Wikipedia talk:WikiProject assessment/B-Class criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

First draft[edit]

First draft, feel free to tweak wording as necessary. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems from the message from Shepbot that this went live over the US independence day holiday. The differences between the draft and Good Article Criteria seem, at first glance, to be subtle. Is there a checklist of those differences? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Essentially B-Class articles should be 'wannabe GAs' in the same way that A-Class articles are wannabe FAs. In the same way that the GA criteria are watered-down versions of the FA criteria, the B-Class criteria are watered-down versions of the GA ones. In terms of specific differences, here are a few that I can see:
  • Stability is required for GA; this is entirely absent from B
  • Neutrality is required at GA; no mention of this at B
  • "Well written" (GA) verses "reasonably well written" (B)
  • A good general compliance with the MoS is expected at GA, but only a cursory check (mainly of layout and structure issues) is required at B-Class.
Hope this helps. Happymelon 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Versus GA[edit]

It seems the draft B-class criteria include something that not even the GA criteria do: coverage so broad that all major topics are covered. GA does not require this, and an article can pass GA with some material of major significance missing. The GA process will encourage inclusion of the additional material, but the criteria do not require it.

Also, a note on wording for "does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies". I would argue that no article ever contains omissions. If they were contained in the article, then they wouldn't be omissions, now would they? So, QED, every article will automatically pass this criterion as worded.  :) --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut[edit]

A shortcut to the six criteria would be extremely helpful. Bradford44 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox text[edit]

B-class is in many ways the key to the system, so I welcome this page. However I see it says "It should have an infobox where relevant and useful." Can this be changed to "It may have an infobox where relevant and useful." (my emphasis) Infoboxes are generally accepted for quantitative information, but controversial for biographies etc. --Kleinzach 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you put the emphasis elsewhere, and say "It should have an infobox where relevant and useful", it changes the meaning completely, so I don't think this is as important as it might be. Can you show us some examples of B-standard articles without infoboxes? And I still (although I haven't been looking closely) haven't seen any indication of that discussion I asked for however long ago :D. Happymelon 08:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes have been controversial on WP so some editors will think this is important. As for examples . . . almost all the assessments I see now are only nominal. If you want to see a series of B-class articles that have been fully assessed, see Category:B-Class Richard Wagner articles. These don't have infoboxes though they do have navboxes. In practice infoboxes are not appropriate for many articles, just like other ancillary matter. Horses for courses.--Kleinzach 09:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewording (Item 5)[edit]

I'd like to suggest this:

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

Best. --Kleinzach 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the point of changing the wording—the older version indicates that images and infoboxes are just examples of supporting materials that WikiProjects may consider appropriate. If an infobox is inappropriate in an article, then the B-Class criteria don't require it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with your interpretation, but it's not what the text says. The text prioritizes the infobox both in bold and in the text below. My text above doesn't do this. I realize it's a bit of a bore to have other people pick over your sentences, however B-class is key to the system and it's better have a text with neutral nuances. --Kleinzach 04:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've now added the 'tweak' to the text as suggested. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does the revised wording say that illustrations are not required, yet diagrams and infoboxes are? Sandpiper (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
An interesting point. Perhaps we should rephrase to something like Relevant and useful supporting items, such as images and infoboxes, are encouraged, but not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think one sentence would be better, but slightly reworded to avoid ambiguity: Relevant and useful supporting items, such as illustrations, diagrams and infoboxes, are encouraged, but not required. --Kleinzach 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Does that actually improve clarity? Can you give any example of an illustration or a diagram on Wikipedia that is not an image? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, from experience I know that some people on WP think an image is a photograph. That's why I avoid using the word. --Kleinzach 23:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia:Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia #6. I'd rather educate the ignorant than make this sound like it applies to everything except photographs (which is what I think "illustrations and diagrams" will do). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Let's say: Relevant and useful supporting items (such as diagrams, illustrations, infoboxes and photographs) are encouraged, but not required. --Kleinzach 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That's rather at odds with the bold summary, which explicitly states that such materials should be included. Aren't we really trying to say "it should have X, Y and Z where appropriate, but no individual component is mandatory"? I like the new definition of "supporting items", but changing the wording from "... should be included where useful and relevant" makes the criterion essentially useless: it sets no objective requirements. How about The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Diagrams, illustrations, infoboxes, photographs and other content should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. ?? Happymelon 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That would also be fine by me. --Kleinzach 00:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me. Images are not required for B class articles. An article can have exactly zero supporting items and still qualify for this status. Images are not even required for GA class; how could we possibly say that they "should" (which rapidly turns into "must") be present to qualify as B class? It would be pretty silly to have an article that meets GA but doesn't meet B class simply because there are no relevant images available. B class requirements need to be clearly lower than GA class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Er, GA#6?? "A good article is illustrated, if possible, by images"?? I agree that we're implying that the criterion is subject to the media being available, when we should make this explicit. A B-Class article should contain any available media that are appropriate and useful; an absence of media because there are none uploaded should not disqualify an article, but not using media that are available should. Or should it? Where on the scale do we want to place this requirement? Happymelon 18:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
See footnote 6: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided."
Your suggestion here is so similar to this footnote as to not be materially different. I think we should "encourage" (perhaps even "strongly encourage"), but specifically not require such supporting materials. Pretty much, I think that we must specifically not require these materials on the grounds that GA specifically does not require these materials. B class articles need to have obviously lower requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

