Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The A-class review department is up and running; reviewers wanted

I have implemented what I think should be a workable version of A-class reviews. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review. All we need now, are good reviewers. So I invite everyone to start reviewing a current request and a current reevaluation. Errabee 12:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Smith

Dear Reviewers, Mimi Smith, a biographical article about John Lennon's aunt and guardian, is a Featured Article Candidate, but it has received only one !vote in 10 days. Some more feedback would be most welcome; I don't care if it's good or bad, so long as it's fair and helps us improve the article or get the FA star. I know we have some wonderful reviewers here, so if any you could chip in to the FAC it would be appreciated. Thank you. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mimi Smith. --kingboyk 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

GA grades awarded out of process

I've recently come across a couple of articles that were awarded GA-grade without ever being nominated for GA (and as a result they have not been reviewed). See Talk:Tiberius and Talk:Marilyn Monroe. Errabee 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much inevitable. Just revert the grade and move on (or, if you think they are GA worthy, nominate them! :)) --kingboyk 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles rated Start Class without adequate discussion

I'd greatly appreciate some advice/comment about this: An article I'm involved in was put up for assessment and independently rated Start Class. Concerned about WP:COI I didn't edit the article to upgrade it in the ways suggested by the reviewer, which I think may have been a mistake on my part. It was then listed it as an AfD and the AfD was inexplicably closed after only 3 days with a Delete (the vote then was 3/1). It's now up for Deletion Review My questions are:

1. Given that 75% of Bio-rated articles don't make even Start Class, is it usual or reasonable to delete, rapidly, an article that has been so assessed?
2. If the article is restored or at least relisted for AfD should I upgrade it to reflect the recommendations of the independent reviewer (whilst maintaining NPoV)?

Any input or comments would be greatly appreciated. NBeale 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples in the quality scale

The examples in the quality scale should link to a specific revision. Right now they link to the live article, which changes over time.S Sepp 10:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ion Petrovici

On the Ion Petrovici talk page there was a {{WPBiography}} template added that rated the article as Stub-Class. Meanwhile, I have rewritten the article by translating the Romanian version and I don't know if the rating still applies to the new article... I couldn't find anything about this, except to re-rate it myself, but I'm very new to Wikipedia and I'm not ready to start rating articles on my own account, especially articles that I have written or translated myself. –Danielgrad 13:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks to Errabee for the quick re-rate :) –Danielgrad 14:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeep

User:Wikipeep 494 is interested in helping with article assessment. He/she had assessed a bunch Special:Contributions/Wikipeep_494, but is new to the process. Someone here that is experienced with how assessments work might want to check these. Also, please advise Wikipeep about how to help with assessments. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Project is Subjective and Non-productive

In my opinion, as an experienced editor and frequent contributor to biographies on Wikipedia, the assessment project as a whole is an example of an idea of modest virtue taken to excess. As such, it is only one of several recent Wikipedia innovations which have swung to far from center. Once errors, vandalism, spelling and grammer are reviewed and corrected, any assessment, judgment, or grading of Wikipedia content is totally subjective. No established criteria or methodology can overcome the subjectivity of the assessor(s).

So, what do these assessments accomplish? How do they improve Wikipedia? From what I observe, they annoy and insult established editors and, by "grading" the contributions of new editors, discouraging them from continuing on Wikipedia. From my perspective, when an article I "watch" is "graded", my first reaction is to feel the article has been attacked and my impulse is to remove the annoying template. (Of course, templates in general are also misused in many ways these days. See comment above.) However, I resist the impulse.

In my opinion, any assessment and related templates should be followed by work by the assessor to improve each article. If you do not have the knowledge, references, or resources to improve an article, you should not assess it. I would certainly vote for a reevaluation of the aims and methodology of this project. WBardwin 02:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While the last part is a nice thought, and the rest is, in many cases, probably the truth, it's not entirely. Much as there are those who get discouraged when articles they have editted are given "bad grades" (which in many cases just means there should be more information, not that there's anything bad about the article so far...), there are also those who take those grades and use them as stepping stones to see how much they've improved the article, as a more tangible, third-party opinion.

On another note, have you posted this anywhere else? Getting rid of ratings for this project would most likely require getting rid of ratings for all projects, and I tend to doubt that will happen, fortunately, unfortunately, or otherwise. -Bbik^★ 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea whether the assessment mechanisms are well designed or doing a creditable job. But isn't it just a tad harsh to require that anyone widely enough read to be able to assess whether an article is coherent, clear, well organized, well referenced, and concise (to name just a few desirable attributes) ALSO have "the knowledge, references, or resources to improve an article"? For example, there is no reason to expect that someone who can appreciate a concise article can write one (it's hard work!), just as there is no reason to expect that someone who can appreciate great architecture can produce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacwiki (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul on some aspects of the Biography Project

Warning: This proposal will sound extremely bureaucratic.

One of the biggest complaints that has come out of the Assessment Drive are our definitions is A) our method of assessing and B) the very definition of our assessments. A lot of editors feel we simply stamp an article with an assessment and leave no feedback as to why it was given that assessment. They are right, really, that rarely when assessing do any of us take the time to leave a comment for feedback as to what the article needs.

As stated in some cases, the subjects are so obscure who are these unknowing editors to assess something they know nothing about? I think it is better really, that the assessing editor be impartial to the subject - since the assessment scale is based on how much knowledge a reader walks away from the article with.

