Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

What do you use the article class statistics for?[edit]

It looks like extensive metrics on the number of articles in the project and each article classification have been collected since 2006. Just out of curiosity, does anyone from the group use those metrics for anything related to the project? - Michael (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes :) Hekerui (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Right. And what do you use them for? - Michael (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, mainly for maintenance and finding articles. I recently checked Ravi Shankar, which was among the B Class musician bio articles, against the criteria of that class and found it lacking, so I changed its assessment. However, I was interested in that topic anyway, so I improved the article (then - now) and now its properly placed in that class - and a better article. However, the assessments are really not merely for group members. Providing other users with an assessment of their work is helpful for them in working on articles, especially when one leaves commentary (is it perhaps also a motivation to reach "next level"?). Articles are frequently listed here, try out assessing one, you'll often find interesting articles and can help other/often newer users. In general, categorization makes article subjects more accessible by providing users a set of articles on a similar topic, and Wikiprojects work the same way, only differentiated by quality and "importance", also giving an overview of the general progress for topics and articles (check this for an example how this is applied recently). Also, they are working well with the good article and featured article processes. Hekerui (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, they're even more useful than I thought. For some reason wikipedia has a reputation as an uncontrollable, anything goes, community and it's becoming more and more obvious everyday to me that this isn't the case. Using metrics to assess the status of something and understand what requires attention is something most businesses can't figure out even when people are paid to do it! Thanks for your insights, very cool. - Michael (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes Michael, the concept of article statistics is both interesting and useful. Here in the WikiProject Biography there is a bit of an issue of overwhelming amount of articles - with many unassessed, but it does aid to focus and motivate people at the very least. I'd like to see the Biography assessment upto the level of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Assessment_statistics at some point, where you can for example quickly see all the B-Class Top articles. Of course I'm motivated to do that but realise not everyone has that as a motivating point, thus we are all different and add something to the project. SunCreator (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

180,972 unassessed articles? Xenobot Mk V can help![edit]

If this is something you want to take advantage of, please let me know below or by clicking here. –xenotalk 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good and is needed but I'm afraid to push the button, if I understand correctly the bot would work on all articles? An action of such a scale and a non-revertible one, that's a big impact. Hekerui (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Well everything is revertible =) The bot can take specific orders; for example, if the Bio project only wants to do step a), or wants a more restrictive step b). I think the importance gig (c) is not possible for a project this wide in scope.
If you have any suggestions on how the matter should be approached, please do let me know and others who are active in this project can say yea or nay. –xenotalk 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me, though I would prefer to wait until your proposed changes to {{WPBannerMeta}} are implemented and/or this project's banner is updated (hopefully that will be sooner rather than later). In the meantime, I do have a few questions. Regarding point (a), would the bot also check for {{GA}} or an article's status in {{ArticleHistory}}? Likewise, would the bot also be able to detect dab pages and redirects? PC78 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
GA is usually available as inherited quality, but I can certainly tell the bot to also look for article history (thanks for the tip).
The bot can detect redirects and can detect disambigs if it has a {{disambiguation}} template. –xenotalk 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I am running task "a)" (which is non-controversial, and already conducted per |auto=yes) while I wait for more input about task (b). –xenotalk 02:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objection to borrowing the rating given by other projects to tag WP:BIOG articles. Just to let you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection either, WP:1.0/A says "Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope." so the quality should be the same regardless of project. There's only one article after all. Hekerui (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'm going to go ahead with the 'default' confidence levels listed above, unless anyone wants me to be more discerning. –xenotalk 13:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
How is the bot getting along regarding task (a)? PC78 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Past the Richards... See User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests#WP:BIOGRAPHY for more details. –xenotalk 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
About 40,000 so far then. Nice! :) PC78 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Task running... going ahead with the inheritance using default settings noted above. [7] Any objections just edit the bot's talk page and it will stop editing. –xenotalk 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • About halfway thru "H" so far. Just FYI for A-E (27,713 pages), 5,848 edits were made. So for the 126,511 pages that will be processed, I estimate between 25 and 30,000 will be assessed via inheritance, which should bring the unassessed article backlog below 100k. –xenotalk 15:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Task complete 80,069 edits. I was hoping the category would fall below 100k, but there's about 500 or so to go. =) –xenotalk 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Wohoo! Hekerui (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you've managed to get about 80,000 assessments done. That's not an acheivement to be sniffed at. :) PC78 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Finding unambiguous stubs[edit]

