ( T • C) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Has there been a recent expansion from 5 to 6 criteria? If so, what is the strategy for implementing this project-/template-wide? I followed a wikilink on the {{ WikiProject Iran}} template which only supports 5 criteria and I would have expected at least a mention of this discrepancy on this page as well as instructions for dealing with it. __ meco ( talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably not the best place to ask, but how does A-class differ from GA-class? 74.33.174.133 ( talk) 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel that an A-class review is useful, sorting out articles that (while perhaps not quite good enough, or well known enough, for whatever reason, to make it to FA), in terms of quality, equal those of a professional encyclopedia. I am a little surprised that only a few WikiProjects have very active A-class review sections, and am wondering if it would be possible to make this category as prominent as either FA or GA. Any ideas? DCI talk 17:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this idea has value. A problem with some (most?) FA reviews is that they focus very heavily on the kind of stuff that the editor of a hard copy encyclopedia or magazine would do i.e. syntax and grammar, style issues etc. but not so much on the actual content. As I am much more interested in the latter my enthusiasm has waned. Writing a GA from scratch may be about the same effort as taking the same article through FA, but as often as not with very little additional information being provided for readers in the second stage. The only thing I can think of would be to make one of the criteria for an FAC to be that it is already A class. That would ensure that it had received a genuine content peer-review beforehand. Ben Mac Dui 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to find or search examples of B-class articles? -- Elisunshine01 ( talk) 15:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This sentence from criterion 1 confuses me: "The use of neither <ref> tags nor citation templates such as {{cite web}}
is required." It seems that there should not be any <ref> tags or citation templates. Could this be reworded in order to make it less confusing?
Bulldog
talk
da contribs
go rando
19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
is required." doesn't mean that <ref>...</ref>
and {{
cite web}}
are prohibited, it means that they are optional. Various methods exist for referencing, and Wikipedia does not favour any one style over another. It so happens that one of the most popular styles uses templates like {{
cite web}}
enclosed in <ref>...</ref>
, so some people believe these to be mandatory - but they're not. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, friends. This is probably my first contribution to 1.0, since having just discovered it. I would like to add to the WP:BCLASS document, the B class checklist template as seen at Template:WikiProject_Technology. It should be as easy as possible, for a B candidate to track its work in progress, and to prove to future editors how an existing B class is warranted and maintained. As with Wikipedia 1.0 itself, it's impossible to find unless you already know what it is and what it's called. I stumbled on both *far* *far* too tragically late in my editing lifetime. Even though I knew what it was, I searched throughout the night for it and finally found this document when I searched for "wikipedia b class criteria" until I recalled the specific word "checklist". This should be displayed on the article of, and explicitly supported in the banner of, every WikiProject template — as well as every article Talk page — on Wikipedia. The journey from stub to C isn't very far, and it's a hop/skip/jump to B if the subject is notable and the editors are made aware that it's there for the taking. Furthermore, I'm perfectly aware of its existence, but I keep forgetting the criteria! Thank you for everything you do.
<!-- B-Class checklist --> <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1= <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2= <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3= <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4= <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5= <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=
— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
What would be a suitable minimum number of references a B-class article should contain? -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone do A class reviews any more? All I see are GA or FA. -- Gaff ( talk) 06:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As I see that plenty of people even question why A-class exist, would it not be appropriate to create an A-class tag to place on an A-class assessed articles front page. Just like with FA nd GA-class. It would perhaps make it more editors willing to take time to nominate articles for A-class. Today only GA and FA class articles got a tag for the front page of the articles being assassed as such. Just a suggestion.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. ~ Rob Talk 05:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. Clear consensus for a move and this variant of the proposed title (de-capped, singular) had the most support. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment →
Wikipedia:WikiProject assessments – (Or alike.) It's actually WikiProject assessments, so it's a redundant separate category. Furthermore it's not just "1.0" but simply not related to any version of Wikipedia. Note: in addition I also proposed a merge of the
Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments.
