Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishing/Assessment/Drive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject
Fisheries and Fishing
Main project talk
Assessment statistics
Traffic statistics
Articles talk
Proposals talk
Resources talk
Project subpages
Members
Requested fishing articles talk
Things you can do
To-do list
Assessment
Unassessed articles
Expand stub class articles
Other
Outreach
Newsletter
Recent updates
Featured/good articles
Categories
Templates
Articles for deletion talk
Subpages

Welcome to the Assessment Drive for WikiProject Fishing!

  • On 16 June, there were 167 articled whose quality remains unassessed.
  • We're out to change that! Our goal: 0 unassessed articles by the 2nd of July.
  • Our assessment will go from 18 June 2007 to 2 July 2007.

Authority

[edit]
  • Keep in mind that this is simply a volunteer project of some Fishing Project members and other editors. Any editor is free to change the assessments of an individual article. (In fact, if you want to simply "go solo", you're encouraged to just use the {{WPFISHING}} template with its assessment parameters.) We just feel that a more accurate assessment will be made if there's a consensus behind it.

How to use add articles to the Assessment Drive

[edit]

1. Check to see if the Article Talk page already carries the "{{WPFISHING}}" Fishing WikiProject template. Add it to the Article Talk page if it doesn't (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishing/Assessment for more information.)

2. Whether it does or not, place the following code, exactly as it is now, at the bottom of the Article Talk page: 


== WikiProject Fishing Assessment Drive ==

{{ Fishingassessment
|date=
|class=
|importance=
|reviewers=
|completed=
}}
Added assessment template. ~~~~
Do not fill in the variables at this time. We will fill them in after consensus is reached here.

3. Click the "Edit this Page" link at the top of this page. Add the following code to the bottom of this page, replacing the ArticleName and your discussion comment: 


=== [[ArticleName]] ===
::'''Assessment Data'''
::User and Date submitted: ~~~~
::Result of Discussion:
::Secretary and date closed: 

::'''Discussion'''
::* (Replace this text with your comment about Assessing the article.  Be sure to sign the post with ~~~~!)

4. We'll take care of closing the discussion when it appears there is consensus, moving the article discussion here to the archive, and editing the Article Talk page to reflect the consensus.

Adding to Current Discussions

[edit]
  • If you want to add your comments to article discussions on this page, simply edit the section where the article name appears and add your discussion comment (following the format of the first discussion comment made,) and sign your comment with "~~~~". We're hoping to make group consensus about how the article should be rated, so even if you simply agree with another's comment, feel free to add your agreement.

Assessment and Importance

[edit]

Archived Discussions

[edit]

Current Discussions

[edit]

Noodling

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • This article is also a method of fishing, and strikes me as being Mid Importance. It has several problems with unencyclopedic tone and a little how-to content, as well as being US-centric. While it has quality pictures and information, I'd say it's of Start-class right now. LaughingVulcan 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Note - added this article (and 6 others) which were tagged on their talk pages, but did not complete the listing here.
  • Adding this article because someone else tagged it for discussion. Will add my own comment after reviewing the article. LaughingVulcan 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings
  • No Reviews Yet

DePuy Spring Creek

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
Ratings
  • No Reviews Yet

Firehole River

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
Ratings
  • No Reviews Yet

Fishing in Alabama

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
* Caveat - I created this article. Mid Importance. From a U.S. perspective there is the potential for 50 such articles, one for each state. No one state would be any more important than another. Currently there are only three--Alabama, Wyoming and Ohio. From a quality standpoint, I believe the organization, content and theme from the Alabama article makes it an A-Class article. It is well sourced. It needs a few more images and some link work done, but otherwise I believe it demonstrates the correct level of encyclopedic detail for the article topic and doesn't diverge to other subjects or disgress into detailed minutae. I would like to see all Fishing in [State] articles organized and sourced in this way.--Mike Cline 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings
  • Class:A - Importance:Mid {{user0|Mike Cline]]