We need to go back and review these assessment classes - should an article be assessed by how much information is in the article or what specific features are in the article (an infobox, a picture?). As previously stated some articles are so obscure that the knowledge on the subject is limited that all that can be found about the subject is contained within the article already. I propose we make a template for those specific cases to be put on the talk page so that the assessing editor will know that all of the known information is contained within the article (in which case the article should not be done by one assessing editor, but by our own internal community review to get a consensus as to what the article assessment should be).

Secondly, we need to put these workgroups to more active use (as I stated above I do not often see the A&E workgroup update in my watchlist). Rather than have a broad review committee, we need to get the review committee's within each workgroup to begin reviewing all of the articles within their scope, by class. I.e. a stub review committee, a start review committee, etc. Since the article was originally assessed it may have changed greatly; it may have gone from stub to B. We need to be active about keeping an eyeball on the articles within our project - as obscure as they may be.

Thirdly, I also suggest a new template for constructive feedback for editors to leave. A template that can hopefully be worked into a script that editors can work on as they review the mainspace of the article, and like Outriggr's script, simply click "Submit" when finished. The template should have fields that cover all the major aspects for an article; lead paragraph, header, references, etc. Before you all say why doesn't the assessing editor do it? - this is a group project. If someone chooses to assess articles, and leave constructive feedback for corrections that may seem a simple task to do; it is their choice to fix it if they so desire (hey, more edit counts for when you go to RFA (humor)).

To summarize what I am suggesting:

1. Rework our assessment scale. Will it based on content or rely on content and specific features?
2. Set up active review committees within each workgroup (and and create new ones for specific topics (religion, activists, crime, etc). Have review committees for each class assessment to periodically review articles to make sure their assessment is current and correct.
3. Create a template for articles they are obscure and have limited knowledge so that an assessing editor will know the quantity (not quality) of information may be limited.
4. Create our own internal peer review for articles that are obscure and/or have limited knowledge to get a community consensus of its appropriate assessment.
5. Create a constructive feedback/template script so that reviewing editors can leave constructive feedback while assessing an article.

Proposals for re-working the Class Assessments

This is just a quick idea I had a few days ago. It's hardly re-working them, but the general discussion category didn't really suit this proposal in my opinion.For each category there would be a subpage of the category's talk page: Category_talk:Category/Assessment.

On the subpage there would be a table like this, every article in the category would have an entry in it. Therefore, giant categories like Category:Living people would not have one.

Article	Quality	Comments
Galileo Galilei	FA	{{Talk:Galileo Galilei/Comments}}
Issac Newton	FA

It might help people in finding articles that need improvement on subjects they're interested in. A bot would update these tables obviously. Please comment on my proposal below. Psychless 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

B

Current Description

Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.

Start

Current Description

The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. For example an article on Queen Elizabeth might cover her personality well, but be weak on back story. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:

• a particularly useful picture or graphic
• multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
• a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
• multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

Suggested Revision

1. may lack subheadings or a table of contents (replacing the cryptic "may lack a table", I think that was what was intended) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub

Current Description

The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.

NOTE: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Having an article on Wikipedia is a passing grade, since it has to pass Notability. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need some improvement to reach Start or B-class

Suggested Revision(s)

1. Article is at a bare minimum; no headers or lead paragraphs
2. Contains less than two references

Discussion

Disagree with "Contains less than two references" as it implies that any stub with 3 or more references is automatically start-class. I've seen stubs with more text in the references section than in the main article, but they were still stubs. Excellent stubs, easily improvable stubs, but until improved, still stubs. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on revisions for classes

One of the major things we need to hammer out and be clear on is are we looking for quality or quantity? Are we assessing articles based on the quality of the article (references, the amount of coverage, the amount of information present) or "superficial" qualities (infoboxes, pictures, multiple links, etc.)

Secondly, along with the limited knowledge template, should we consider introducing "limited knowledge" as a class itself? Rather than grade specialized subjects to the aforementioned assessment scale, should they have a special separate class - the limited knowledge class? Articles in this class aren't assessed with other normal articles due to their specialized nature and potential inability to meet the criteria laid out for most "knowledgeable" articles? --Ozgod 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for Limited Knowledge templates

Template proposal by Ozgod

Draft One

A contributing editor has stated that there is limited knowledge concerning Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Archive 2.
	At this time there is a limited amount of information on this subject. An expert on the subject, , attests that nature of the subject is obscure. It is requested that any editors reviewing or contributing to this article be aware of the obscure nature of the subject.

Draft Two

A contributing editor has stated that there is limited knowledge concerning Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Archive 2.
	At this time there is a limited amount of information on this subject. One of the contributing editors, , attests that there is limited knowledge on the subject. Specialist or technical knowledge may be required for proper assessment of this article with regard to content and completeness.

Draft Three

Ozgod has stated that there is limited knowledge concerning Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Archive 2.
	At this time there is a limited amount of information on this subject. Specialist or technical knowledge may be required for proper assessment of this article with regard to content and completeness.