Fixuture (
talk)
01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there any plan to use this page to give an overview of importance/priority ratings used by WikiProjects? This is currently tucked away at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I am thinking this article's assessment should be revised. It should be downgraded to a stub-class article. Not sure it yet qualifies for start-class status. SecretName101 ( talk) 22:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Which class of quality does this article belong to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plnml ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I recently started an article on Ana Estefanía Dominga Riglos, a woman whose husband was interim head of state of Argentina in 1816. All I could find was birth / marriages / children / death and a few snippets about minor incidents. The article was assessed Start, which seems reasonable. It is quite incomplete. But if there really is no more available information, it could be argued that the article is A. Readers may want more but they are not going to get more. The article is as complete as it ever will be.
Should we adjust "Start: Readers's experience" to say "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more – and more information is available". Something like that? Aymatth2 ( talk) 11:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
There are several questions/comments I have about the assessment process which are not covered in the article:
I will confess my own experience - did a lot a work reworking the via ferrata article a while ago to get it about as good as I could feel it could be without original research, using the limited formal sources to the full - to then have somebody give it a C rating without so much as a comment. Rather disheartening for new or inexperienced editors and not in keeping with the constructive spirit of Wikipedia. Marqaz ( talk) 00:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Is {{
Importance Scheme}}
still a proposed template? Or is no longer just "proposed" but a template?
Thinker78 (
talk)
19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The interpretation of criteria changes over time, even if the descriptions do not. I suggest to replace the examples by 2017 or 2018 versions of articles to get a more recent view how these types look like. -- mfb ( talk) 06:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Category:Bplus-Class articles, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am wondering if this essay should be moved up from a user essay to a Wikipedia essay. The main points are that assessments often do not follow the guidelines, articles are often rated too strictly, and there should be more emphasis on C class – good enough for most readers. But it seems a bit long and, perhaps lacks a clear prescriptive focus. Any comments on what should first be changed, added, removed? Aymatth2 ( talk) 21:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"The article is one of the core topics about" site:en.wikipedia.org
in Google (or your favorite search engine that supports domain-specific searches) and you'll quickly find lots of other WikiProjects with a similar definition. To what extent these WikiProjects are still active I do not know. Cheers,
Nettrom (
talk)
18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
We need a set of instructions for how (and when/why) to create an assessment system for a wikiproject. If this advice exists somewhere(s) else, it should be merged into here, because it's hard to find. I think it should cover:
{{
WPBannerMeta}}
to create the wikiproject's talk page banner; it auto-supports all the standard assessments.That last point might see some argument/revision (e.g. that an /Assessment page should be created for the templates, just without verbiage that implies an active process exists when it doesn't.)
What else should be covered? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
PS: Alternatively, the project instructions could live under WP:WikiProject Council, as long as we point to the page from here. I favor centralization, but technically providing wikiproject management advice is within the scope of WP:COUNCIL. The question hinges on whether such advice is guideline material or essay-level. I would suggest the former, because creation of dead /Assessment and /Peer_review pages is a maintenance problem and should be discouraged; "process-forking" incompatible assessment classes and criteria is even worse. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page(s) moved. With further complexities. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 10:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
– " Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment" is confusing and misleading:
– I've suggested "WP:Content assessment" rather than "WP:Article assessment" because non-articles are also assessed, with classifiers (e.g. as "Redirect", "Category", "Disambiguation", etc.), and there is a
portal quality-assessment system in development as we speak [type, whatever] at
WT:WPPORTALS/G.
– The defunct
WP:Article assessment page should be moved to
WP:Article assessment (historical) so that its current name can redirect to the active page on the topic (i.e. the one that is presently
WP:WikiProject assessment and nominated to be
Wikipedia:Content assessment). While we do not delete old process and advice pages, we should not hesitate to usurp useful redirect names from them when they are tagged with {{
Superseded}}
, as in this case. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Not yet moved.
— Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 10:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see the discussions at
Template talk:Importance/colour#Color scheme doesn't meet accessibility requirements and
Template talk:Class/colour#Color scheme doesn't meet accessibility requirements. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I find this topic puzzling. There are some conflicting criteria:
My view is that importance should be based on the number of hits averaged for a year - let the users drive it. Somebody needs to come up with a table and some method of scaling that can be used across all projects in order to gain some commonality, simplicity and consistency, eg:
Rating | Top | High | Mid | Low |
Points | 400 | 300 | 200 | 100 |
In summary, give me a tool that is consistent and accepted across Wikipedia and I will start doing assessments, but currently that tool does not exist. William Harris • (talk) • 12:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Under the detailed B-class criteria, "Diagrams and an infobox etc." should be "Diagrams, an infobox etc.". I can't figure out where this text actually comes from, as it's hidden behind nested transclusions. Kranix ( talk | contribs) 15:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
After having fun with
Talk:Ping project, please add instructions how interested contributors with a login allergy can suggest a re-assessment of an "obviously wrong" class + importance (C + low instead of B + high,
WP:42 references exist).
If it's "spam TEAHOUSE" or similar, fine, I'd do that; if it's add attention=yes, no, it needs no "immediate attention", it needs a bored volunteer looking for fun work; and if it's "shoot for a GA peer review", no, the idea is to get as near to GA as possible before this.
While at it, is there a place for an external link to a shared Google Photos album with 100% clean CC-BY photos, where I could ask for a "copy to commons" volunteer? Only the existing commonscat has to be correct, I'd fix anything else in need of fixing: Add License review request, add attribution parameter to the CC-BY template, check date + real source = not me, I only extracted 19 images from a CC-BY video, etc.
My login allergy is perfectly harmless, alternative fact: a global spam filter did not allow me to put a link to the
mw: custom search engine on my
c: user talk page, real reason: there is no ex in ex-Wikiholic. –
84.46.53.151 (
talk)
14:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Can an article be re-assessed at a later date, after it has been developed? If so, what is the process for seeking re-assessment? Headhitter ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Being in a mildly irritated state of mind, let me bring up what I believe is poor and careless article assessment. Many of the articles I have created have been rated "start." That assessment may be correct in a few cases--but not many. Let me give an example of an article I recently created that has been rated "start." The Sánchez Navarro latifundio article contains 1,979 words and 16,159 bytes. The article has 33 footnotes from 7 different scholarly sources, four photographs, and one map (which I made myself). I won't claim the article is perfect or even "good", but it is certainly better than "start." What seems to be the prevailing assessment process is that assessors automatically rate articles "start" without evaluating the article for quality and completeness. I think it would be better not to assess articles than to do so in a perfunctory manner. Serious editors, e.g. yours truly, don't like to see their efforts rated "start."
The way things are, this system is mostly useless. There are over 3 million stub articles, and almost 2 million start articles. Perhaps 90% of those I have looked at are wrong - a stub article of several paragraphs with multiple footnotes, for example. No one is ever going to look comprehensively at these articles and correct their assessment. There are nowhere near enough editors to do so.
Suggestion: set up a bot or multiple bots to assess them. As is done now with the multiple new article bots. Please note that I am NOT proposing that a bot replace humans with A, FA, GA. But for the lower categories of stub, start, C, and B, and candidates for A, a bot could only help. With consensus-decided rules: how long is it? Does its length reflect the topic assessment? Does it have citations? Are they correctly formatted? Does it have wikilinks? And so on.
I know I'm not the first one to suggest some automation of the process. deisenbe ( talk) 00:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
At the top of the article, there is a sentence saying that "For a more general overview of assessment at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Assessment." However, clicking the "Wikipedia:Assessment" simply reloads the page (i.e. redirects it to itself). Should I just remove the sentence? Thank you. William2001( talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
In this version, the entire paragraph is
The paragraph transcluded reads
So far so good.
