Talk:Eads School Gymnasium

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article was accepted on 5 September 2013 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

United States: Colorado Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to improve, create, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the New section tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WHY was this rated a START???[edit]

I changed the articles rating to that of a Stub. It was rated a start. I ask, why? Honestly, it restates a NRHP nom form. It barely crosses the threashold of being a dictionary definition of the place. In fact, you could probably, go to that place, strike up a conversation with a local person and they would know as much if not more than what is in the current article. IMO, thats a stub. I checked oin the Wiki rankings of articles, turnes out, WP:ASSESS pretty much spells it out. WHY do I care. Using this as a metric, lets just go along and assume its a Start. Add a pic. Well now we have a pic, of the building, WOW! I am now bolt upright, jaw agape, THIS MUST BE A CLASS A or FA NOW. How about another ref? WOO HOO! Its a FA now. 3 refs...EGAD, the HAND OF GOD must be a new ranking. The entire paradigm of human knowledge has now been transformed as we now know it. BECAUSE, we have a pic, 3 sentences, and 2+ refs...UH...NOCoal town guy (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the AFC rating to Start. I believe it is not proper to change that from the AFC member's evaluation. Whatever, otherwise. --do ncr am 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule or law stating that. Its a stub. Its barely 4 sentences......really?Coal town guy (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rating by a named AFC reviewer. You should not change their rating. I don't care what rating for Wikiproject NRHP, am leaving that different. --do ncr am 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC reviewers aren't infallible. Just because one of them decided that three sentences, one of which is a direct quote, was somehow start-class despite assessment policy to the contrary doesn't mean that it has to stay that way forever. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning at all: Please for the love of DIETY do not edit war over the evaluation that a member of the AfC project gave to a page. If you disagree with the rating given on behalf of your project, feel free to change it, but each project has it's own rubric over what constitutes the various classes. @Coal town guy: Why did you not bring the issue to the reviewer who promoted the submission out of AfC space rather than have (what appears to be) a conniption fit/disruptive point making here on the talk page. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, IF you are telling me that I have ASK a person that a 3 sentence article be CHANGED from a Start to a Stub, AND you are not laughing, I would have to beg off, and say, Happy Editing. This is absurdist, in the most extreme fashion. I will say in all honesty, and candor, I respect what you do, I do not however make any sense of this at all. BUT this is not BOLD, this is nonsense. Coal town guy (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rubric used by the AfC project is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme#Quality_scale. Of the two options, "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article," and "The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing," the article as created definitely fits better into the first option, which would rank it as stub-class. MatthewVanitas was charitable, which is a noble impulse, but the rating did not conform to his project's criteria and it was reasonable to correct it. Choess (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]