This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Doctor Who/Assessment page. |
|
Doctor Who Project‑class | |||||||
|
Here are my suggestions on what the importance could be for this project. - LA @ 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is the importance criteria based on continents? Would contexts not be better?
For instance, Professor Edward Travers is only notable in the context of Doctor Who, irrespective of whether he has been seen by audiences in Europe and North America, for example. By contrast, Doctor Who itself has a place in the context of Britain's culture and characters such as the Fourth Doctor have iconic statuses, for example in the case of the Fourth Doctor one warranting his appearance on The Simpsons. Therefore, would it not be better to judge articles' importance based on the number of contexts or fields of interest they are significant within rather than on the origin locations of the sources that render them notable? Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As it stands currently, the article does not meet good article standards than it is for Featured Article Candidate. Most of the article is disjointed, with tendency towards summarising episodic events, and its information is primarily drawn from its editors personal conclusions as opposed to interviews with the series creators, or by critics and commentators. It really should be demoted to B-class. A-class implies its making the transition from GA to FA! ~ Zythe Talk to me! 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Done - LA @ 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Beat the 'bot. In about two days, the bot will run again. I would like to have all of the articles assessed by that time. There are currently 568 Unassessed-Class Doctor Who articles and 906 Unknown-importance Doctor Who articles. So, if these are divided amongst us, that is a little over 100 Class articles, and a little over 150 importance articles each. I think that it is possible to get this done. What say you? :) - LA @ 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
During my article grading, I have come across some ambiguous... erm... things. Articles like the Sonic screwdriver: is it a recurring character, a regular character, or "anything not mentioned above"? Do aliens like the [[Sea Devil (Doctor Who)|Sea Devils, who only appeared on TV twice, count as Low or Mid Importance? Therefore, I think that any ambiguous cases should be reported here, after being bold and going ahead and grading. Any comments? - Weebiloobil ( talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remember that the people who make Doctor Who are not one of our priorities. They might get a paragraph about their Doctor Who work, but after that is done, we just need to monitor that paragraph. They are Low importance as they have more than likely done other non-Whovian work. Our priorities should be the actual television series and lead characters. Once they are all Featured Articles, then work on the Companions and regular characters, then work on the serials and episodes, then alien races, then the technology, then everything else (including that paragraph for the people of Doctor Who). - LA @ 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's worth remembering that just because a subject comes also under the purview of another WikiProject, that doesn't mean that it's unimportant for us. We aren't just in the business of covering the fictional world of Doctor Who, we also need to cover the creation of the television programme Doctor Who. And that means covering the people who make it.
(Incidentally, is there a reason that Douglas Adams isn't part of our project? His contribution is surely at least as important as that of Kylie Minogue.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it time to address this yet, or is there still assessment work to be done? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That is right... Unassessed-Class Doctor Who articles and Unknown-importance Doctor Who articles are empty. Thank you Amxitsa, Wiggstar69, and Weebiloobil who helped assess the articles. - LA @ 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the importance ranking currently employed displays an excessive in-universe bias by ranking fictional characters consistently high and actors consistently low. Similarly, the canonical/non-canonical split becomes strange and problematic - I am hard pressed to see why the article on Damaged Goods is of low importance, despite being Russell T. Davies's first Doctor Who work, or Timewyrm: Genesis, the first officially licensed Doctor Who story after cancellation, is low, while the canonical but utterly unremarkable The Awakening is considered medium importance.
Similarly, even if his Doctor Who work is only part of his article, it does not make sense to me that Tom Baker is of low importance while Grace Holloway, who appears in exactly one story, is of high importance. No reckoning of the most important topics to thorough coverage of Doctor Who would make that division unless it were primarily focusing on Doctor Who from an in-universe perspective.
I think the importance scale needs a dramatic re-evaluation. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've not contributed to the project for a while, but I have done a lot of work on Doctor Who articles in the past, and just happened to look at the Talk page of one of them, Verity Lambert. Now, I know I am biased as I wrote most of the article, but how can anyone possibly justify her having a "Low" importance rating... for Doctor Who!!! An absurd situation. I have read the above messages and am relieved to see this nonsense is under discussion, but what's the state of play currently? Angmering ( talk) 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Now we have the new C-class, is it time to back over the B- and Start-class articles to re-assess them? - Weebiloobil ( talk) 16:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The lovely people at the 1.0 editorial team were kind enough to leave a message to us; however, it's on the project talk page, not here. Have a free link - Weebiloobil ( talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
According to conventions I have seen the proper category name is Category:Unassessed-Class Doctor Who articles not Category:Unassessed Doctor Who articles. The template should be putting articles in the first not the second. LA @ 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question - with the Project Banner for images, do we put it on the Image page itself, or the Image talk page? Once I know, I can start adding the template to just about every Doctor Who picture. Thanks - weebiloobil ( talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Doctor Who articles should have covers.
If you need help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In viewing the article in the wake of his death, I noticed it was ranked as "Low importance" on the assessment scale. I hope no one minds, but I arbitrarily changed it to "Mid" based on the criteria presented here (actually, I initially moved it to "High" but it looks like that may be more for character pages than actor pages; certainly however the article on the actor should rank at least on the same level as John Barrowman). I'm aware I bypassed the committee on this, but I acted under WP:BOLD. Certainly should anyone disagree with the action they're free to downgrade Mr. Courtney's article. 23skidoo ( talk) 16:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Doctor Who/Assessment page. |
|
Doctor Who Project‑class | |||||||
|
Here are my suggestions on what the importance could be for this project. - LA @ 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is the importance criteria based on continents? Would contexts not be better?
