Wikipedia talk:Content assessment
This page is for discussing the Content assessment page. Reviews of pages should be in the relevant WikiProject, the article talk page, or in the assessment page |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
A short article may be appropriate
[edit]I get the impression that, in practice, this rating system is biased towards simply measuring the length of an article and making an assessment based on that. Some subjects can be dealt with quite concisely – which is surely what we are trying to achieve with an encyclopaedia article. Quite simply, there may be nothing more that really needs to be added, but we have a complete article that is assessed as "C" or "stub" because it is not very long.
Articles that appear to me to have been mis-rated based on their length include Alfred Holt, Ariel (clipper), Far Eastern Freight Conference, Windermere Jetty: Museum of Boats, Steam and Stories, etc. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good point and thanks for bringing it up. While the official guidelines do not contain any requirements on length, it is likely that some editors (and even some automated tools) may be using length as a metric to measure quality. Please feel free to update the assessment on any article that you think is mis-classified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have noticed this as well, so I will second the thank you for bringing it up Monkeywire (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
List of non-English wikipedias that use same Quality Assessment system
[edit]What are the languages that use the same Wikipedia Content assessment system as English? There is no definitive list that I can find in the page here or online. Kingstonacuk (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most other Wikipedias have no need for any such system.
- Note that this exists to facilitate the word done by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for their offline distribution of a subset of the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Data page
[edit]How should a page such as Dimethyl sulfoxide (data page) be assessed? It was previously |class=NA
but if it's not an article then I don't think it should be in mainspace. Would |class=List
be more accurate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that list class would be more appropriate for these. There are 154 of these: list, some are already tagged as list class. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated this category for renaming to Category:FM-Class files. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 12#Category:FM-Class articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
A-Class
[edit]Hello all,
The A-class requirements are substantially less fleshed-out than the others, and make reference to WikiProject-specific content assessment, which has since been deprecated. I would fix this myself, but am not yet experienced enough on policy to make this change. If someone could take a look and perhaps fix things, that would be great. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 09:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- WikiProject specific content assessment for A-class still exists at the Military History WikiProject (and basically nowhere else). Any way to deal with A-class on a Wikipedia-wide scale needs to work without disturbing the MILHIST process and without requiring any work from non-MILHIST projects. Good luck. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think ultimately that A-class will be removed from the standard scale. There was some talk about creating a project-wide A-class review process but it hasn't happened, and frankly I don't think there is the appetite for it. After B-class, there is GA followed by FA, possibly with a peer review along the way. This seems perfectly adequate in most cases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- A-class is the only decent grade we have. FA is no good because it not available due to the one-at-a-time restriction, and GA is just a B with a review. So neither is adequate. Dropping A-class would mean we are abandoning the content assessment concept entirely. If A-class is removed from the standard scale, I will have to recommend that the project drop both GA and FA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- A-class is not available for the vast majority of articles. While you can only nominate one FA at a time, that is far more than the zero A-class nominations you can have at a time if you do not write about military history. —Kusma (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Generally I think Milhist A-class reviews are pretty good and seem useful to article writers, so I don't think we should discourage them. If we wanted to simplify, I'd rather merge stub/start/C/B into just two or three levels. —Kusma (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- What "one-at-a-time restriction"? There are hundreds (if not thousands) of FA-class articles. They trumpet a different one each day on Main Page, and AFAIK they are not downgraded once tomorrow comes and a different article is Todays Featured. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that any given individual is only supposed to nominate one article for FA at a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- What "one-at-a-time restriction"? There are hundreds (if not thousands) of FA-class articles. They trumpet a different one each day on Main Page, and AFAIK they are not downgraded once tomorrow comes and a different article is Todays Featured. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- A-class is the only decent grade we have. FA is no good because it not available due to the one-at-a-time restriction, and GA is just a B with a review. So neither is adequate. Dropping A-class would mean we are abandoning the content assessment concept entirely. If A-class is removed from the standard scale, I will have to recommend that the project drop both GA and FA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think ultimately that A-class will be removed from the standard scale. There was some talk about creating a project-wide A-class review process but it hasn't happened, and frankly I don't think there is the appetite for it. After B-class, there is GA followed by FA, possibly with a peer review along the way. This seems perfectly adequate in most cases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)