To help assist in removing the backlog of unassessed articles, I think it would be of benefit if the project banner did a PAGESIZE check on the article and pick out those that should almost certainly be regarded as Stub-Class. Granted, PAGESIZE has certain limitations (it can't distinguish between plain text and infobox code, for example), but if the threshold was set low enough (1,500 bytes, say) then the results should generally be unambiguous. I've looked at the first fifty articles in Category:Unassessed biography articles, and those that are less than 1,500 bytes in size are:

All of these are clear cut Stub-Class articles, and having a subcategory of such articles to work through could make the overall backlog more manageable. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

class=stub|auto=size should be used (or something)... And then a category should be created so that editors from this project or WP:WSS can go thru and add appropriate stub templates to the articles. (N.B. Yusup Abdusalomov will be tagged in Xenobot's current run because it has a stub template). Will have to watch out for redirects and dab pages. –xenotalk 17:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking that a bot could be used to work through the category; if the above is a representative cross section of the unassessed articles, then this could account for about 25% of the total. PC78 (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thinking out loud, perhaps a similar check would be useful for stub templates, i.e. to detect articles that are over a certain size which probably shouldn't be tagged as stubs? PC78 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
More difficult to find the right threshold, but yea, wouldn't hurt to run a report. –xenotalk 02:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've pulled this list from the toolserver before xeno's bot gives them all inherited assessments. These articles all fall under the 1,500 bytes threshold and are rated Start-Class by other projects. They should be checked for false positives, though I'm inclined to think that most just have over generous assessments. PC78 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some code that will place these into a maint_cat? –xenotalk 20:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be beyond the limits of what a template could do, I'm afraid (I'm 99% sure about that, anyway). I'll try and have a proper look at that list over the weekend, but the first half dozen or so look like clear cut stubs to me. PC78 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking through them all right now. Wizardman 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. I had to fix a couple that went to redirects or dab pages (where the other article was start-class, so the assesment wasn't wrong) but otherwise they were all stubs, though a couple were borderline. Wizardman 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose you recall which ones you thought were borderline? Category:Unassessed biography articles smaller that 1,500 bytes (sic) contains 18,000+ articles, so if we're going to go ahead and give them all Stub-Class assessments I'd rather err on the side of caution and lower the threshold. PC78 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Two that I remember, due to the referencing and the time period, were Nefertari (18th dynasty) and Tiaa (princess). Giovanni Carlo Maria Clari was tempting to rate start as well. Those were the only three though, and all are above 1,400 bytes. Wizardman 00:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A well-referenced stub is still a stub. I wouldn't rate any of those Start-Class, personally. PC78 (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, rather than having a bot go thru and put in class=stub|auto=size, why not just have the template automatically assign it the stub rating? –xenotalk 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? Hekerui (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If the article is less than 1500 bytes and unassessed, it would automatically have the rating of "stub". Thinking about it more though, I'm not sure if this would work tho due to dab pages and lists. –xenotalk 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help in assessment of a new article[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure whether or not this is the proper procedure – in case it is, please help me in assessing Ruslan Sirota (my first article on WP). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hekerui (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure if this is the right place to put a suggestion, but here goes. In the Jule Gregory Charney article, he is said to be the "father of modern dynamical meteorology." Perhaps "dynamical meteorology" is the right term. Please check. I thought that the "ical" ending on a word was redundant, as both -ic and -al mean "pertaining to." Would Mr. Charney not better be called "the father of modern dynamic meteorology"? -- Carla Vornheder — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Laura vs. Laura[edit]

Wikipedia and imdb have an actress called either Laura Allen or Laura Harris down as 2 different people with seperate cast credits for diffent movies but they are soooooo the same person! i have tried amending this but someone keeps undoing it and its sort of something that i really want done now because its annoying me at this stage and its also the first time i've seen wikipedia contradict itself which looks bad for us and i want people to know they can trust our information because wikipedia is the best system of collected information i have ever seen so can we please gang bang this thing and make it happen?

