Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Archive 1

Archive 1

WPBio A-class review

It would be much better if features like this {{WPBio A-class review}} were kept in the main project template, {{WPBiography}}. If you let me know what parameters are needed, I'll add them for you. --kingboyk 11:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, hadn't seen this comment yet. The parameter is simple: A-class=current. That should produce this box with all its functionality. Errabee 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that what MILHIST do? Maybe I should just copy them, they're trailblazers in this regard (and many other regards). --kingboyk 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is part of what MILHIST do. They also allow the values pass or fail, and provide you with a template that shows which criteria weren't met for A-class (if it failed of course). Look at Talk:Yannis Makriyannis for an article that passed, Talk:Anthony Eden for an article that failed. Errabee 13:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

/me has a cunning plan. Why don't I go ask their coordinator if he'd the add the code to our template for us? ;) --kingboyk 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done this, and asked if he can give us any advice. He may not be able to help as he's a very busy guy, but fingers crossed. --kingboyk 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Template has been done. Please give it a try, and update the template usage docs/assessment instructions/anything else which needs to be updated :)

Using {{WPBiography}} with parameters is always to be preferred, so assuming this works OK please transition over to this method from any standalone templates. --kingboyk 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try implementing it on the current ones first, and after I've gained experience with it, try to update the instructions. Thanks a bunch, both you and Kirill. Errabee 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you've mastered the templates :) --kingboyk 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class relation to Good article status

I note on the project page several editors indicate that they would like to see an article receive Good article recognition before being considered for A-Class review. Do the rest of you think that this should be made a standard procedure? John Carter 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a necessary prerequisite for "A" status. Some articles are just good enough anyway, but having gone through a GA review is a good way for people to learn how to write and structure a good Wikipedia article (some of the people don't get that their article isn't good enough or why it isn't), and it is a good indicator that an article should be taken seriously into consideration for an A class grade. - Duribald 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles must be at GA standard++ to be A, but I agree with you there's no reason to force people through the extra hoop. Provided their article is good enough let them come straight here. If it's some way off, refer it to PR or GA. --kingboyk 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But GA status can be some sort of safety net to prevent an article from going down from FA/A status to B-class in one stroke. Errabee 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why GA should be a rating that anyone can assign - like B. (Radical!) But yes, I agree that a nomination for A need not be a GA first. –Outriggr § 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sort of writing standard

It seems to me that A articles should be very well-written and not in need of much copyediting at all. I am not referring to the debatable comma here, I am referring to spelling, subject/verb agreement, and an overall feeling of ease in reading the page. To say that a "decently-written article should qualify for A-class status even if it could use some further copyediting" is not entirely clear to me. Awadewit 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that writing standards are extremely high for articles to become Featured Articles. Because A-class is the rating between GA and FA, I would expect the writing standards to be in the middle between the standards for GA and the standards for FA. I'm terribly sorry it's not more specific. Errabee 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The standard of writing should be high to very high, but some work might be needed before a FAC is successful. Set the bar too high and there's no point having an A grade. --kingboyk 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All of this is too vague. We should try to delineate a list of examples of unacceptable writing problems so that users understand what quality is expected of them. Awadewit 17:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As this department has just been set up, there is no such list just yet. If you could provide us with your insights, that would be much appreciated. Errabee 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:A-Class biography articles

There's only 59 articles in Category:A-Class biography articles (plus possibly some extras in subcategories). Would it be worth getting them all tagged for review using AWB? --kingboyk 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is something that needs to be done sometime, but I'm afraid 59 review requests would scare our reviewers away. Errabee 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could be. A possibility. Depending on how many such requests get generated per day, maybe we could just start up to a set number of reviews per day? If, for example, there were no more than, say, five or ten reviews posted per day, a reviewer would have some idea how much time to allot regularly for reviews. Also, does anyone think it might be possible to make the reviews "assigned" per work group? I do think people dealing regularly with a given type of biography would be best able to offer review of that type. John Carter 17:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Any signs yet that the newsletter has brought new reviewers here? Or indeed new articles for review? --kingboyk 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Avraham made a comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/O. N. V. Kurup, and User:Kittybrewster contributed an article for review, probably because I had informed him that awarding A-class ratings is now reserved for this forum. Errabee 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Persondata

If an article has an infobox covered here, it takes one click to generate persondata with the script linked there. Quicker than generating by hand, but needs to be checked before saving as always. RHB - Talk 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I get the birth date in the wrong format with this script. It should be July 7, 1948, not 1948-7-30. -Duribald 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course this could be related to the format in the infobox. - Duribald 15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Persondata template accepts a wide variety of date formats. If you are getting dates of the form 1948-7-30 by using the script it's likely that the infobox contained the {{birth date and age}} template (or similar). It's just easier for the script to convert {{birth date and age|1948|7|30}} to 1948-7-30 than to bother with working out the month name. Dr pda 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non biography article

I want to nominate a non-biography article for A-Class is this allowed? --Cloveious 11:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you turn to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada witht this issue. I'm sure they assess articles as well, although they do not have a specialized A-class department. - Duribald 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing after four days is not accurate or appropriate

The project page says that A-class reviews are closed within four days, but this is not currently the case, so it's misleading. It appears as if there is not enough active interest to follow through on that statement. From what I've seen, reviews stay open way past four days, until enough reviewers have come along. With the low level of activity here, four days is not only unrealistic, but it would be unfair if someone came along, followed the four days rule, and closed a review after four days when there were few or no reviewers or commenters.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence specifying four days is deleted; the text should be changed to indicate that reviews will remain open until either at least three uninvolved editors support A-class, or at least three uninvolved editors have full consensus for opposition, or the review stalls in disagreement between at least four uninvolved editors for over one week.

Additionally, if the current low level of activity remains, I think that we might want to consider a "stalled" status for reviews. Articles should not fail at A-class simply because there aren't enough interested editors involved in reviews.

I nominated an article for review over a week ago, but it's received only one (supporting) comment. This has led me to think that A-class is just not widely supported enough right now, and thus it diminishes the rating's meaning to me. I do hope that this situation changes, but in the meantime, it doesn't help things that what's written about the review process's timeframe is not accurate. --Melty girl 16:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the text to "at least" four days and two endorsements. This is more in line with how it actually works. -Duribald 21:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Difficulty nominating an article for A-class review

I tried to use the prescribed procedure to nominate Ralph Flanders for A-class review. Instead of a new link opening up under the discussion page after adding A-Class=current to the template, the indicator " Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Biography articles" showed up at the bottom of the page. If someone can correct this problem, I'd like to proceed with the remaining step to nominate the article.HopsonRoad 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How to nominate for review

The instructions on how to do this should really be clearer! I have been attempting to submit an article for A-Class review, and have followed the instructions for inserting "A-Class=current" in the Biography template, but to no avail. Please could someone clarify this and provide me with step-by-step instructions? The page in question is Talk:William_Wilberforce. I would be very grateful. Many thanks. – Agendum (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)