Discussion

The above template is a work in progress. I need to sit down and find a better way to re-word it, or do without the bullets. Suggestion, comments, etc. are extremely helpful. --Ozgod 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a crack at this. I'm not crazy about the word "obscure" -- for example, I write articles on people who are everyday subjects to musicologists, but probably unknown to 99.9% of people; most members of musicology faculties would bristle at the thought of, say, Marbrianus de Orto being "obscure" -- maybe "If you are reviewing or contributing to this article, please be aware of the specialised nature of the subject". Or perhaps: "Specialist knowledge may be required for proper assessment of this article with regard to content and completeness; however feel free to assess style, grammar, and other issues." Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, but feel there should also be recognition of the 'technical' nature of some articles so wording might be: "Specialist or technical knowledge may be required for proper assessment of this article with regard to content and completeness; however feel free to assess presentation, style, grammar, and other issues." Thanks. -- Kleinzach 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Did some editing to the template and added a part of Antandrus's suggested sentence.--Ozgod 13:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I like draft two, but have tweaked it to avoid referring to experts. Carcharoth 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "contributing editor's" username should be included, so that if any readers, assessors, editors, etc. have questions, they know who to ask. Awadewit | talk 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the template so that when an editor adds the template to the talk page of a specific article their name is therefore referenced in the title. You can all view the source for this work in progress template here. --Ozgod 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the second sentence here is redundant - also about a reference to the relevant project. How about (Whoever) of the (whatever project) has pointed out that there is limited published information available concerning (article x). Specialist or technical knowledge may be required for proper assessment of this article with regard to content and completeness. -- Kleinzach 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on overall proposal

• This is a good start. For more ideas, see Wikipedia:Assessment overhaul. Carcharoth 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Without being keen to derail this particular proposal, which seems well intentioned despite its flaws, I'll briefly say that this entire "WikiProject" has puzzled me as long as I've been aware of its existence. It's not at all easy to write a biography well, and I'm sure that specifically biographical skills are needed; but if an article on, say, Marc'Antonio Ingegneri were to be assessed by a single person, I'd prefer an assessor who's knowledgable about the narrowly musical aspects (counterpoint and so forth) and the social history of music but ignorant of biography to one who's a scrupulous creator of biographies but knows squat about the music of the time. Better, of course, for the assessor to be able in both fields. To this end, a specialist workgroup within this Project for composers isn't on the face of it such a bad idea; but then I'd wonder what "WP Composers" was for. It may be objected that the latter Project is atypical, being specifically about people; but I don't think it is: despite its title, WP History of photography is largely biographical, and many other Projects have a large number of biographies. ¶ I'd suggest that this Project should largely get out of the business of assessing articles, although it might continue assessing the biographical and general aspects of articles that have already been okayed for specialist content: once Niels Bohr has got a "B" (or above) from WP Physics (and perhaps from WP Denmark too), then WP Bio could step in and assess it as a biography -- but not before. ¶ Since you ask about the wording of the template, you might note that it doesn't seem to recognize that more information (perhaps in a different language) may come to light. My own tentative rewrite of the entire text of the template above is: Obscure subject [newline] <!-- remove this tag and place your name --> attests that only a limited amount of information on this subject is available. Anyone thinking of assessing this article should realize this fact; or, if they question it, should take up the matter with <!-- repeat username -->, on the talk page of WikiProject <!--- insert name -->, or both. -- Hoary 01:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • PS I wrote the above too quickly and without the benefit of seeing Antandrus's comment above. "Obscure subject" is wrong; also, the template should indeed request either (a) an assessment from somebody who is (or, this being WP, at least thinks they are) knowledgable about the subject, or (b) an assessment of the prose, style (in the Chicago sense of the word) and all the other garnishings of the article but not its actual meat. -- Hoary 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is in these cases, where the information is "limited" "specialized" or "obscure" is that it should fall to consensus - a group vote - to determine its ranking. The major contributing editors to the article should be called in to participate in the discussion. Either this or we create a new assessment rating specifically for "limited knowledge" subjects (LK). --Ozgod 13:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I like Hoary's suggestion of "assessing the biographical and general aspects of articles that have already been okayed for specialist content". In cases where a specialist WP exist, let that assess the article, and then let WPBiography assess, improve and pass the biographical style before giving it the WPBiography assessement. Of course, this runs foul of the assumption (widely practiced) that any assessment, by any person, applies to the template of all the WikiProjects with tags on teh talk page. In some cases this assumption is fair enough, in other cases, not. Carcharoth 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And anyone wanting specifically biographical tasks after the assessment drive has finished (stopping it is less of an option because I am not convinced that the 'problem' of incorrect assessments is as widespread as people think) could look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3 and User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run. Selecting the right way to index someone by name sometimes requires specialist knowledge (eg. Asian and Arabic names), but not so much as for assessing a specialist subject. Carcharoth 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Driveby kick in the mouth

