This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Content assessment page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
FA class says under "Editing suggestions" for FA articles: No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
When has this ever been true?? The example article Cleopatra has had many content additions since it was first featured in 2018. How much more information has become available about Jesus Christ in the last decade since Jesus was featured? Apparently 94 kilobytes worth, or almost double the length from when it was first featured.
Depending on how much free time you have and how granular you want to get, you can always add more to an article.
This goes against WP:FA?, which only says it must neglect "no major facts or details", is a "thorough and representative survey", and "its content does not change significantly from day to day". Recommend removing this line. Schierbecker ( talk) 03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This RFC proposes the removal and replacement of the statement in the Featured Article editing suggestions that reads, "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
"
Schierbecker (
talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I've got a head-scratcher for you.
Talk:Sam Manekshaw is simultaneously an A-class and GA-class article. It is a GA class in the banner shell, but because it is an A-class biography article, it is categorized as an Article with conflicting quality ratings.
Talk:Germanicus is simultaneously an A-class and GA-class article. It is an A class in the banner shell, but is also a GA-class Classical Greece and Rome article.
Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is simultaneously an A-class and B-class article. It is an A class in the banner shell, but is also a B-class Russia article (To be fair, this article is more like C class.)
I found 213 other examples of A-class articles with conflicting quality ratings.
There is little consistency as to whether A class should be inherited by the banner shell. Some do - for instance Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has passed a GA review and is an A class in the banner shell. This one is not categorized as having conflicting quality ratings.
If an article has been assessed as A-class by one project, should the banner shell say likewise? Schierbecker ( talk) 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
:Ping User:Hawkeye7. Schierbecker ( talk) 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Military history}}
banner; now, it is (fairly) well known that MILHIST have a formal A-Class review process, so it's likely that any A-Class biogs really are A-Class, and are not there either by accident or by legacy. So I would oppose any demotion that does not involve clearing each article individually with MILHIST. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Pls can someone help in assessing the article Sugarhill Ddot? Thank You. 2RDD ( talk) 13:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Just following up on this issue, which is still presenting problems. There was a suggestion by User:Bkonrad that we could treat SIAs (with links but no content) and disambiguation pages as one by considering them as "navigation pages". What do people think about introducing this as an umbrella term and classifying accordingly? The rationale is that these types of pages have a common purpose which is to guide readers to the article they are looking for. Real SIAs (with content and references) will be properly treated as Lists, but pages like Hermann (name) would be classified as a navigation page. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Real SIAs (with content and references)be distinguished from other similar pages? Is it a manual assessment? If so, what is being gained? older ≠ wiser 10:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Content assessment page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
FA class says under "Editing suggestions" for FA articles: No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
When has this ever been true?? The example article Cleopatra has had many content additions since it was first featured in 2018. How much more information has become available about Jesus Christ in the last decade since Jesus was featured? Apparently 94 kilobytes worth, or almost double the length from when it was first featured.
Depending on how much free time you have and how granular you want to get, you can always add more to an article.
This goes against WP:FA?, which only says it must neglect "no major facts or details", is a "thorough and representative survey", and "its content does not change significantly from day to day". Recommend removing this line. Schierbecker ( talk) 03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This RFC proposes the removal and replacement of the statement in the Featured Article editing suggestions that reads, "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
"
Schierbecker (
talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I've got a head-scratcher for you.
Talk:Sam Manekshaw is simultaneously an A-class and GA-class article. It is a GA class in the banner shell, but because it is an A-class biography article, it is categorized as an Article with conflicting quality ratings.
Talk:Germanicus is simultaneously an A-class and GA-class article. It is an A class in the banner shell, but is also a GA-class Classical Greece and Rome article.
Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is simultaneously an A-class and B-class article. It is an A class in the banner shell, but is also a B-class Russia article (To be fair, this article is more like C class.)
I found 213 other examples of A-class articles with conflicting quality ratings.
There is little consistency as to whether A class should be inherited by the banner shell. Some do - for instance Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has passed a GA review and is an A class in the banner shell. This one is not categorized as having conflicting quality ratings.
If an article has been assessed as A-class by one project, should the banner shell say likewise? Schierbecker ( talk) 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
:Ping User:Hawkeye7. Schierbecker ( talk) 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Military history}}
banner; now, it is (fairly) well known that MILHIST have a formal A-Class review process, so it's likely that any A-Class biogs really are A-Class, and are not there either by accident or by legacy. So I would oppose any demotion that does not involve clearing each article individually with MILHIST. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Pls can someone help in assessing the article Sugarhill Ddot? Thank You. 2RDD ( talk) 13:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Just following up on this issue, which is still presenting problems. There was a suggestion by User:Bkonrad that we could treat SIAs (with links but no content) and disambiguation pages as one by considering them as "navigation pages". What do people think about introducing this as an umbrella term and classifying accordingly? The rationale is that these types of pages have a common purpose which is to guide readers to the article they are looking for. Real SIAs (with content and references) will be properly treated as Lists, but pages like Hermann (name) would be classified as a navigation page. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Real SIAs (with content and references)be distinguished from other similar pages? Is it a manual assessment? If so, what is being gained? older ≠ wiser 10:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)