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: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
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)
- MILHIST is not the only project with A-class, just the largest. I offered to create a global A-class review and will do so; it was deferred so the GA backlog could be dealt with. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:48, 21 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)
- It now takes about three months for an article to get through FA, limiting an editor to about four articles per year. An article is no longer promoted each day, so FAs are now recycled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 21 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)