Thanks guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

At least their articles say they have different birth dates. That would make them being the same person impossible. Do you have a reliable source that contradicts one article and states that they are the same person? Hekerui (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting assessment of a re-written article[edit]

Hello, I've just substantially added to the stub for the Italian artist, Pietro Paolo Agabiti. Is it still a stub? He was only a minor artist and probably doesn't deserve any more than he now has - perhaps an example of one of his works, but nothing more. Bastianello (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the article Rajesh Touchriver has been rewritten after it got tagged in May. Could someone please help and reassess it now? Again, it's my first attempt on wiki, learning the ropes and have tried my best to calibrate it with similar articles like the one on Aparna Sen. (Santishi7 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

You can list the article here. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - listed as suggested (Santishi7 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Betsy Boze entry[edit]

Could someone take a look at the Betsy Boze entry? It is tagged with a "start" on the quality scale, but it doesn't say when it was tagged. I think it might qualify for a higher class.

Thank you. Jheditorials (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nadia Ali[edit]

Could someone please review the Nadia Ali article again? I've updated it, it's been labelled as 'start' but for a non-mainstream artist with limited info available in general, it has a fair bit of information. Thanks 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan514 (talkcontribs)

Yes check.svg Done, rated as C-class. Acather96 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article about alexander marcus[edit]


I've just read the english article about the german artist "alexander marcus" after I've read the german article. In my opinion, the english article does not clearly say that alexander marcus is NOT an actual existing person but a fiction figure created by the music producer felix rennefeld!

So please overwork the article! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

suggestions/questions on grading[edit]

1. Have the example articles (for B, C, etc.) link to diffs, NOT to live articles (for example even in August 2008, the article had many versions) and for sure, now that we are 2 years further down an article could be much better (or sadly, worse)!

2. I think there should be a place (visible) where it shows the date of the rating (and probably link to a diff as well). This can motivate an editor to ask for a re-rating, etc. and also help create more of a consensus on the "grades". As it is now, a viewer, may look at an article's grade and if it is "off", then the whole concept of the inherent grade becomes more confusing and disparate.

3. I think someone writing an indepth explanation of how he voted some articles (iedally whoever the best grader is). Would be in the form of an essay of course, not policy. But would be useful to others to understand the thought process involved in the grading and to help others to develop the same facility of the best grader. Speaking of which, who would you say that is? (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Biography Assessment for Andrea Elizabeth Michaels[edit]

Could someone please look at the above entry. It's been written and edited several times. It has almost 50 references and links to and from 3 other articles. Yet, it has been tagged as a Stub lacking in links to other articles and labeled a conflict of interest. All of the statements in the article have been supported by other sources. While I understand that this is a living person and that I know her, I have based what I wrote on actual facts taken from other sources. I have also added or edited articles for Tommy Walker and Robert Jani and Event Planning because I felt this was a category sorely lacking on Wikipedia. I need to know what I can do to get the multiple tags removed from the beginning of this article and would truly appreciate assistance. I've been working on this one entry for months now trying to resolve the issues. I'm not getting paid to do this, so I'm not sure why it is a conflict of interest. This woman is famous in her industry and deserves a Wikipedia entry as do her deceased associates Tommy Walker and Robert Jani (who have both been accepted without problems into Wikipedia.) I welcome anyone to edit or add to this entry. Thank you. Cmckibben (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Biography Assessment for Maija Vilkkumaa[edit]

Hi, I removed that from the stub category. Could someone please re-assess the article? -- Frous (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the article to the assessment request list. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Assistance[edit]

I am writing to request the assistance of my fellow Wikipedians in clearing a backlog on the WikiProject assessment requests list dating back to last February. Within the past few months, I have apparently become one of the few Wikipedians to continue actively using that list through the submission of new requests, and the removal of assessed requests submitted either by me or other users. At this point, the list predominently consists of requests submitted by me, or requests submitted by other users which I am not sure how to assess, which is why I am posting this request for assistance from my fellow Wikipedians. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Who rates the articles?[edit]