If you click the first link, you end up at page that says it is inactive and is kept around for historical reasons. Proposal Let's merge the operative text for this sub-topic into this page so we don't have to root around in
WP:MULTI places, and then be confused when those targets are marked "historical".
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
17:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
For the second time in a couple of weeks, an editor has been marking assessments on articles. See User talk:GeneralPoxter#Please stop setting article "importance". This is the second editor I've seen doing this; the earlier one was blocked. Mathglot ( talk) 05:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't need two pages on this. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ should merge into Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment either as a section or as integrated content. The merge should happen in this direction, because this is the better-developed page, and because assessment is a community process instituted under Wikipedia:Version 0.7 and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 then broadened into a site-wide article classification system (not just for producing CD-ROMs, an old goal); it's not under the thumb of WP:WikiProject Council, the wikiproject about wikiprojects. While the assessments are typically done by topical wikiproject participants, this is not at all required (anyone can assess, they just need to do it well), and even when it is, it has nothing to do with WP:WikiProject Council, which is mostly a gatekeeper for whether you should create "WP:WikiProject underwater basketweaving" or not, and home of the list of wikiprojects.
PS: it's wrongheaded for
WP:ASSESSMENT and
WP:Assessment to go to two different pages;
WP:Redirects for discussion doesn't tolerate such a confusing situation.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
18:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
What is the meaning of "broad in coverage" according to a B-checklist? Does this breadth needed to be treated with a degree of substantive breadth as well? I am looking at Sara Sheffield. It is well written and well sourced, but there does not seem to be enough content to warrant a B-rating. Am I misinterpreting the B-class criteria? Oldsanfelipe2 ( talk) 15:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As can be seen here, this user removed the stub tag due to its "uglify"'ing of an article. Is this a valid reason for its removal? Rob van vee 13:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
One of the biggest things we can do to improve Wikipedia's reputation for trustworthiness is to be clear to readers about which content we have the most confidence in — otherwise, the less-trustworthy content (which, we need to acknowledge, exists in some amount despite our best efforts) they encounter will color the project as a whole. Our main way to do this is through our indications of article assessments on article pages (since casual readers essentially never visit talk pages), so I want to open a discussion about ways we might change how they are presented. Currently, what we have is:
There are a few problems here:
What do you all think? Sdkb ( talk) 01:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
good article}}
and {{
featured article}}
icons are under the control of
WP:GA and
WP:FA respectively. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
13:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to see the Montreal artist Michel Pagliaro added. He had big hits in French and English on pop music 23:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC) 70.29.120.38 ( talk)charts in the 1960's and 1970's.
Thanks, Tim Reed
I have been trying to order a Toronto Star for the last week by phone and there is no answer. All I want is to have a Star delivered. How am I to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:496A:FE00:A41F:1787:16BD:810B ( talk) 15:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Am I allowed to rate my own articles when they're still new? Prana1111 ( talk) 23:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I was recently asked about possibly contributing to assessment of biography articles, and I wondered whether it's possible to view a subset of biographies that involved translations from other languages, or by extension, biographies in some particular topic area. Mathglot ( talk) 06:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know a ton about the history of the class system, but it does seem fairly clear that in practice A-class is pretty much deprecated. If someone who knows the history better feels similarly, it might be time to make a formal proposal to deprecate it. In the meantime, we should definitely be explaining better what the difference between A-class and GA is, since our documentation on that currently doesn't make it clear. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
List-Class has gone missing - the page describes FL-Class and also SL-Class, and most WikiProjects still recognise |class=list
, so why is it not described? Has it been removed at some point? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
<noinclude>
tag that prevented everything below Stub-class from being transcluded. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
04:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
<noinclude>
? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)This grade was previously used by WikiProject Firearms, but is now unused. A proposal at the WikiProject by User:Molestash to discontinue this grade met with no objections, and currently there are no articles in Category:Deferred-Class Firearms articles. Therefore, I am proposing to discontinue support for this grade at Template:WPBannerMeta and remove it from this page. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Atom has recently been delisted from FA status and is now currently C-class. Should we keep the atom example of how article classes progress over time, or should we use another example now? Lazman321 ( talk) 16:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
How about a system similar to those widely used in commercial sites (e.g., Amazon) where the rating (N of stars) is presented along with the number of raters? would this make the rating more transparent and less influenced by individual whims ? or show them as such? Tytire ( talk) 17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm perpetually confused by the assessment system, and getting more so by the day!