What..? I just had my first, surrealistic, experience of the Biography project assessment drive. I'm sorry if this complaint duplicates others, or should have been posted somewhere else; the discussion seems confusingly fragmented over different pages, and I've spent some time trying frustratedly to figure where to post. Anyway, yesterday two articles I wrote a long time ago, Elizabeth Barry and Anne Bracegirdle, popped up on my watchlist as having been assessed for the Biography Project by User:Yamara. It was ... well, a bit like getting a kick in the mouth. Barry and Bracegirdle were 17th-century actresses, and my articles contain all that is reliably known about them (though they don't contain all the rubbishy gossip around these sensationally publicly visible professional women). I'm a researcher in this field in real life, and have written many Featured articles. (As has Geogre, who I see higher up on this page, and whose excellent bios are routinely assessed as "Start Class".) I was quite proud of these two short articles and considered them to be as comprehensive and well-written as my FAs—only short. Properly referenced also. However, they were assessed "Start Class", with the comment from Yamara, identical for both, being "The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article." OK, I've looked up what Start Class means: while "not useless," a Start Class article is likely to "have the look of an article 'under construction'" and "usually isn't developed enough for a cleanup tag" (!). Some of the necessaries for transforming the Barry and Bracegirdle articles into the grandeur of B Class (where "considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors"), I was told in the 11 Easy Steps, would be to research the available literature to find reliable sources (I've already scoured the available sources, and am well placed for knowing which of them are reliable) and to work on the thing "until it's coherent and at least slightly informative." Wow, they're not even slightly informative, the way they are now? Well, there is no more information to be had than what's in there, so the logical thing would surely be to nominate them for AfD.
I see above on this page, btw, a discussion of the Easy Steps, with a post from Yamara that s/he isn't going to stop linking to that list despite requests to do so, because s/he personally "never took "Steps" as gospel, and rarely applied the technique myself." I have already messaged Yamara, and don't want to go back and add this, but I really am a bit offended by that line of reasoning. How is it that a "technique," which the poster of it doesn't think good enough to use, is reckoned to be good enough to recommend to me? Bishonen | talk 11:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Amen. For any of the people, above, who absolutely can't understand why anyone could possibly be offended by getting a "start class" drive-by, this will, I hope, be your antidote. I was more offended by the steps and didn't even bother to find out all the horrid things my "start class" articles were supposed to be to fit that classification. Geogre 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just rate the articles you edit yourself. That is what I do. Since I know the scholarship, I feel confident in my ratings. That way this entire mess can be avoided. Of, if the articles are solid and as complete as possible as you say, why not nominate them for GA? I have articles that can't get beyond GA because of the sources available. That's what I did. Awadewit | talk 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason why rating one's own articles is discouraged is because of possible conflict of interest. I have asked for assessments from other editors to sidestep this issue in the past, but I do admit to "upgrading" articles I have worked on. There is no harm in it if you understand the scale and what your edits have accomplished. María (críticame) 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure "conflict of interest" doesn't apply, especially when we're talking about established and esteemed editors such as these two. The point of assessing articles is to help the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and to help editors get a gauge of where "their" article is at and how it may be improved. It's not about handing out prizes at all. If as an editor you can reliably assess it yourself, do it. I assessed every Beatles article having contributed to several of them, and WP:KLF assess all our own articles (there's only 2 of us) and it's not presented any problems that I'm aware of. --kingboyk 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, "Start-Class drive-bys"? It's a Wikipedia Biography Assessment, not Samuel Johnson popping a cap in your ass.

Please note that the Start-class ratings for Elizabeth Barry and Anne Bracegirdle were originally from Ganymead at 15:56, 6 March 2007 and Triviaa at 20:02, 28 April 2007, respectively, both of which post-date Bishonen's last work on them. I merely agreed with both of them, adding sorting data and WikiProject workgroup acknowledgement. (And yes, the infobox tag and the standard comment.)

If Ælle of Sussex, who has all of six mentions in Anglo-Saxon to suggest he exists, can make to GA, and ultimately FA, with an article with such thorough detail, I imagine that two 17th Century actresses, with all their celebrated reviews, might beg a few more lines from their latter-days fans and so earn a more obvious rating of "B". Also, this will have the delightful effect of providing more information.

Naturally, being a wiki, you can simply assess yourselves a B-class, as Awadewit suggests, and so take away any shame accruing from such an unfortunate incident as a word-shooting by some nonplussed critic. What do they know anyway? -- Yamara 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If only they spent all that time creating articles or making the improvements they suggest, instead of critiquing the work of others. Neil ╦ 16:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yamara, I have 270 or so articles that I have written from start to finish, and not a stub among them, and Bishonen and I have, between us, something like 15 FA's. The way that you make AElle long is by not talking about him. The way you make Orm long is by not talking about him (and I might know something about this). I will be willing to take out an affadavit that the two of us are in a far, far, far, far better position to know reliable sources about 17th and 18th century English figures better than your suppositions. Your comments devalue any assessment you offer more than anything we "critics" could say. If you cannot tell the difference between a hawk and a handsaw, you needn't be guiding the project. Geogre 13:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is more to Wikipedia than creating and editing articles, though I do agree that this is of utmost importance. This is a "Behind the Scenes" endeavor, much like AfD or FAR or any WikiProject. I would have thought that you, as an administrator, Neil, would have recognized this fact. María (críticame) 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a word on the side: Bishonen and I are also administrators. A lot of the people complaining are. I would have thought that those wishing to apologize for the status quo of B.A.D. would say that this is the new order vs. the old guard. Geogre 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Being an administrator does not mean I have to agree with every endeavour that takes place. We do have opinions like everybody else, you know ... we're all editors first, admins second. Neil ╦ 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I meant that administrators, of all people, should understand the importance of "Behind the Scenes" work, such as assessing. I did not say that you should agree with this drive by default. María (críticame) 22:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Easy Steps

Just because I came across a sign marked "Free Pants!" over a pile of trousers in March doesn't mean you're right in accusing me that were never any pants there to begin with, and how dare I refer to free pants next to your lovingly handcrafted breeches.

In March 2007, I decided to help with the Biography Assessment Drive. There was a template for WPBiography, and a template for a comment, which had the (now disagreeable) phrase "This article can be improved by..." I've always seen it as an imperfect invitation to newcomers to try their hand at helping write Biographies, just as the 11 Easy Steps were imperfect.