5 or 6 criteria?[edit]

Has there been a recent expansion from 5 to 6 criteria? If so, what is the strategy for implementing this project-/template-wide? I followed a wikilink on the {{WikiProject Iran}} template which only supports 5 criteria and I would have expected at least a mention of this discrepancy on this page as well as instructions for dealing with it. __meco (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that there has been any real change to this since August. Am I missing something? --Kleinzach 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That WPB seems to support six b-checklist parameters to me. Happymelon 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1[edit]

This sentence from criterion 1 confuses me: "The use of neither <ref> tags nor citation templates such as {{cite web}} is required." It seems that there should not be any <ref> tags or citation templates. Could this be reworded in order to make it less confusing? Bulldog talk da contribs go rando 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Better now? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
That was quick. Thank you! Bulldog talk da contribs go rando 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm still confused.... What is required? In order to satisfy B class, do any and all ref tags need to be removed completely? If they cannot exist in B class articles, then what should be in their place? It might be good to just have it read, "ref tags and citation templates are prohibited". Thanks. DavidBoudreau (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@DavidBoudreau: No, where it says "The use of neither <ref> tags nor citation templates such as {{cite web}} is required." doesn't mean that <ref>...</ref> and {{cite web}} are prohibited, it means that they are optional. Various methods exist for referencing, and Wikipedia does not favour any one style over another. It so happens that one of the most popular styles uses templates like {{cite web}} enclosed in <ref>...</ref>, so some people believe these to be mandatory - but they're not. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Redrose64- I was worried I'd have to redo a lot of citations. In any case, I still think the criteria could be expressed more clearly, for what it's worth. Maybe, as you explained, "The use of ref tags and/or citation templates such as cite web are optional, but not required." DavidBoudreau (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at some featured articles - particularly those that have been Today's Featured Article recently (lists for March 2014 and April 2014). Featured Article is a somewhat higher standard than B-class, so if any given referencing style is OK for FA, it's bound to be acceptable for B-Class. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Redrose64-- all the more reason to express the B class criteria more clearly on this page's explanation. :) (FA would be great! Not sure I'm quite up to that standard just yet, though.) DavidBoudreau (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Link to B-Class examples?[edit]

Is there a way to find or search examples of B-class articles? --Elisunshine01 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:B-Class articles has nearly 2000 subcategories. Everything in those should be B-Class. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Hello, friends. This is probably my first contribution to 1.0, since having just discovered it. I would like to add to the WP:BCLASS document, the B class checklist template as seen at Template:WikiProject_Technology. It should be as easy as possible, for a B candidate to track its work in progress, and to prove to future editors how an existing B class is warranted and maintained. As with Wikipedia 1.0 itself, it's impossible to find unless you already know what it is and what it's called. I stumbled on both *far* *far* too tragically late in my editing lifetime. Even though I knew what it was, I searched throughout the night for it and finally found this document when I searched for "wikipedia b class criteria" until I recalled the specific word "checklist". This should be displayed on the article of, and explicitly supported in the banner of, every WikiProject template — as well as every article Talk page — on Wikipedia. The journey from stub to C isn't very far, and it's a hop/skip/jump to B if the subject is notable and the editors are made aware that it's there for the taking. Furthermore, I'm perfectly aware of its existence, but I keep forgetting the criteria! Thank you for everything you do.

<!-- B-Class checklist --> <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1= <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2= <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3= <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4= <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5= <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=

Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why the checklist at Template:WikiProject Technology should be added here. Each WikiProject formulates their own criteria, e.g. see Template:WikiProject Germany/doc. The one at this page is for the specific purpose of Wikipedia 1.0 (which may or may not be alive). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: ...huh? It's the same thing we already have. But in a utility-formatted manner. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of references[edit]

What would be a suitable minimum number of references a B-class article should contain? --JorisvS (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I know there is not a hard-and-fast rule, but criterion 1 does read "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations." [emphasis mine]. What about an article that has everything accompanied by inline citations, but only uses five different sources? --JorisvS (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@JorisvS: As I understand it, the guideline for creating an article or for C class is at least three RSes. It would seem that you'd want your five sources to be definite and different RSes with substantial coverage. Some RSes are big books or magazine articles. Five reliable sources is a lot, if it actually covers all of a significant amount of encyclopedic content. What's the article? — Smuckola(talk) 16:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990. --JorisvS (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@JorisvS: Wow, that's amazing. It has well more than three reliable-looking sources, I magically assume those sources are really impressively deep in content coverage, and they are thoroughly cited inline, so it seems suitably referenced to me. As a passerby who knows nothing of the subject to actually verify any of these assumptions, the article looks very impressive and meets the overall verbal description of the goals of B status. I've found those verbal goals to be very helpful overall, in creating outer boundaries in situations like this where I'm not sure about the inner boundaries. I can't find at the moment where those are listed, but it's a big colored table at some Wikiproject like Technology or Military History. I wish there was someone more expert than me to comment on this for you. Are you disputing or advocating the B status? — Smuckola(talk) 06:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Its feel was already better than C class, but it only had five references, which is not terribly much and had me wondering if that's enough. It has recently gotten three more, though, so now it's clear it's B class. In fact, it has been nominated for GA to see whether it gets that far and (especially if not) what feedback it gets. --JorisvS (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@JorisvS: Wow. That's the most extensive article about the quickest flash of "nothing" that I've ever seen. ;) Good job. — Smuckola(talk) 16:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)