Clearly I'm too thick to understand — can anyone advice what, if anything, I should be doing regarding assessments in the articles I create (and also more widely, but let's start with that)? Many thanks in advance, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
|importance=
filled in (if it's clear to me), sometimes they don't; but I always leave |class=
blank unless the page is in mainspace and it's a disambiguation page, in which case I set |class=dab
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The tool suggested C (for all projects), and I just accepted the suggestion.That doesn't sound like any kind of bot to me - they work in the background, performing edits like this - notice the user name, if you click it you're told
This user account is a botwith some more explanatory text - try clicking some of those links. Indeed, User:Evad37/rater is not a bot, it's a user script. If you trigger it into action, anything and everything that it does to a page when you click Publish changes is your responsibility. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I've just created Help:Assessing article quality, which is aimed specifically at helping non-editing readers understand and make use of the quality assessments. Feedback is welcome! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The stub-class example article is no longer a stub, so we need a new example for a stub-class article. Maybe Twickler Cone or Kongde Ri? I don't know if we need anything special with these examples or not. - Mr-Ace ( talk) 03:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Grading scheme, which is transcluded here, gives Special:Permalink/845953970 as an example of a start class article. I'm having a hard time seeing how that fits with the criteria. The "Editing suggestions" column for start class says:
Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
But this article already has many references to what appear to be reliable sources. The organization seems reasonable. I don't see any problems with spelling/grammar/writing style, other than maybe one sentence fragment and some issues with the placement of refs relative to punctuation. On the whole, I'd say it's in a much better state than our C-class example, which has a significantly lower citation density (with many {{ cn}} tags), poor reference formatting, and much more questionable organization. Colin M ( talk) 22:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this page terribly outdated? This page currently makes it sound like the end goal of the stub-class to featured article pipeline is to produce a CD-ROM version of Wikipedia for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team (when will they make a Macbook with an optical drive again? enquiring minds want to know.) The content assessment scale serves a more general purpose now, which is mostly to drive readers to exceptional content, and editors to unexceptional articles which are in dire need of editing help. Can I attempt a re-write of this page so that the historical purpose of this page is noted, but its present purpose is more understandable? Schierbecker ( talk) 06:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Substantial changes have been made to Homotopia (festival), could someone please re-assess the article on the quality scale? It is currently C-Class. Many thanks. Richie wright1980 ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there a way for the bot that populates this table to make lists of the intersection cell contents? If you want to find (for example) the Mid-Importance B-Class articles you currently have a choice between looking through ~150,000 B-class articles or (even worse) >800,000 Mid-Importance ones. The bot obviously has this information or else it couldn't populate the table so why isn't there a clickable link in the cell to list those ~45,000 articles? Or any other combination of ratings? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
B-Class articles
Mid-importance articles
As of now, it is quite difficult to find out when the content assessment was made and often the assessment may be several years old and not corresponding to the current level of the article. Would it be possible to add a time stamp on these assessments (in the same way as for the templates indicating need of editing in the article itself)? Ideally, this would be done retroactively with robots going through and adding time stamps to all those assessments already made. -- Olle Terenius (UU) ( talk) 10:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thinker78, if you want to snark and complain, you can do it where it leaves a record instead of in dummy edits. What do you want to snark and complain about from my removal of "Once an article reaches the A-Class , it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made"? Vaticidal prophet 08:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every user is expected to be civil, it seems that you are being too friendly. Please use Jimbo Wales' user page for any test "friendliness" you might have, and our guideline to when you have to be serious, even when sleeping. Thank you No problem. Thinker78 ( talk) 01:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello there. I have expanded and imrpoved the article about Jalal al-Din Mangburnu significantly. Can anyone assess it? I think it can be as high as A. -- 81.213.215.83 ( talk) 20:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm hoping someone with experience in quality assessment could offer some feedback at this user talk page discussion concerning bot-like quality assessment, with some other relatively minor issues mixed in. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I realize that rating are fundamentally a "developed matter" to Wikiprojects, but most of them seem to use the standard boilerplate for the "class" criteria, so I thought a central query might be of some benefit. Where does construction of an adequate lede fall? If an article has a "B-Class" body, but a minimal open section, is that arguably a matter of MoS compliance, and thus not something that a "B" must meet? But would likely (and this now gets beyond strict Wikiproject scope) fail to pass GAR? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 14:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm working towards upgrading {{ class}} to use Lua and a JSON definition file. Not least because this affects ~17% of all pages, I would appreciate input and/or review at Template talk:Class#Move to Lua/JSON version. Please respond there, or ping me if you respond here. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
We should update the example articles, as some of them aren't even the same status as they were (Like Crescent Falls). Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk | contribs) 19:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I just joined the project. I've been working on author article: Francisco Tario and I was looking for opinions on what to improve. DemianStratford ( talk) 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Give there are 6 million articles on English WP, how do we end up with yet another Taylor Swift song as the Featured Article on the home page of Wikipedia? GimliDotNet ( talk) 04:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Improper_handling_of_assessment_for_inactive_WikiProjects Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Propose we finally standardize "Disambig" and "Redirect" class. They should be used for all articles once we move to project-independent quality assessments, and I hope we can make this change before the project-independent proposal goes through. DFlhb ( talk) 21:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
First draft, feel free to tweak wording as necessary. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems the draft B-class criteria include something that not even the GA criteria do: coverage so broad that all major topics are covered. GA does not require this, and an article can pass GA with some material of major significance missing. The GA process will encourage inclusion of the additional material, but the criteria do not require it.
Also, a note on wording for "does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies". I would argue that no article ever contains omissions. If they were contained in the article, then they wouldn't be omissions, now would they? So, QED, every article will automatically pass this criterion as worded. :) -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
A shortcut to the six criteria would be extremely helpful. Bradford44 ( talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
...should make the article a viable candidate for FA.
What about articles that are too short to make it to FA? Can they ever become "A class"? Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 21:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
B-class is in many ways the key to the system, so I welcome this page. However I see it says "It should have an infobox where relevant and useful." Can this be changed to "It may have an infobox where relevant and useful." (my emphasis) Infoboxes are generally accepted for quantitative information, but controversial for biographies etc. -- Klein zach 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest this:
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
Best. -- Klein zach 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Per this discussion, we need to revise and expand these criteria, and make them a bit more visible. In order to do this, I'll break this down into a few different discussion points. While discussing these, I think it is important to look at the current criteria but also to keep an open mind about them, and be willing to change them if needed. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
What counts as an A-Class review? Does it need to be a more formal review, kind of like a project-scale FAC, or can a small group of editors simply agree that it is A-Class without a full subpage for discussion? Can these editors be involved with the article, or do they have to be uninvolved like at GAN and FAC? If a more formal review is wanted, the implementation of that for smaller projects can be discussed later. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
class=A
at the same time as you start the review. I know the purists won't like that suggestion, but I don't think it's a huge grade inflation and it might actually motivate people to consider grading articles at A-class. If you say that you have to find the decent article, then organise the review, then follow the review, then decide consensus at the end, then remember to change the class on the article talk page, it all gets a bit bureaucratic, even for something that most projects won't be doing very often.