Who rates an article's quality scale? JC Rules! (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For stubs, starts, C-, and B-class, anyone who can read and follow the directions on this page is welcome to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment request[edit]

If possible, could some one take a look at the following list of articles and determine if any of them should be assessed as Bs? I've self assessed most of the ones on the list as Cs because they are fully cited, have between 5 and 20 citations each, have sections and the prose isn't that bad. Given the topic, some of the articles are probably close to being complete as they will get. I'm just uncomfortable doing it myself as I've been the major contributor. Thanks! --LauraHale (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment required[edit]

I improved the start-class article on Cornelius Rost, the real life person in the famous German novel and film So weit die Füße tragen (As far as my feet will carry me). Can someone be so kind to review it for at least a possible C? Thanks and regards--Bylot (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael F. Holick[edit]

Dear Wikipedia-Community, the article Michael F. Holick has been rated as "Start Class" article. I think it has improved significantly and is still about to improve, so I'd like to ask you to reassess the article and help and make suggestions to bring its quality to the next level. Thanks for your help in advance, --Matthias3110 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Worthiness/Relevance of a Biography[edit]

Does anyone know if there is any standard for the worthiness or relevance of a biography on Wikipedia? If so, then where can I find this posted? I see many requests for assessment here, as well as assistance; but it seems mostly having to do with development, tagging and so on. Every now and then I happen to come across a biography that I really question if it has true worthiness and relevance on WIkipedia; or, that is, if it happens to be someone's idea for self-promotion and/or the like. In other words, do we really have a standard by which to judge if a person is worthy of having a biography here, aside from a basic template of what it should include? In a few conversations on this page, I see people assessing the length, wordiness and such of an article, but that's not necessarily worthiness. After all, even if a so-called biography seems to have lots of wordiness, citation and links to other articles, do we have a system to determine if the biography is appropriate or whether it's just an advertisement, a list and citation of secondary or less significant sources, an attempt at self-promotion, an inflated ego trip, etc. It's important to get the facts right on someone's life, but actual worthiness can be an altogether different topic. In fact, it leads to the point of whether or not the article should even exist, as well as whether or not editors should even bother with it in the first place. I have often ignored such articles myself, but then I realized how ridiculous this could become and how much useless clutter and distraction it creates... among other things. A person doesn't have to be total hoaxer or fraud, as there are also just these simple cases of bad judgement, ego and maybe foolishness. As such articles and biographies collect and the practice is ignored, it practically leans that way anyway. So, it has become a concern of mine, after allCa.papavero (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. General questions about biography issues are handled on the main WikiProject Biography talk page. This page is mainly for questions about assessments. What I think you are referring to is the notability of the subject. The Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline would be a good place to start, but the key principle to remember is that if there are reliable third party sources to support the article content then there is usually little reason to delete them. Road Wizard (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Jane Yolen downgrade needed[edit]

For Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature only, I have downgraded Jane Yolen from C to Start --with some explanation, Talk: Jane Yolen#Assessment. The B grade for WP Biography dates from August 2007 ([8] and baffles me). The two-year-old Children's lit "C" may have been derived from that "B"; it's a little daunting to differ from the venerable Biography project by two grades. I have now done it --with this notice to you. --P64 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If it was last assessed in 2007 then the only problem is that it is a little out of date. The B-class criteria were rewritten in 2008 and a new C-class was added. If you think the current version of the article is Start-class then you are welcome to amend the Biography banner as well. If you would like a second opinion on the assessment though I can take a look at it when I get back from work. Road Wizard (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. In the future I'll amend Biography banners in the Stub/Start/C range, where that seems obvious. --P64 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to update them whenever you like. We have over 1 million assessments to maintain so any help that dedicated projects can provide is welcome. Road Wizard (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Minimum requirements for a C class[edit]