Madison River

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
Ratings
  • No Reviews Yet

Yellowstone River

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion

I'd say START class, and MID importance. There is a fair amount of information, but it's very unencyclopedic, lacking wikification, etc. Too much info to call it "stub" class, but it needs a ton of work. As for importance, if it truly were the "longest undammed river in the contiguous 48" as the page claims, that might make it high importance, but current discussion seems to indicate that claim is untrue. Hope this helps… -Pete 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ratings
  • No Reviews Yet

American Museum of Fly Fishing

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
Ratings
  • No Reviews Yet

Smallmouth bass

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Top Importance. Clearly smallmouth bass are within the top ten freshwater angling targets in the US, if not the world. The article meets A-Class standards, although I think there is a bit of environmental bias overall. It could use a bit more on the history of angling for smallmouth, but that's another day.--Mike Cline 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Largemouth bass

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Top Importance. Who can argue that Largemouth bass from a fishing perspective are at or near the pinnicle of competitive and recreational fishing? From a quality perspective, especially as it relates to fishing, this article is B-Class or lower. The fishing aspect is weak and disorganized. Needs a lot of work.--Mike Cline 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and Top. The B element here, for me, is that with a separate Bass fishing article, what is the function of the fishing in this article? Needs a redirect in the Fishing section to Bass fishing, a move of any information not in the Bass fishing article, and the creation of a summary paragraph to give it summary-style format. LaughingVulcan 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Fly tying

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Top Importance relative to Fly Fishing, High Importance relative to overall fishing. From a quality perspective this article is somewhere between A-Class and B-Class. There is a bit of an organizational problem and too much information about the product of fly-tying (the flies) and not the process itself. It is a balance thing. --Mike Cline 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ratings

Orvis

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Top Importance relative to Fishing in North America. Not only is Orvis notable, it has been for more than a century. From a quality perspective this article is at least A-Class. It could be improved with some images, but otherwise is very nicely written.--Mike Cline 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ratings

Bottom fishing

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Low Importance -- At best Bottom fishing is a colloqial term with regional meanings and usages. From a quality perspective this article is only a poor Stub. At best it might be rewritten into a useable article with the right references, but IMHO that would be a waste of time. This is one of those casually used terms that defies encyclopedic accuracy and is essentially unreferenced historically. Am I bottom fishing when my nymph or clouser is bouncing along the bottom for trout or bass? Why of course I am! But would nymphing or deep water streamer technique be appropriate for this article? Of course not!!--Mike Cline 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ratings

Marlin fishing

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 15:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Mid Importance. An A-Class article that will be improved with images and at bit of consistency and reference cites applied to the outline. Although specific information in the article is un-cited, I saw nothing inconsistent with what I know about the subject. For LV, this appears to be an article that replicates exactly what I was talking about with the Striped Bass.--Mike Cline 15:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • B/Mid. Only on the grounds that the article needs consistent formatting in line with the Manual of Style (some paragraphs indented/some not,) and general Wikification. It also needs some pictures the way that Bass fishing has. It could also use some more internal links, a See Also section to common fishing subjects, linkbacks from Atlantic blue marlin and the other marlin species, and greater integration with Marlin (which needs a cleanup itself.) But yes, I see what you mean about going this way with the Striper. LaughingVulcan 00:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Bass fishing

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
Ratings

Crankbait

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Mid Importance. An A-Class article (Wobbler) that captures the essence of crankbaits very well but could use more images. If these two articles are merged the name Crankbaits should be retained and Wobbler discarded. See my comments on each discussion page.--Mike Cline 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)\ <- see Ratings section -LV[reply]
  • A Stub article that should have Wobbler merged up into it. Importance would be Low or Mid, but I'd guess Mid. LaughingVulcan 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Mike: The fishingassessment template / archive link (on completion) will break down if articles are combined in one listing, so I split this and Wobbler. We'll close both this and Wobbler at the same time. Also, the fishingassessment template should be put into the Article Talk page on nomination here, so that anyone cruising through it will be able to participate here. LaughingVulcan 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK by me! As they say in the ole military (of which I am a 28 year graduate) this template stuff is above my pay grade. I will dutifully follow LV's instructions. Thanks. --Mike Cline 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Wobbler (fishing)