I've seen at least a half dozen others use it as I have, because it seemed to be recommended by Wikipedia Itself. Likely it wasn't approved by more than a couple editors before it was posted.

But, neither are the new "Tips". Impromptu committees can change these things whenever, another fact of wiki life. This is why I am modifying my Biography Assessment comment (if I ever have time to use it again) as follows:

==Biography assessment rating comment ==

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. -- Yamara 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In use it won't be bolded. Note that the link itself is still to "11 Easy Steps", because it now has a hidden redirect, but I may change that as the situation solidifies.

Once it does, it might be useful to update the Bio template recommendations with an appropriate comment.

Cheers,

Yamara 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a little trouble getting my head round your metaphorics, Yamara, especially the ass and pants motif. What does it mean that "Just because I came across a sign marked "Free Pants!" over a pile of trousers in March doesn't mean you're right in accusing me that were never any pants there to begin with, and how dare I refer to free pants next to your lovingly handcrafted breeches"? Is it directed at me? If so, I'm rather sorry you took your employer's time for that actual personalized comment, because while I can see it's droll, I don't understand it. Are my articles the "lovingly handcrafted breeches," and then the free pants are..? No, I don't get it, please translate. I do get the other bit, where I'm assured it must be possible to buff up those articles (which I have the ignorance to claim contain all the reliable information that exists on these actresses), by adding some stuff from all their "celebrated reviews". That would be 17th-century reviews..? Gee, I wonder why the Shakespeare people never thought of using the contemporary reviews of his premieres, imagine the fount of information. In other words, there were no reviews. In yet others, how dare I peddle pants here under color of doing it in RL, when you're the only real salesman around? Bishonen | talk 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

The second paragraph explains the first, above; i.e. I followed now-removed instructions on using a now-deprecated comment template on Wikipedia, and you took it as a personal insult. "Pop a cap in the ass" is an old hip-hop reference to casual violence a la drive by shootings, a subject you initiated; perhaps you should brush up on that area of expertise. I bear no imaginings that stage reviews were genuinely being published in the 17th Century, any more than the actresses yet await them; only that there are almost always more details, especially in dramatic criticism, certainly in terms of context. And I confess no monopoly on pants; unless I am mistaken, I believe these are your breeches?

More on point, though, I have a trouble with Wikipedian hand-wringing in that no matter how much or how accurate the material you add, none of the articles are really "yours". It's part of the reason I "elf" and "gnome" more than I write articles. If I feel too personal about it, I believe I really ought to take my writing somewhere where I get the final credit for it, too.

I've been disappointed occasionally by edits to articles I've developed, and frustrated by vandals and borderline spammers, but never by challenges in the talk pages. Since Wikipedia is communal and constantly editable, there seems to be no basis by which to get personally upset.

Again, as I've said on your talk page, your biographies are well-written and researched. But you're still writing for free on the internet. Keep it in perspective. And keep your... shirt on. Cheers. -- Yamara 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, if I take it off, you ain't seen nothing like 'em. I don't mind the obsession with my clothes and body parts so much, but do feel free to stop condescending about the "material" and the poor attitude of content writers. That's actually the encyclopedia, you know, that content. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Diogenes Teufelsdröckh's Sartor Resartus rides again. Reviews.... You know, I rather thought that those actress articles did have the reviews -- the comments from Pepys, where possible. I gather that we must now, in every instance, include a section explaining why there aren't other sections. It's sort of like the bioboxes with their meatdata: "You must justify before the tribunal why this person does not have a photograph, because our box cannot read and understand that she was born in 420 AD." You must explain why there aren't reviews, why the periodical is going to wait a while, and then explain how you have, in fact, synthesized and captured the few prominent critics whose works address the unimportant people (like actresses) in terms other than sexual. Geogre 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly, i haven't read all of the above. The problem of underassessment sounds real, and it escapes me why the solution is not for the author to explain on the talk page (where the assessment appears) why a different assessment probably applies.

But the existence of trashy rumors is encyclopedic, if only to help document the prejudices of their time. E.g. "She was the object of trashy rumors, including [3 examples], but any evidence of their truth that may have existed is unknown, and scholars regard the rumors fully explained by the prevailing contemporary opinions of the acting profession and of the proper roles of women." So the exclusion of "rubbishy gossip" is a warning sign of an unfinished article.
--Jerzy•t 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jerzy, long time! I guess you didn't read the articles you're commenting on? The existence of the trashy rumours, with examples, is indeed in there. Mentioning the rumours above, I meant that I didn't treat the rumour sources as giving actual info—I knew how bad those sources were, and exactly why they were bad—it's all accounted for and explained in Elizabeth Barry (she was the one that got the rumours).
Bishonen | talk 21:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

• Hi, B. "Read the articles"? Not always, and sometimes not even the discussion i'm participating in! In this case, i was surprised not to see something clearer about what the core of the dispute was, but i turns out i don't seem to have added anything useful. Thanks for being among the many eyeballs that keep jambonies like me from making a mess of the whole thing.