I read the guidelines: «The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.» For example this article meets the requirements. Is correct? It is useless to be told, "Look this other is a Class C ', because to be an article of 5th level (not FA, not GA, not A and not B) is SUFFICIENT comply with the guidelines --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is practically no content in this article, only four sentences and a table. This is between Stub and Start-Class if you ask me. I'm not sure I understand your question, though, what do you want to know exactly? Hekerui (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Essentially, I went and changed several C-class rated articles on Italian athletes to Start Class (which is arguably generous for some of these), several of which (Talk:Claudia Testoni, Talk:Valeria Straneo, Talk:Luigi Facelli) were reverted back to C-class by Kasper2006. Rather than get into an edit war, I stopped changing the ratings for similar articles and suggested that we bring the current batch here to get a third-party assessment, although I originally intended for this to be brought up at "requests for assessment" rather than the project talk page. So Kasper2006's question basically boils down to whether or not those three articles (and, by association, similar ones) are C-class or not. Canadian Paul 20:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Those are all easily start class. C-class requires more substantial content like Laurent Blanc, Carlos Sainz, Walter Johnson or Shizuka Arakawa. I ran a page size tool on each of the articles you mentioned: Claudia Testoni has 0.98kb of prose, Valeria Straneo has 0.99kb and Luigi Facelli has just 0.88kb. The only things keeping them above stub class are the structure and added content provided by the infoboxes and tables. The exact borderline between start and C is a little subjective, but a non-list article with less than a kb of prose is nowhere near the level of C class. Road Wizard (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I get back to the decisions of the community, that is to comply with the guidelines. The current situation is as follows:

  • B class: Víctor Castillo, Priscah Jepleting Cherono, Martha Cooksey, Slobodan Branković (athletics) (no infobox, no photo), Dawn Burrell (short, no infobox, no achievements), Brittany Borman. I stop at the letter C of the biographies, not examine either the "C class" because it was already so Luigi Facelli is 100 times complete as article. Therefore I read on the guidelines:
  • Stub: A very basic description of the topic.
  • Start: An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
  • C class: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
  • B class: The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
  • GA: The article has attained good article status.
  • A class. The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
  • FA: he article has attained featured article status.

