Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating

Initial proposal

I have put an initial proposal online. Please feel free to edit it, or discuss it here. CMummert · talk 00:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition

To get the process working I'd like to propose Addition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the first candidate. --Salix alba (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We should start a separate review page for it then. I see no reason not to adopt the transclusion and separate review page setup of WikiProject Military History. --C S (Talk) 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have set up the system and written instructions. I would like to ask for someone else to test them to see if they work. Yes, all the templates should be in place. CMummert · talk 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition now nominated. I needed to make a change to {{maths acd}} as the wrong name was being included when the subpage was transcluded into the main A-class review proposal page. --Salix alba (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I think there are two main issues here.

1. What standard should be expected of A-Class articles? The standard should either be something mid-way between FA and GA - a sort of average, or something along the lines of "almost FA" (meeting all the crieteria accept one or two parts). I personally favour the later, because A-class articles should represent the very best mathematics article on WP, and have the ptoential to become FAs without major changes.
2. How do we go about labeling them as such? The current system is that anyone can label (or unlabel) an article as A-Class. This has the advanatge of the minimal fuss and beareaucracy, and ensures that unlabelled high quality articles are quickly tagged as such. The proposed system is remarkedly similar to the Featured Article process, but with the aim of reviewers dealing with minor issues themselves (so a dose of Collobration of the Week). My main concern is that the more formal nature of the process will put people off, so good quaility articles will remain erroneously labelled as B-Class. Tompw (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A more specific response to the second paragraph: it has been suggested that the lack of a formal process for A-class articles means that few editors are willing to promote an article to A-class, so they stay at B+ because of timidity. The goal of the process would be to give some objectivity to the rating, to encourage improvement and recognition. CMummert · talk 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, probably both are true, which means we're doomed to an inperfect system :-( Tompw (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was writing about the need for criteria at the same time. I originally left them out of the proposal in case someone else wanted to volunteer them. I'll add a rough draft to the proposal tonight unless someone else volunteers.

I think that the criteria should roughly be "Provides a professionally written and reasonably complete description of the topic at a level appropriate for the intended reader" and "A model for other mathematics articles". Among the things that I think ought to be mentioned (but not pedantically required) are:

• WP:MOS WP style manual
• WP:MSM Manual of style for mathematics
• WP:SCG Scientific citation guidelines
• WP:FA? Featured article criteria

Are there more that I forgot? CMummert · talk 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad 1. "Almost FA" has my preference. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to write out the criteria in more detail at this stage; we can try it out on a couple of articles and with a bit of luck, the criteria will be obvious at that point. However, seeing that some sucker is volunteering, I won't stop him, especially since I won't have any qualms about ignoring his criteria if necessary ;) I think it's good to stress the problems that most maths articles suffer from: motivation, putting the subject in a wider context, accessibility (within reason, of course), history, references (according to SCG).

Ad 2. In my view, it's important to have a minimum of bureaucracy. So, here is a first go. No article can be promoted to A-class without going through this process. A-class review should be advertised on the article's talk page. The review ends after there has been no substantial discussion for a week (I'm not so sure about this clause; it goes against the proposal which calls for a fixed time but I think the open end works quite well on FAC). At that point, any editor may close the discussion. The article will be promoted to A-class if no substantial objections have been raised (in the view of the editor closing the discussion). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a sucker born every minute. I agree that a minimum of bureaucracy is ideal. The fixed time is from the military history project, and I am not devoted to it. The problem with the FAC process is that as soon as someone fixes the first set of complaints, more reviewers show up with another set of complaints, and so on until someone quits playing.

I would add the following to the description above: If an editor disagrees with the closing they should leave the rating at A-class and open a second (third, etc.) discussion for the article. CMummert · talk 03:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that any process for recognising A-class articlers should be as simple and straightforward as possible, while allowing an element of peer review. So, I feel the process should be something like the following:

1. Any editor can nominate an article for A-Class status. Once they have done so, there is *no* requirement on them to edit the article in accordance with suggestions. (Unlike WP:FA and WP:FL, where the nominator is expected to make improvements in accordance with reviewers suggestions).
2. Other editors then have a fixed peroid & days? 10 days?) to review the article. Reviewers shouldcorrect minor flaws rather than comment on them. Thus comments should be limited to whether a reviewer supports the A-class rating or has a serious objection to it.
3. After the fixed peroid expires, the article is made A-Class if there's consensus to do so

If after 7/10 days there isn't a clear consensus, then the article remains at its previous class. I think the fixed term is needed in order to stop things dragging out. Tne days should be ample time to decide an article's quality. Tompw (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Review role

Carl has suggested/pointed out that this process can also be used to review articles which are currently A-Class, to ensure that they are up-to-standard. He and I have updated the text to accommodate this. I've also made a few other minor changes. Geometry guy 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)