Yeah, in the absence of my long-time focus there've been far fewer occasions for me to get lured into random contributions. I'm anticipating the need to stay available enuf, re a November election, that it wouldn't make sense to launch now into anything new that would keep me as busy as LoPbN did. But that's temporary. Thanks for asking.
--Jerzy•t 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that Sarah Fielding, despite having valuable edits from someone studying 18th c. children's literature, having a women's studies professor's edits, having the DNB, and having my own input, is "start class." Remember folks: it violates WP policies to be "start" class. It needs 80% of its content added. Check out how valuable that assessment is. Click on the link and then go do some research. See for yourself how vast the quantities of needed information are, how it's beneath cleanup even. See how well served the Biography Project is by that one being called "start." Please. Geogre 22:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In terms of comprehensiveness and content, I believe you when you say it is a great article. In terms of layout, presentation and writing, it still needs improvement. Of course people judge by looks when they don't know anything about the content. :-) Carcharoth 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing? What is poorly written? What, in terms of layout? 80% of the content yet to be added? That's what "start class" is. Several policies violated? That's what "start class" is. If people don't even know what "start class" means, then they've no business saying that it fits what an article is. Sarah Fielding's biography is largely yet to be written in the world. She left few remains. She wrote no memoirs. She did not have her letters collected. She was "Henry's sister" before she died and that's all she was after she died. In what way is this "start class" and full of policy violations and missing all its content? If you mean, "there is a sentence here or there that seems ambiguous," that's "not FA." If you mean, "This isn't a full life," then that's "someone needs to do a dissertation plus four years researching to write and publish a full length biography." None of that is "start class." Geogre 01:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of improvements to style and layout that can be done. I'm not talking about content. I can't judge the content - people like you need to judge that. I agree that assessing it as "start" is silly, but remember that people are essentially taking unassessed articles and considering three options: stub, start, B. Ideally, experts will then look over their area of expertise and upgrade these assessments where they are too low. The best thing to do would be to push for a formal unassessed class for articles you don't want to see assessed, or to take the time to read articles you know about and assess them. This should be the other way around. As I've said several times before, look at Wikipedia:Assessment overhaul and help push for a system that says the first thing to be rated should be the content - and that this should be done by volunteers and experts working in specialised groups. Only once an article is considered to be approaching a minimum standard of completeness (eg. B-class), will the "style and layout" assessors arrive, to polish up the articles. If you want a demonstration of such polishing on Sarah Fielding, I'll do that now. Carcharoth 12:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, have a look at the difference between this version of the article and this version after I finished polishing it. I suspect that this sort of gloss is what the reviewers are looking for, which is what I meant above by "Of course people judge by looks when they don't know anything about the content". I'll be the first to say that I haven't contributed to the content of the article (never heard of the woman or her books before), but carefully judged little tweaks like this can help. Ultimately, I agree with Geogre (who has seen the changes I made), that there are fundamental problems when assessment drives don't keep the writers of the content onside. However, it is still unclear what the exact scope of the problem is (most assessments being carried out correctly and a minority being vocal about the incorrect ones, or lots of incorrect assessments and only a minority complaining about them?). Ultimately, the aim should be to get the correct assessments of articles and find a way to keep them stable (ie. a template saying the subject is comprehensively covered, even if the article is short, so don't downgrade the article on 'apparent incompleteness alone'). Carcharoth 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you find your own statment to be a fairly damning indictment of the whole assessment project, though? The presence of section headers and pictures (where they are not urgently and obviously begging to be included) shouldn't be a significant factor in evaluating the overall quality of an article. Your edits to Sarah Fielding, while useful, constituted a very minor improvement; if your version would be assessed differently from the previous version, that's evidence that the assessment process is seriously flawed. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it didn't come across as clearly as I would have liked, but yes, I do agree that the sort of edits I made should not be the difference between assessment classes. Have a look again at what I wrote, in particular the bits such as: ""Of course people judge by looks when they don't know anything about the content". I'll be the first to say that I haven't contributed to the content of the article..." The trouble is that 'information content' and 'layout and style' get lumped into the same assessment. There is a wide range of standards from a two sentence stub to a featured article. It is obvious that having six classes (stub, start, B, GA, A, FA) doesn't do justice to the variance in standards within articles. This is even more apparent when someone comes across an unassessed article that is obviously very, very good, but has never been given GA or been peer reviewed. The instinct is to say that the article is B-class, and let one of the regular editors enter the article into whatever processes exist for raising it still further. In other words, assessments handed out by this assessment drive are sometimes only a "the article is at least this standard, and may indeed be better, but we are not sure". Does that make sense? There are some stubs that are fairly long, but don't quite look like a start article. Equally, there are start articles that look comprehensive, but are so messy that marking them as B would defeat the purpose of the assessment. Ultimately, rather than have the ugly "needs wikifying", "needs formatting", "needs copyediting", "needs references", "needs notability" tags on top of articles, I would prefer that articles be assessed separately on these standards (and that content issues be separated from purely presentational issues), and that this be noted on the talk page somewhere (outside of the WikiProject tags), with a single note left at the top of the article saying "The article has been tagged as having these problems. See the talk page for details." There should be two assessment grades, one for content and one for presentation. How to change things though, is difficult. Maybe keep the current grades as an "overall grade", and set up a system that displays the old grade if the two new grades are not present, and displays the two new grades (content and presentation) if they are present? Doea anyone think this sounds feasible? Carcharoth 13:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that the first evaluation, properly done, would be quite resource-intensive to perform (it certainly wouldn't be susceptible to a "drive" like this one) while the second evaluation would be of so little value as hardly to be worth performing. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point, and the 'content' assessment is definitely the most important, but I can't quite agree that 'presentation' is completely worthless. If articles were assessed with these factors in mind, it would help people find articles that they could work on in different ways. I happen to like both kinds of editing - adding content and tidying it up. I happen to think that a drive like this might have worked better if it had had a checklist of simple things to check for, and have simply left a copy of the "report" in the template or on the talk page (eg. more sections would make the article more readable; is a picture available? (it is difficult to know when looking at an article whether one has been looked for and not found, or whether no-one has bothered); has anyone tried to put the article in a few more categories?; DEFAULTSORT is missing; no birth year (maybe add Category:Year of birth missing or Category:Year of birth unknown) - that sort of thing. Simple fixes like bolding, wikilinking, style issues, could be fixed by the person who notes them, but sometimes it is more efficient to go through a list and note the ones that have this sort of thing missing. Not all of these are 'presentation' - some are 'content'-related and need a moderate understanding of what is involved. If this feels like a 'league of copyeditors' sort of thing (and that does exist on Wikipedia), or some of the more mundane wikignome work, then maybe it is. But a clear list of things to check for like this - regardless of content - should be fairly productive. The other thing to bear in mind is that there are many, many good assessments being done as part of this drive. What is most difficult to get to grips with is the exact proportions, given the large numbers or articles involved here, of the 'good' and 'bad' assessments, and how useful the assessments are overall. That brings me full circle to what I said several weeks ago, which is that there are definite disadvantages to large WikiProjects like this one. I feel that in future, the WikiProject should concentrate on purely biographical aspects of articles - birth and death dates; biographical sortkeys that sort articles by surname (though I am biased there as I'm currently trying to get a mini-project on those two topics underway); working on merging or redirecting pseudobiographies; reminding people about biographies of living persons issues; working on the core biography articles again (last time I checked that project had stalled); and, most importantly, bringing together people who work on biographical articles and helping them learn from each other and providing guidance on various issues. Carcharoth 22:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Style assessments wouldn't so much be worthless because presentation is worthless; they would be a waste of time because the pre-existing system of cleanup tags serves basically the same need. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Though one of the problems with that is that those tags are on the article, rather than the article's talk page. It would be nice to know if any WPBiography articles are tagged with clean-up tags, but how can that sort of intersection be generated? ie. "find all articles tagged with {{cleanup}} that fall within the scope of a particular WikiProject, or WPBiography workgroup? Carcharoth 12:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are assessors even reading an article before making an assessment?