Guys, Luigi Facelli will be at least the 5th article from below? If a student takes an "E" at school is not happy is not it? In addition, the description of the requirements of the "C class" leaves no doubt. It is perfectly useless to say: "Look, this is a" class C "or this is a" start "." Because I have shown that there are plenty of B that are really little. Do not look at the examples, look to the guidelines. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am looking to the guidelines. 4 paragraphs of text equating to 0.88kb of prose is not substantial for any biography. There is a lot more you can write about a person. Where was he educated? When did he start his sports career? Where did he train and did he have a trainer? Is his performance at four different Olympics only worth half a sentence? Did he have a family? Did he train any other athletes after retirement (and were they notable)? Why is his death not mentioned in the prose? The article is only a Start. Road Wizard (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
As an example for the 1924 Olympics, you can say he reached the quarter-finals of the 400 metres, the semi-finals of the 400 metres hurdles and the final of the 400 metres relay. Instantly you have turned one point included in half a sentence into its own separate sentence. Assessments should not be seen as a reward or punishment for the editors involved in the article but rather a prompt to show you where to improve. Road Wizard (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No. For me "prose" and kb of the section "biography" it is not primary. It's more important:
  1. A complete infobox (with all pb);
  2. A photo;
  3. A complete "Achievemetes" section;
  4. References;
  5. "See also";
  6. All the categories right;
  7. Good "External links";
  8. Navigational templates;
  9. All personal data complete;
  10. And stll, for athletes, "Record" section, "Progression" section and "National championships" section.
As I showed above, often many items do not complete all these sections, 4 lines of prose in the biography and pretend to be a B class. In my country we say: «Do not stop to look at the speck, otherwise you do not see the beam.» ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be quite firm in your opinion there. 3 editors disagree with your assessments but you just brush off our comments as not relevant. I have also offered you specific suggestions on how to improve one article, which is the key purpose of assessments. If you are not interested in debate or suggestions for improving the articles, are you willing to respect consensus? Road Wizard (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
We have a misunderstanding. I'm going to respect the "diktat" of the community, God forbid. Your advice is VERY IMPORTANT for me instead, because it made me realize that JUST ENOUGH to get a "B class" it is useless to engage, as I do, to provide data and statistical encyclopedic, simply write four nonsense of biography . And we remember that every article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. ;--Kasper2006 (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)-)
Ah, I see. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said. Would you be happy for me to change the rating on each of the articles mentioned to Start class? If so, I will leave some suggestions on each talk page on the types of information you can add to improve the article. Road Wizard (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Since there has been no objection to Road Wizard's offer, I've gone ahead and reverted to Start Class. Thanks to everyone for their input. Canadian Paul 17:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't agree with Road Wizard and Canadian Paul. Two users are very few because they can change the rules of the community, which literally read as follows: «C class: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup» Because I'm a brave I run these 11 steps that lead an article to B class and I requested a peer review exercise to the community for the article Luigi Facelli. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, no one is "changing the rules of the community". We are trying to give you an informed view of how the rating process for articles works based on our experience with the project. For another thing, there are three users opposed to list these articles above a start class, as Hekerui responded to your post initially, and you are the only one suggesting otherwise. Finally, when you agree to come to have third parties resolve a dispute, it's a sign of bad faith to continually revert the dispute to the way you prefer it, especially when no one has yet to agree with you (I waited over a week to change to the consensus, to give a fair opportunity to continue the discussion). I won't revert it again, pending the outcome of the peer review. Canadian Paul 16:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Dammit, I hit the submit key by accident during my last edit summary. What I meant to say is that even though it is arguably disruptive forum shopping, I'll just not bother with commenting on the peer review, because the end result can only improve the article, which is what I am sure we all want anyways. But if the article does not end up as a B-Class (or even a C-class) article, you need to accept and abide by that. Canadian Paul 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
OK sorry, three not two, but the question is the same: «C class: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup» Perfect for the rest, I agree waiting for the results of PPV...and of course I will accept decision. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My rating of this article[edit]

I rate your article a B. Good luck, I hope it stays. God Bless Jason West Jones (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for reassessment of stub-article?[edit]

Hello! I have expanded the article on the executioner Franz Schmidt quite considerably, should it perhaps be re-assessed to Start-class? Arildnordby (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Upgrading an article to Start-class is in most cases non-controversial. Go ahead and do it! I doubt anyone will complain. You are right the article is no longer a stub. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I feel somewhat iffy about patting my own back, but since you agree that such an upgrading would be unproblematical, I'll do it.

Arildnordby (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Aaron[edit]

Hi. I've been doing some work in this article, and I need feedback, but it's not really a matter of re-assessment because I didn't actually change the article content (other than one uncited ref, that appeared to be meant as further reading on a paid site where I couldn't track it down).

The changes I made were to formatting, layout, and article linking, and I'd like to verify that the way it is now fits in with 'best practice' of how to setup Bio articles before I do anything similar to others. The way it was before I changed things is here. [9]

My intention is to try to use the ODNB Index as a checklist, and work on making sure that the ODNB (and DNB if appropriate) are included (in Further Reading if not cited) with the appropriate posters and such. I know the DNB people are working on this, but from a different angle, and many of the articles are missing stuff similar to what I tried to fix here.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to be watching this page, and the last significant edits were a couple of years ago by inactive people, which is why I'm bringing it up here. Thanks. Revent (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Maula Shah[edit]

This article is currently in the backlog for the Guild of Copy Editors, but it would benefit greatly from the touch of a biographer(s) familiar with Pakistan. Currently, I believe that cultural barriers in the poor translation make the text almost utterly incomprehensible. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Jodayagi (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

British Biographical Index[edit]

I have just recently checked out of my university library the British Biographical Index, 1990 edition. Full text to the most recent 2008 edition is available online (apparently in a PDF format) at a charge. The most recent 2008 edition is expanded from 330,000 entries to 420,000 and apparently covers much more of the 20th century. I was wondering if Wikipedia already has the entries (redlinks and all) indexed somewhere on it or how I might be able to find out? If it does not have it indexed, I would like to create an index that all of Wikipedia can use so that Wikipedia editors can create articles for the redlinks. As I am unsure where is best to post this message, I have also posted it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Thank you.Hoops gza (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hit-and-run request[edit]