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Mid Importance. An A-Class article (Wobbler) that captures the essence of crankbaits very well but could use more images. If these two articles are merged the name Crankbaits should be retained and Wobbler discarded. See my comments on each discussion page.--Mike Cline 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mid and B for this article. While the prose is A-Class, the differences and roles of minnows/widebodies/rattles/etc. should be expanded. Shouldn't be too difficult. Agree that Wobbler should be merged into Crankbait. LaughingVulcan 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Plugs (fishing)

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Mid Importance. An Stub article. Plugs by all my research is a historical term replaced in general by the following terms in comtemporary usage--Hardbaits of which there are Crankbaits, Stickbaits, Topwater baits, Lipless baits, etc. The term and its evolution into the contemporary Hardbait applies equally to fresh and saltwater fishing. The decision required on this article is whether it is written as a history or not. Clearly the term Plugs is not in widespread contemporary use.--Mike Cline 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Topwater fishing lure

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Mid Importance. An Stub article. Although a contemporary term, this article suffers from not being integrated into a hierarchy of terms that derive from the Hardbait family of lures. As such, it is a bit disconnected from the higher concept of Bait Casting and hardbaits. When the assessment drive is over, I intend to do a bit of rewriting on this whole area.--Mike Cline 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Jig (fishing)

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
Ratings

Fishing lure

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • High Importance. A Start-Class Article. Needs sourcing and a bit of taxonomic organization that will encompass all the various permutations of contemporary and historic lure types. Since there is no official standards body that defines lure types, the most reasonable approach is to employ the taxonomic organization used by large, contemporary lure retailers (not manufacturers). Generally these taxonomies are supported by current literature.--Mike Cline 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Fishing hook

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 20:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • High Importance. A Start-Class Article. Needs sourcing and a bit of taxonomic organization that will encompass all the various permutations of contemporary and historic hook types. Since there is no official standards body that defines hook types, the most reasonable approach is to employ the taxonomic organization used by large, contemporary manufacturers. Generally these taxonomies are supported by current literature. Additionally, a not so minor point. Fishing hook is a wholly incorrect title for this article. It should be Fish hook. A quick perusal of literature and major manufacturers catalogs reveals that fisherman use Fish Hooks and manufacturers make Fish Hooks. Neither of them are involved with Fishing Hooks. A redirect is in-order here.--Mike Cline 20:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change I said I was going to do. The article is now Fish hook and completely rewritten to what I believe is now an A-Class article. A few more images could be included in the gallery to broaden the variety, and I suspect the manufacturer information is not 100% complete.--Mike Cline 12:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Ice fishing

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
Ratings

Fishing line

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • High Importance. A B-Class Article. Needs sourcing and a few more images (Although images of line might be difficult) Here again, the article could use a bit of taxonomy based on the current state of fishing lines as sold by various manufactureres. Much of the non-line stuff should be removed.--Mike Cline 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Trout Unlimited

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Low Importance. TU is important environmentally, but not from a fishing standpoint. A Stub Article. Needs sourcing, few images and more information on TU projects and successes.
Ratings

Surface lure

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 17:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Mid Importance. A Stub Article. Needs sourcing, few images and more consistency with other articles on types of lures.
Ratings

Fishing tackle

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted:--Mike Cline 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
  • Mid Importance. A Stub Article (A short stub at that). Needs sourcing, few images and more consistency with other articles.
Ratings

Groundbait

[edit]
Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: Kjtobo (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion:
Secretary and date closed:
Discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishing/Assessment/Drive&oldid=542086657"