After a recent "evaluation" of Ettore DeGrazia, an article with 2K or readable text and multiple listed references, that showed the article was at "stub-class", meaning very short or filled with irrelevant or incomprehensible material, I noticed that the person performing the assessment had managed to perform 96 such assessments in the span of 74 minutes. Is it typical for large blocks of assessments to be performed at this rate of speed? If so, then how do the assessors have time to load an article page, read enough of the article to make an intelligent determination, load the article talk page, and then edit and save the article talk page at a sustained rate of 46.25 seconds per article? Even with the use of automated edit tools and a high speed connection, this is a rate of effort that strongly suggests that one of the steps needed for a useful assessment is not occurring. --Allen3 ^talk 01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the bigger question of whether or not assessment is ever useful, as soon as you start setting targets and counting how many assessments take place, some people will always start going for quantity rather than quality, and just rubber-stamp hundreds of talk pages to say they've assessed X articles. It's human nature, and it's why arbitrary targets in any walk of life are always counter-productive. Neil ム 11:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arie de Jong

I recently undertook the translation of this article from the Volapük Wikipedia into English. My translation is here.

It is currently marked as a stub, and I think the article should be re-rated, and also its Talk page looked over.

Thanks! Chuffable 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, see article talk page for comments. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about assessments of merged articles

What should be done about articles such as Ceol of Wessex and Ceolwulf of Wessex? These two have been merged into Wessex, because there is only a sentence or so that can be said about either of them. Both have a WP:Biography assessment. If the redirect were to a person, then I know the assessment would be unneeded. Since it's to the Wessex article, which is not a person, do you want the assessment left there? Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say the assessment should be removed entirely, until an actual article is created again -- redirects don't get assessed, wherever they point. However, I'd also imagine it doesn't matter all that much whether they're left or removed. -Bbik^★ 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

When were they rated?

I see lots of articles that have received a rating. What I do NOT see is WHEN they received that rating. After all, something that was rated "Stub-Class" can be a "Class-A" article now. So how can I see when a given article was rated and, also, when (if ever) will it be re-rated? Remember that a lot of edits may have occurred since the time an article was rated... wjmt 01:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rating articles

Some people are very famous, some people are less famous, and lots of graduations... . Sometimes, really, there is not much to say about some person, other than that person once was a world champion or something. So those articles are rated "start-class", even though the person's life before and after that really was not worth a mention in WP? To rate someone's biography "Start-class" really sounds like the article should be expanded to include everything this person did that was not noteworthy at all from a WP standpoint. Some people deserve to be in WP, but are not as notorious as an Einstein or as infamous as a Hitler. So their articles are "exhausted" a lot earlier. Why call those articles "Start-class" when there really is not much else to say about them that merits a mention in WP? wjmt 01:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right that some articles shouldn't go beyond - well stub class frankly speaking. But it's just a name. Start class just says that an article has a certain extent, nothing else. We could change the name, but it would be an awful lot of work and a lot of other projects use the same quality scale, so... -Duribald 12:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a basic filter called Wikipedia:Notability that does a fair job of getting rid of subjects that don't have anything to be written about them. Other than that, you'd be surprised what dedicated and good editors can do with the least promising material: a minor actress ; minor fictional characters no one liked ; a minor inventor ; a number -- all Wikipedia:Featured articles. There are plenty like that. One mouse's trash is another mouse's treasure. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

