Wikipedia talk:WikiProject assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ASSESS)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the administration of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Good Lists[edit]

There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This article's rating[edit]

Which class of quality does this article belong to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plnml (talkcontribs) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Which article? --Jameboy (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on auto-assessment of articles[edit]

See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. ~ RobTalk 05:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles[edit]

--Redrose64 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that one of the three proposals in this RfC involves creating a separate "Good Lists" rating and process independent of the GA process. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. Clear consensus for a move and this variant of the proposed title (de-capped, singular) had the most support. Jenks24 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)



Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/AssessmentWikipedia:WikiProject assessments – (Or alike.) It's actually WikiProject assessments, so it's a redundant separate category. Furthermore it's not just "1.0" but simply not related to any version of Wikipedia. Note: in addition I also proposed a merge of the Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. Fixuture (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support. I use this page a lot for assessing multiple WikiProjects that are not related to the Version 1.0 editorial team. The condition of support is that the page include some mention (preferably near the top) that assessments generated from this scale were developed by and originally purposed for the Version 1.0 editorial team. By removing this subpage from the Version 1.0 team's project page, we risk cutting them off from the rest of the project, so it should be very important to attribute this rating system to them. Icebob99 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for a change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Assessment – It would be good to have an organised project for this. J947 22:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support An organized project sounds good. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support as per Icebob99: As one of the people involved in setting up the assessment system, I accept that it has (I'm glad to say) become much more important than the 1.0 project (which is still going on behind the scenes, but on a smaller scale). It also exists largely independent of the project, though we (usually) help to maintain the bot when it stalls! Walkerma (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems like there is a clear consensus to move, but not the exact title it should go to. Could we get a quick vote on what people would prefer out of WikiProject assessments, WikiProject Assessments, WikiProject assessment, WikiProject Assessment (or some other variant if you want)? I know it's pedantic but I'd prefer to get it right now, rather than having to revisit such a minor issue in the future. Pinging Fixuture, Icebob99, J947, Iazyges, Walkerma. Jenks24 (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The assessment of individual articles should be left up to individual WikiProjects, since they often have specific rating scales for quality and importance, and even if they don't, they sometimes have specific ideas of what constitutes different ratings. I think such a WikiProject should have a relatively small scope, dealing with maintaining the quality scale, answering the questions of different communities related to assessment, and cooperating with the Version 1.0 team. Specific assessment projects could be to assign pages without a WikiProject to a suitable WikiProject. Another topic I think this could cover would be WikiWork factors. I kind of imagine this as being a semi-directory for assessment on Wikipedia which is actively maintained by a few project editors. Thoughts? Icebob99 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As I said in my !vote, I would prefer a change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Assessment. J947 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Good question, however the suggestions with a capital A in Assessment would fail MOS:CAP. --Fixuture (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move—this is a subpage of the "Version 1.0 Editorial Team", and it should stay put unless that team is renaming itself. Imzadi 1979  09:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Walkerma: you mentioned that you were part of the Version 1.0 team, how does the team feel about this proposed change? Icebob99 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Imzadi1979: Well in that case we need a new maintenance page for WikiProject assessments in general. And I don't think that it would be worthwhile to keep them separate. Any info about the historic use / set up of the assessments can be featured in the broader-scoped page on WikiProject assessments in general. Also having two pages would only be confusing - especially as much of this page isn't restricted to the Version 1.0 team's assessments (anymore). --Fixuture (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • One role of this new project, if it comes to fruition, could be to maintain a tracker of the different wiki project standards, likely the largest, and perhaps all active wiki projects, basically a "parity scale" giving a definition and then saying "this definition would make an article b class for x wiki project, and c class for y wiki project. It should also maintain a list of "oddities" for lack of a better word. I.e. How some projects have a "super-stub" or B+, and it should define them, and say what projects use them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Much more ambitiously, it could attempt to form a standardized criteria, and use that criteria to explain all the other classes of projects, I.e. "Meeting criteria 2 and 3 will make the article a start class for wiki project x and y, but it will still be a stub for project z. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: Exactly! There are all sorts of possibilities what could be featured in such a broader page. Criteria-standardization would be one major potential use I see here as well, but it's also other things like info on the use of WikiProject assessments in datamining and on analysis as well as an avenue for relevant discussions, criterias & policies. However it's not a "project" (or "team") − it's no subgroup but an open page with Wikipedia itself at large being the collective to which this feature matters and who is involved in its use, a meta page. --Fixuture (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Iazyges: - I had read the new page to refer to "Assessments done by WikiProjects", not "A new WikiProject that will oversee assessments". If you're proposing a separate WikiProject to oversee assessments, I'm not sure that's really a good idea. You certainly shouldn't start telling WikiProjects how they should do their assessments, or you will be very unpopular with some! (The 1.0 Project has the "right" to do that because we created the scheme, but having laid the framework we let each WikiProject implement it in whatever way they want.) As for the other members of the 1.0 project, I'm actually the main person still active on offline releases (we actually have a rough new collection assembled), but most of my collaborators are not active editors or are on other language Wikipedias. Walkerma (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Walkerma: In no way do I intend it to tell people how to do it, just to track how it is done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That's good - I hadn't thought so, but I wanted to be sure. I'd certainly love to see people using the metadata for things other than us putting selections together, and I'd love to have some people to talk to on these pages! Tracking how people do A-class peer reviews, or how B+ class is used in Maths articles (if it still is!) would be interesting for me and would get my support. Walkerma (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned this and a few other ideas somewhere above, I think these ideas are great. But I'm starting to think that this idea of providing a one-stop shop of WikiProject assessments could fit into the Version 1.0 Team, in which case all the editors interested here could simply join the team. I think this idea of tracking the assessment patterns of other projects fits naturally in with 1.0 anyways. Icebob99 (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Full support for a new updated landing page for wikiproject assessments. Suggest WP:WikiProject assessment as using a capital A would suggest it is actually a project called Assessment, which I don't think is being proposed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – assessing articles has grown beyond WP 1.0 and deserves its own project. Laurdecl talk 20:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Importance / priority[edit]

