![]() | Scouting Project‑class | ||||||
|
After completing our initial ratings of our ScoutingWikiProject articles, Wim van Dorst and Rlevse see the need to reasses how we parcel out the importance ratings. (see Wim's talk page under "Gold Award" for background). Three things were obvious:
With an average of roughly 900 articles, the approximate target range we are shooting for is:
Steps (see Assessment project page too):
That peer review link at the bottom goes to the military history project. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
When the comprehensive ratings of Scouting Project articles were last done in mid-2006, it was decided that articles about Associations in the 15 countries with the most Scouting would be assessed as "High" Importance, with others as Mid or Low, based on the Project's overall article target range of:
It was also decided that a further reassessment would eventually take place to look at the results (see above 2006 discussion, Down to it for ratings). Now that we're two years down the road, we find that:
One way to address this is to upgrade certain articles to "Top" Importance, specifically those of very large and/or historically significant associations, and biographical articles about founding leaders of those associations:
While we all want to avoid making the project USA-centric, the topic Boy Scouts of America currently has considerable notability outside of Scouting circles because of 3G litigation and extensive media coverage, thus meeting "Top" Importance criteria. Particularly now that William Hillcourt is of "Top" importance, it would be logical that the association he was associated with would likewise be of "Top" importance. Also, in view of the "Top" Importance given to the Hillcourt article, it could be argued that there's an inconsistency in rating James E. West (Scouting) and E. Urner Goodman as "High" importance. JGHowes talk - 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Keeping % the same, we should today have:
What we actually have per the last bot run is:
Talk on this topic generally occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Scouting Project‑class | ||||||
|
After completing our initial ratings of our ScoutingWikiProject articles, Wim van Dorst and Rlevse see the need to reasses how we parcel out the importance ratings. (see Wim's talk page under "Gold Award" for background). Three things were obvious:
With an average of roughly 900 articles, the approximate target range we are shooting for is:
Steps (see Assessment project page too):
That peer review link at the bottom goes to the military history project. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
When the comprehensive ratings of Scouting Project articles were last done in mid-2006, it was decided that articles about Associations in the 15 countries with the most Scouting would be assessed as "High" Importance, with others as Mid or Low, based on the Project's overall article target range of:
It was also decided that a further reassessment would eventually take place to look at the results (see above 2006 discussion, Down to it for ratings). Now that we're two years down the road, we find that:
One way to address this is to upgrade certain articles to "Top" Importance, specifically those of very large and/or historically significant associations, and biographical articles about founding leaders of those associations:
While we all want to avoid making the project USA-centric, the topic Boy Scouts of America currently has considerable notability outside of Scouting circles because of 3G litigation and extensive media coverage, thus meeting "Top" Importance criteria. Particularly now that William Hillcourt is of "Top" importance, it would be logical that the association he was associated with would likewise be of "Top" importance. Also, in view of the "Top" Importance given to the Hillcourt article, it could be argued that there's an inconsistency in rating James E. West (Scouting) and E. Urner Goodman as "High" importance. JGHowes talk - 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Keeping % the same, we should today have:
What we actually have per the last bot run is:
Talk on this topic generally occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)