Physchim62
(talk)
15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
B-, GA-, and FA-Classes all have a firm list of criteria which must be met, but A-Class doesn't have a similar list. Should A-Class have similar criteria to those classes? If so, should it really be its own set of criteria (for example, emphasizing content over style), or should it be based on the GA or FA criteria? If based on GA, the main difference is that a larger number of people will see it. If based on FA, it means that a number of people believe that it should be of Featured quality, but maybe they are to involved with the article to be able to properly review it at FAC? – Drilnoth ( T • C) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Has there been a recent expansion from 5 to 6 criteria? If so, what is the strategy for implementing this project-/template-wide? I followed a wikilink on the {{ WikiProject Iran}} template which only supports 5 criteria and I would have expected at least a mention of this discrepancy on this page as well as instructions for dealing with it. __ meco ( talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably not the best place to ask, but how does A-class differ from GA-class? 74.33.174.133 ( talk) 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel that an A-class review is useful, sorting out articles that (while perhaps not quite good enough, or well known enough, for whatever reason, to make it to FA), in terms of quality, equal those of a professional encyclopedia. I am a little surprised that only a few WikiProjects have very active A-class review sections, and am wondering if it would be possible to make this category as prominent as either FA or GA. Any ideas? DCI talk 17:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this idea has value. A problem with some (most?) FA reviews is that they focus very heavily on the kind of stuff that the editor of a hard copy encyclopedia or magazine would do i.e. syntax and grammar, style issues etc. but not so much on the actual content. As I am much more interested in the latter my enthusiasm has waned. Writing a GA from scratch may be about the same effort as taking the same article through FA, but as often as not with very little additional information being provided for readers in the second stage. The only thing I can think of would be to make one of the criteria for an FAC to be that it is already A class. That would ensure that it had received a genuine content peer-review beforehand. Ben Mac Dui 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to find or search examples of B-class articles? -- Elisunshine01 ( talk) 15:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This sentence from criterion 1 confuses me: "The use of neither <ref> tags nor citation templates such as {{cite web}}
is required." It seems that there should not be any <ref> tags or citation templates. Could this be reworded in order to make it less confusing?
Bulldog
talk
da contribs
go rando
19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
is required." doesn't mean that <ref>...</ref>
and {{
cite web}}
are prohibited, it means that they are optional. Various methods exist for referencing, and Wikipedia does not favour any one style over another. It so happens that one of the most popular styles uses templates like {{
cite web}}
enclosed in <ref>...</ref>
, so some people believe these to be mandatory - but they're not. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, friends. This is probably my first contribution to 1.0, since having just discovered it. I would like to add to the WP:BCLASS document, the B class checklist template as seen at Template:WikiProject_Technology. It should be as easy as possible, for a B candidate to track its work in progress, and to prove to future editors how an existing B class is warranted and maintained. As with Wikipedia 1.0 itself, it's impossible to find unless you already know what it is and what it's called. I stumbled on both *far* *far* too tragically late in my editing lifetime. Even though I knew what it was, I searched throughout the night for it and finally found this document when I searched for "wikipedia b class criteria" until I recalled the specific word "checklist". This should be displayed on the article of, and explicitly supported in the banner of, every WikiProject template — as well as every article Talk page — on Wikipedia. The journey from stub to C isn't very far, and it's a hop/skip/jump to B if the subject is notable and the editors are made aware that it's there for the taking. Furthermore, I'm perfectly aware of its existence, but I keep forgetting the criteria! Thank you for everything you do.
<!-- B-Class checklist --> <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1= <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2= <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3= <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4= <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5= <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=
— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
What would be a suitable minimum number of references a B-class article should contain? -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone do A class reviews any more? All I see are GA or FA. -- Gaff ( talk) 06:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As I see that plenty of people even question why A-class exist, would it not be appropriate to create an A-class tag to place on an A-class assessed articles front page. Just like with FA nd GA-class. It would perhaps make it more editors willing to take time to nominate articles for A-class. Today only GA and FA class articles got a tag for the front page of the articles being assassed as such. Just a suggestion.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)