Talk:Chitra Ramaswamy

Banner shell assessment conflict

Rosiestep: I am trying to clear up assessment conflicts on women's biographies. I am not too sure how to handle articles like this one. As the article contained only about 130 words of running text, I had given it a BS rating of Stub class but you later assigned individual wikiproject ratings of Start class. I've come across quite a few like this and am not too happy about overruling assessments by seasoned editors. Perhaps it's better just to leave the conflict untouched? (cc MSGJ)--Ipigott (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The criteria for being a stub is not hard and fast, so differences in opinion are natural. I would personally agree with start-class for this one because, although short, it is well structured, has links and references, even an infobox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ipigott: I have a script installed which indicates "ORES predicated quality" at the top of each article. For this article, it records: "ORES predicted quality: Start (2.12)". I don't use that information as a hard and fast rule in making a rating decision, and on short articles in particular, I check "Page size", too. In this case, "Page size" indicates: "Prose size (text only): 795 B (130 words) "readable prose size"". By size alone, it is a Stub, but structure, linkage, references, infobox (as stated by MSGJ) influenced my decision and that of ORES. All that said, I'm not averse to anyone changing a class assessment made by me if they've been methodical in how they make the decision. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Thank you for your prompt explanations. I also installed the Ores script years ago and receive its assessments at the top of every article. I also have Rater, which usually gives the same basic guidance. It seems to me that these tools, which have been designed for all language versions of Wikipedia, do not sufficiently take into account the traditional approach to assessment on the English wiki. For me, any article which has only 130 words of running text is a stub (as it also would be in connection with DYK) and as such deserves improvement by the original creator or by other contributors. Until the new banner shell approach, discrepancies like this did not come to light so openly. In most cases, I would never have noticed them. If I were to rely on Ores, I would have to give Start or even C class assessments to many articles which only contain a couple of lines of introduction, all the rest being bullet-pointed lists, extensive references, image galleries, infoboxes, bibliographies and the like. In the case of Ores C-rated biographies of women in sports with extremely brief introductions, I often just assess them as List. Many users simply seem to draw on the Ores and Rater assessments without carefully examining the article as you do. In any case, in the light of your explanations, I have removed my banner shell assessment on this article and will also do so when other contributors intervene with higher (or in some cases lower) assessments based on Ores or Rater. I'll now go back over the other articles on the conflict list and try to revise my assessments along the same lines. An empty banner shell assessment seems to be the most sensible solution. I would hate conflicts like these to damage the excellent level of collaboration we have always enjoyed.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I regard discussions like this as healthy as we are coming to a common understanding of what different quality assessments actually mean. Perhaps it would be an idea to refine the definition of a stub, in which case Wikipedia talk:Content assessment would be a good place to discuss — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ipigott, all this sounds great. Thanks for working on this and for what you do around here in general! --Rosiestep (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)