Not terribly attached to this WikiProject, but thought I should mention; as it stands now, the Old revision for Julian Myerscough is broken, as the page has been deleted. That was the example of a "stub-class" article. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We need a new Stub-class example. I would like to see one that's almost Start-class. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of inserting a new stub example which is very brief but has some sourcing, so at least something useful is there. 1bandsaw (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Frank Iacobucci[edit]

Frank Iacobucci is probably best known in Toronto now for his report “Police Encounters with People in Crisis,” released on July 24, 2014. This report is not mentioned on his page, which was last revised in March 2014.Mathyeti (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Linda Hoyle[edit]

Linda Hoyle is currently rated as Stub-Class. Please could this be reviewed. Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

John Fullbright[edit]

I believe the stub class rating no longer applies to John Fullbright and am unclear as to how to have the article reviewed and reclassified. I am hoping someone here can assist. Thank you. Kmzundel (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Importance rather than priority[edit]

In assessing BLP articles on English Wikipedia, could it be that the use as per policy of "Priorty" (good idea, as I see it) rather than "Importance" (bad idea, as I see it) only pertains to biographies of people mainly notable in the English-speaking world, but not to those who are not? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I would think, in answer to the second question, that the number and variety and degree of coverage of the entire world, including the non-English speaking world, in most of the major comprehensive reference works of biography would make the answer "no." Having looked at a lot of such reference works, I would have to say that I have seen nothing in any of them yet which leads me to think that a figure of significant global historical importance might be covered in foreign language works, but not in English language works, just like I would say that the lack of "Top" importance or other high importance ratings to individuals from say, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, American Samoa, or other English language areas which have had comparatively little global historical importance is an indicator of systemic bias against those areas. I acknowledge that to date the assessment criteria have been made often on a less thorough examination than I would like, and that's actually one of the reasons I'm trying to gather together the sources for the Bibliography of encyclopedias and other related pages, but it is always possible for someone to request a reassessment for both quality and priority/importance and, if necessary, provide evidence why you think the existing assessment should be changed. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me for not being clear enough! It seems to me that it is established policy to use "Priority", not "Importance", in assessing biographical articles on English WP. Can that policy, which I strongly feel is a very good one, especially in assessing BLPs, be overriden by editors who habitually assess mainly articles about persons mostly active in non-English speaking cultures and thus always use "Importance (not "Priority") in doing so? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The background of the question asked by SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) is that he seems to take offense at the terminology "importance" combined with the word "low" when applied to project assessments of biographies of some people. To be more specific, it concerns assessements done for WP:Sweden, not for WPBiography. I have no wish to have very strong opinions on how WPBiography does its assessments, but I would like to point out that it would seem to go against Wikipedia:Systemic bias to make a difference between biographies of different nationalities. Any importance assessment for any one project is of course only a relative assessment for internal use within that project, though. Tomas e (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have a problem of an increasingly serious nature here. Having noticed that Tomas e assesses a huge amount of biographies as "Importance: Low" (hardly ever anything else) I questioned that on his talk page. He did not reply to the questions I asked him, but wrote at length about other things, and he finally deleted this from that discussion and banned me from his page:
  • Thank you! Being constructive, I respectfully suggest that you need to read up on policy re: importance assessments more than I do. Comparing what's there to your edit history, it looks to me like you habitually disregard much of what's policy, when you make your huge amount of personal/arbitrary assessments of "importance" on all those BLPs, deciding practically alone the "importance" to English WP readers of hundreds of life stories about various Swedes in all walks of life. You may want to stop that. I'll be keeping an eye on it, since I find it foolish of me to contribute such articles if I don't, and if you delete this last comment of mine here on ths subject [as he had threatened to do above] , there may come a time when I'll have to use that against you. Fair warning!
Partly as I have clarified above, my main concerns are now three:
  1. One of the first things any reader sees when visiting the talk page of one of those many biographies is that that life story has been rated as of low importance, all those ratings however having been done arbitrarly by a person who is not qualified to pass judgement on them, neither as to the importance of the person nor as a valid assessment for internal use within that project.
  2. Such readers are not familiar with anything like "a relative assessment for internal use within that project"; all they see is what reasonably looks to them like a devaluation of the subject person, which is why our main guideline is not to use "Importance" but to use "Pritory" for biographies.
  3. User Tomas e apparently wishes to ignore that main guideline and is even willing to engage in what is beginning to amount to edit warring in order to be left alone as the powerful judge of all those biographies. I'm having a very hard time finding WP:GF in that after all these years of watching it go on and on, having written to him about it as early as 5 years ago.
I may yet have something to learn here, but I have done my best to correctly interpret policy and have reacted accordingly. Can one start an RfC on this page? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Few readers visit Talk pages.[according to whom?] If those few visitors commonly misinterpret the nature of Talk pages, then we should address that general problem.