Is there any plan to use this page to give an overview of importance/priority ratings used by WikiProjects? This is currently tucked away at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

I am thinking this article's assessment should be revised. It should be downgraded to a stub-class article. Not sure it yet qualifies for start-class status. SecretName101 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@SecretName101: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. Please make your comments at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This is embarrassing. Not sure how I did this. Must have accidentally switched windows or something and not noticed before commenting. Clearly this was intended for an article talk page, not this page.SecretName101 (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Aymatth2/Project quality assessment[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Article assessment: the middle ground.
Thanks to contributors to this discussion. I have tried to reflect points made in the essay. Feel free to improve the essay. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am wondering if this essay should be moved up from a user essay to a Wikipedia essay. The main points are that assessments often do not follow the guidelines, articles are often rated too strictly, and there should be more emphasis on C class – good enough for most readers. But it seems a bit long and, perhaps lacks a clear prescriptive focus. Any comments on what should first be changed, added, removed? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your section Importance ratings: inconsistent definitions entirely misses the point about importance ratings. They are not about "how important is it to Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area that there should be an article for this topic" - they are specific to one WikiProject, and it is perfectly legitimate to have an article (such as High Level Bridge) assigned Low importance by WikiProject Trains, yet High importance by WikiProject North East England. Inconsistency is intentional, and is in no way a problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I worded that badly and will fix it. Obviously an article can be more important to one project than another. By "coverage of this subject area" I meant to identify ratings specific to the subject area of a given Wikiproject. The inconsistency is between the {{Importance scheme}} definitions, based on notability with a geographic flavor, and the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria, based on centrality of the topic to the project's subject area. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Not all WikiProjects use {{Importance scheme}}. Some use a definition mentioning what the average Wikipedia reader is likely to look up (e.g. WikiProject China), some refer to release version criteria (e.g. WikiProject Beauty Pageants links to it from {{WikiProject Beauty Pageants}}), some define it relative to a key article related to the WikiProject (e.g. WikiProject Iran). There might be other definitions as well, I just know about these ones since I recently reviewed them for a research project. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I will try to bring out the project-specific criteria more. Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran/Assessment#Importance scale seems quite unique. Clearly these assessments should only be done by project members, but I get the feeling they are often done by other new page patrollers. "Someone from Iran ... not very long ... I'll add it to Wikiproject Iran as stub, low." Aymatth2 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The approach used by WikiProject Iran is not unique. Search for "The article is one of the core topics about" site:en.wikipedia.org in Google (or your favorite search engine that supports domain-specific searches) and you'll quickly find lots of other WikiProjects with a similar definition. To what extent these WikiProjects are still active I do not know. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I imagine there is some ancestral importance scale that has evolved into various divergent families of scales that emphasize different factors. I will use some of your examples. The key point remains that assessments should be done by project members and should follow the relevant criteria. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It's basically the same scale. What we should be indicating is that the various levels of importance mostly use the same names - viz. Top, High, Mid, Low (and NA), but the specific meaning of each name does vary. Some WikiProjects add one or two more below Low, these being Bottom and No (or None). Personally, I think that No/None is redundant: if a WikiProject feels that a given article is totally unimportant, the thing that they should do is to remove the WikiProject banner template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The names are the same, but the criteria are different and could yield different results. I could imagine an untalented singer gaining international notability for her outrageous performances while having little relevance to the music project, or a river in Kent having no international notability but being a "must have" article for the Kent project. The only point is that the reviewer should understand the project-specific criteria when making the assessment. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that two WikiProjects must assess pages in the same way, nor that they must all assign the same importance rating to a given page. I'm saying that the general meaning of e.g. Top-importance is the same: that the specific WikiProject considers it to be a key article; that the general meaning of e.g. Low-importance is the same: that the specific WikiProject considers it to be very minor. If you consider a fairly large WikiProject, say WikiProject Biology, and look at any article talk page that bears the WikiProject's template, there is a link to the project's importance scale. Following this link, we find a table with four rows, one for each rating. These have descriptions which aren't much different from those of other WikiProjects, save for the project name. To illustrate what I mean, imagine a WikiProject for something that is not related to biology, like lemonade. We would have pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Lemonade, Template:WikiProject Lemonade and so on. Consider that four-row table that I just mentioned, replace each instance of the word "Biology" with "Lemonade" - does it become invalid in some way? No: Top importance means "Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for the study of Lemonade, or is particularly notable for their contributions in this area to people other than students of Lemonade. They define and determine the subject of the Lemonade WikiProject." It works quite well: we might consider Lemon or Carbon dioxide to be of top importance to WikiProject Lemonade. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I think we are violently agreeing. Each project has a scale from low to top importance (sometimes with other values) that may be used to prioritise work and measure progress. The criteria are usually given in general terms and would often give the same result, but not always. Ruhollah Khomeini is High importance under the Iran project criteria but could be Top importance if the Iran project followed {{Importance scheme}}. Saying there are different formulas, so if possible project members should do or review the assessments, seems uncontroversial. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't like the emphasis (re quality) on completeness and gaps, rather than depth, detail and quality of referencing. The essay also doesn't address the availability of information, especially in historical subjects where many or most things are just not known at all. I don't really agree that assessments should only be done by project members, even as an ideal. In practical terms this is just a non-starter, imo, though of course they can always be adjusted by project members. I certainly agree with the main thrusts of the essay, though the point that length is not the most important thing could be made more emphatically. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: The second sentence in Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment is "The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors." The scale definitions keep mentioning completeness: "Provides very little meaningful content ... Provides some meaningful content ... would not provide a complete picture ... content may not be complete enough ... A fairly complete treatment". I would see depth and detail as aspects of completeness, The essay also talks about prose quality and technical style aspects like quality of references, pointing out that it may be difficult to decide which is most important. The section on "Sample article" does mention availability of information, saying if there is not much available a short article may be A, and if there is a lot available a long article may be C. The reason for pushing review by project members is that so often the assessment ignores the project quality and importance criteria, and is just an uninformed opinion. It may not be practical, but is worth presenting as an ideal. Let me think about your points though and see if I can tweak the essay. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.