What happens when all the biographical articles on Wikipedia have been assessed? (or nearly all, you'll never get to 100%, as it's not a closed system) Neil ム 11:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We celebrate? I'm not sure what the meaning of the question is. There will always be a need for this page, as articles will keep being written and existing articles will keep being improved. Is that what you're asking? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Article on regional religious leader

I placed a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag on an article entitled Harold G. Hillam because I felt it did not meet any guidelines for notability of people. It was removed and a few more sources added. Can someone take a quick look at it to see if the article is appropriate to Wikipedia. While interesting, the subject is a regional personage, and none of the sources are independent of his own religious group. Any help would be appreciated. I look at new articles related to Idaho for possible inclusion in our project. This article seemed more appropriate for a religious encyclopedia. --Robbie Giles 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's debatable, not clear cut either way. He was apparently one of about 100 of the most important people Latter Day Saint movement for fifteen years, which isn't nothing, but I don't know if it's notable for our purposes, which are basically listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). The LDS is an important religion in itself, and especially in Idaho and Utah. The 5 most important people of the LDS are clearly notable enough for an article, the 1000 most important probably aren't, but the 100 most important? I don't know. You may want to nominate it for Articles for deletion and see what people give as arguments. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gregory David Roberts

There has been many problems with this Biography over the last few months. There were defamatory edits by various contributors and replies by whom the article is about or someone representing him. This became a war of words and vandalism began to occur, with also promotional information being posted. The article was mainly unsourced and i have tried to source some of the information and make the nessacery edits. A Editor has now reverted the article to a one line stub and placed it under semi-protected. There is a movie being made later this year based on the novel of the featured person, so the biography will get more viewings. So am unsure what progress can now be done with this Biography. Boylo 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy FAC

I recently nominated Cillian Murphy for FAC. There have been only four reviewers thus far, so it would be great to get some experienced biography editors to give the article a careful reading against the featured article criteria. Thanks! --Melty girl 18:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a category for lists

We need a category for lists. I've come across a few lists that are definitely about people (and hence where a bio project banner would be reasonably appropriate). While adding "List" in the class parameter does indeed turn that part of the banner purple and say that the page is a list, the page is left in the Unassessed biography articles category. Two such lists that I've recently tagged as lists are Talk:General Officer Commanding the Forces Canada and Talk:Governor General of the Province of Canada. I'm certain there were others I tagged the same way.

Unfortunately, while I know how to create a category, I don't know how to tie it to an assessment as a list. Anyway, I thought it better to say something here. Any thoughts?  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 16:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I know how to. Hold on... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. The article talk pages themselves should now work, the Category:List-Class biography articles might take a while to get filled in as the back end notices the change. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 14:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog 16 October 2007

Hi. Just a note to remark on the current four-article backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog cleared. Suggestion though: rather than note the backlog, it should be as easy, and more productive, to clear it, to actually evaluate the listed articles. The basic Stub/Start/B assessment this page does is intentionally not supposed to be hard. It should be fairly easy: If the article is under 5-10 sentences of meaningful text, it's Stub-class. If it's more than 10 sentences long, but doesn't really cover most things very thoroughly - either only has one or two sections, or has sections that are only a few sentences long, it's Start-class. If the article has most of the sections it needs, and the sections have most of the text they need, and there are references for most of that, "a majority of the material needed for a completed article", it's B-class. This doesn't get into the details of how well the text is written, if everything is really covered or just looks covered from a quick glance, whether something is biased, and so forth; that's GA-class and A-class and FA-class, reviewing for those takes time. The basic reviewing of an article for Stub/Start/B assessment should be a couple of minutes at most. Most times it's obvious enough you can even assess your own articles if they aren't borderline. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We all have our areas of expertise and interest within Wikipedia. Assessing articles is not one of mine, and I will not be entering this field in the forseeable future. That is not to say that I don't appreciate the good work done by those who do assess, and I am ever grateful for the past responses to my requests. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I couldn't write an article about a referee. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Prompting for pictures

Hi. Though it is probably a general note in assessment notifications to contributors that "a photograph of the subject would be desirable", not everyone works in the area of images (I don't ever, for instance). But the over-riding obstacle will always be getting a decent and free image of a living person uploaded and rationale successfully established. The process is fraught with problems, enough so that I will never be adding photographs to any articles I submit. I hope those who do specialise in the image area of Wikipedia can help. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same. I never bother with images because it's such a nightmare process. --BizMgr (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion option?

I think we should have the option to have a second opinion for assessing articles, and to put an article on hold. Often when I assess articles, I have a hard time deciding between 2 ratings. What do you all think? Green caterpillar (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Will Donato

Re. my creation of Will Donato: I've done a few biographies under a previous username of famous people whom I happen to be fortunate enough to know. Although I don't know Will very well, I feel he's certainly more than deserving of an article and I've taken the initiative to add the WPBiography template to the talk page. I've spoken to a mutual friend who will have the subject contact me to provide additional biographical info.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)