Christian music Project‑class | |||||||
|
The past few days I have been going through every article in Category: Unassessed-Class Christian music articles, and have assessed every article which was unassessed. I did not add an importance tag to every article, as on some articles I really had no idea of their importance. However, there are currently no articles which belong in the unassessed category. Unfortunately, because of some odd issues with the banner (see Template talk:Christianmusic), articles which are classed as NA are still showing up in the category. -- PEPSI2786 talk 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, other than the examples we already have on the Assessment page; (i.e. Coffee table book is an example of a stub, Real analysis is an example of a Start, etc), my basic way of checking the class of an article is pretty simple. If it's really short, and really rough, it's a stub. If some effort has been put into it, but it doesn't at all resemble a good article yet, it's a start. If it looks pretty good, and I'd maybe consider putting it up for a GA Nomination, it's B class.
I don't think we should make any article better than B class without going through a formal review process. I'd hate to see us inflating our articles ratings because of pride. -- PEPSI2786 talk 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments#Requesting an assessment section, regarding requests for article assessment, there is an invitation to "please feel free to list it below. But immediately below ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments#Assessment log) there is a warning not to add entries due to the section being handled by a WP:BOT. Should the text about manual requests go, or should this be clarified somehow to be distinct from the Assessment log? Dl2000 ( talk) 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Christian music Project‑class | |||||||
|
The past few days I have been going through every article in Category: Unassessed-Class Christian music articles, and have assessed every article which was unassessed. I did not add an importance tag to every article, as on some articles I really had no idea of their importance. However, there are currently no articles which belong in the unassessed category. Unfortunately, because of some odd issues with the banner (see Template talk:Christianmusic), articles which are classed as NA are still showing up in the category. -- PEPSI2786 talk 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, other than the examples we already have on the Assessment page; (i.e. Coffee table book is an example of a stub, Real analysis is an example of a Start, etc), my basic way of checking the class of an article is pretty simple. If it's really short, and really rough, it's a stub. If some effort has been put into it, but it doesn't at all resemble a good article yet, it's a start. If it looks pretty good, and I'd maybe consider putting it up for a GA Nomination, it's B class.
I don't think we should make any article better than B class without going through a formal review process. I'd hate to see us inflating our articles ratings because of pride. -- PEPSI2786 talk 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments#Requesting an assessment section, regarding requests for article assessment, there is an invitation to "please feel free to list it below. But immediately below ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments#Assessment log) there is a warning not to add entries due to the section being handled by a WP:BOT. Should the text about manual requests go, or should this be clarified somehow to be distinct from the Assessment log? Dl2000 ( talk) 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)