By the way, I see no difference between importance and priority here and thus cannot imagine supporting the "-priority" parameter names strongly. --P64 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please try to be familiar with our commendable guideline which says we are to use "Priority" not "Importance" for biographies. Unless you get the guideline changed, that's we have to follow. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, your statements on the way I make assessments of biographies versus other categories of articles for WP:Sweden are factually incorrect. You should be fully aware of this if you had bothered to check through e.g. works of art or biographies, or read my replies. Furthermore, it would probably be more relevant to discuss assessments specifically for that project at its talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not at all factually incorrect in that a very large part of your work on English Wikipedia has been to assess hundreds if not thousands of life stories of Swedes in all walks of life, about most of whom you have no expertise of any kind, as "Importance: Low" although our guideline clearly states that that is not a good idea. You are under no obligation to do that, yet that very extensive work of yours, which I see as exceptionally destructive, has gone on for many years and apparently is never to going stop, not even when being criticized and discussed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Link to unassessed article category[edit]

I think linking to Category:Unassessed biography articles, which has 100,000+ articles, in a new section is redundant because this is linked at the page top and this part of the article should be about specific requests, and putting it next to the request section detracts from it. Hekerui (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Update and rectify Sun Yafang's Wikipedia biography[edit]


My name is Anisha, I am a Digital Strategist at Social@Ogilvy Hong Kong, and I am writing on behalf of my client Huawei Technologies. We would like to request an update to Sun Yafang's article. We would like to update the article with the latest and more comprehensive information about Sun Yafang.

Please find the changes that we have requested here:

Thank you, Anisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


My name is Anisha, I am a Digital Strategist at Social@Ogilvy Hong Kong, and I am writing on behalf of my client Huawei Technologies. We would like to request an update to Sun Yafang's article. We would like to update the article with the latest and more comprehensive information about Sun Yafang.

Please find the changes that we have requested here:

Thank you, Anisha

AnishaSindher (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Update and rectify Ren Zhengfei's Wikipedia biography[edit]


My name is Anisha, I am a Digital Strategist at Social@Ogilvy Hong Kong, and I am writing on behalf of my client Huawei Technologies. We would like to request an update to Ren Zhengfei's article. We would like to update the article with the latest and more comprehensive information about Ren Zhengfei.

Please find the changes that we have requested here:

Thank you, Anisha (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

James Milner just delisted as GA; assessed by WikiProject Biography as A-class[edit]

Can someone from this WikiProject please reassess James Milner? (Or, if there's a formal process for changing an A-class article, start that process?)

A long-running individual GA reassessment of the article was just concluded here, and the article's GA listing was removed due to some significant issues, including several dozen "citation needed" templates throughout the article. While I rather doubt it should retain its A-class rating, given by this WikiProject in 2007, I didn't feel I could do the demotion myself, since I am unacquainted with the rules of how such changes are supposed to come about. However, since A-class is supposed to indicate articles that are even better than GA-class, it seems as if such a demotion should occur, though to precisely which level I leave to you to assess.

Thank you for your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Since it just failed GA, I have set it to B. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)