For instance, Professor Edward Travers is only notable in the context of Doctor Who, irrespective of whether he has been seen by audiences in Europe and North America, for example. By contrast, Doctor Who itself has a place in the context of Britain's culture and characters such as the Fourth Doctor have iconic statuses, for example in the case of the Fourth Doctor one warranting his appearance on The Simpsons. Therefore, would it not be better to judge articles' importance based on the number of contexts or fields of interest they are significant within rather than on the origin locations of the sources that render them notable? Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As it stands currently, the article does not meet good article standards than it is for Featured Article Candidate. Most of the article is disjointed, with tendency towards summarising episodic events, and its information is primarily drawn from its editors personal conclusions as opposed to interviews with the series creators, or by critics and commentators. It really should be demoted to B-class. A-class implies its making the transition from GA to FA! ~ Zythe Talk to me! 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Done - LA @ 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Beat the 'bot. In about two days, the bot will run again. I would like to have all of the articles assessed by that time. There are currently 568 Unassessed-Class Doctor Who articles and 906 Unknown-importance Doctor Who articles. So, if these are divided amongst us, that is a little over 100 Class articles, and a little over 150 importance articles each. I think that it is possible to get this done. What say you? :) - LA @ 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
During my article grading, I have come across some ambiguous... erm... things. Articles like the Sonic screwdriver: is it a recurring character, a regular character, or "anything not mentioned above"? Do aliens like the [[Sea Devil (Doctor Who)|Sea Devils, who only appeared on TV twice, count as Low or Mid Importance? Therefore, I think that any ambiguous cases should be reported here, after being bold and going ahead and grading. Any comments? - Weebiloobil ( talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remember that the people who make Doctor Who are not one of our priorities. They might get a paragraph about their Doctor Who work, but after that is done, we just need to monitor that paragraph. They are Low importance as they have more than likely done other non-Whovian work. Our priorities should be the actual television series and lead characters. Once they are all Featured Articles, then work on the Companions and regular characters, then work on the serials and episodes, then alien races, then the technology, then everything else (including that paragraph for the people of Doctor Who). - LA @ 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's worth remembering that just because a subject comes also under the purview of another WikiProject, that doesn't mean that it's unimportant for us. We aren't just in the business of covering the fictional world of Doctor Who, we also need to cover the creation of the television programme Doctor Who. And that means covering the people who make it.
(Incidentally, is there a reason that Douglas Adams isn't part of our project? His contribution is surely at least as important as that of Kylie Minogue.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it time to address this yet, or is there still assessment work to be done? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That is right... Unassessed-Class Doctor Who articles and Unknown-importance Doctor Who articles are empty. Thank you Amxitsa, Wiggstar69, and Weebiloobil who helped assess the articles. - LA @ 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the importance ranking currently employed displays an excessive in-universe bias by ranking fictional characters consistently high and actors consistently low. Similarly, the canonical/non-canonical split becomes strange and problematic - I am hard pressed to see why the article on Damaged Goods is of low importance, despite being Russell T. Davies's first Doctor Who work, or Timewyrm: Genesis, the first officially licensed Doctor Who story after cancellation, is low, while the canonical but utterly unremarkable The Awakening is considered medium importance.
Similarly, even if his Doctor Who work is only part of his article, it does not make sense to me that Tom Baker is of low importance while Grace Holloway, who appears in exactly one story, is of high importance. No reckoning of the most important topics to thorough coverage of Doctor Who would make that division unless it were primarily focusing on Doctor Who from an in-universe perspective.
I think the importance scale needs a dramatic re-evaluation. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've not contributed to the project for a while, but I have done a lot of work on Doctor Who articles in the past, and just happened to look at the Talk page of one of them, Verity Lambert. Now, I know I am biased as I wrote most of the article, but how can anyone possibly justify her having a "Low" importance rating... for Doctor Who!!! An absurd situation. I have read the above messages and am relieved to see this nonsense is under discussion, but what's the state of play currently? Angmering ( talk) 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Now we have the new C-class, is it time to back over the B- and Start-class articles to re-assess them? - Weebiloobil ( talk) 16:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The lovely people at the 1.0 editorial team were kind enough to leave a message to us; however, it's on the project talk page, not here. Have a free link - Weebiloobil ( talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
According to conventions I have seen the proper category name is Category:Unassessed-Class Doctor Who articles not Category:Unassessed Doctor Who articles. The template should be putting articles in the first not the second. LA @ 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question - with the Project Banner for images, do we put it on the Image page itself, or the Image talk page? Once I know, I can start adding the template to just about every Doctor Who picture. Thanks - weebiloobil ( talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Doctor Who articles should have covers.
If you need help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In viewing the article in the wake of his death, I noticed it was ranked as "Low importance" on the assessment scale. I hope no one minds, but I arbitrarily changed it to "Mid" based on the criteria presented here (actually, I initially moved it to "High" but it looks like that may be more for character pages than actor pages; certainly however the article on the actor should rank at least on the same level as John Barrowman). I'm aware I bypassed the committee on this, but I acted under WP:BOLD. Certainly should anyone disagree with the action they're free to downgrade Mr. Courtney's article. 23skidoo ( talk) 16:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)