Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Importance (or priority) ratings

The WikiProject Biography scheme for assessing the importance (or priority) of biographical articles seems to have been quite influential on other WikiProjects: in particular, at WikiProject Mathematics, we have long referred to it as a guideline for assessing the importance of articles about mathematicians.

There have been several discussions about article assessment recently at WT:WPM, and we are trying to develop more detailed guidelines about importance ratings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance. One issue is whether these ratings describe the importance of the article or the subject of the article. Although the two are often correlated, it seems to me that the former more faithfully describes the purpose of the assessment programme, and indeed is one reason to prefer the term "priority" to "importance" (as this project does).

I am therefore somewhat puzzled that the Biography importance/priority descriptors focus almost entirely on the importance of the person rather than the importance of having an article on that person. My favourite example of the distinction (within mathematics) is Srinivasa Ramanujan. While he was a mathematical genius with remarkable output, his contributions and impact on mathematics are not in the same league as those of mathematicians such as Leonard Euler and Carl Friedrich Gauss. On the other hand, an article on Ramanujan is surely of top importance because of the fascinating nature of his story, its social ramifications, and the insights it provides into the mind of a mathematical genius.

Assessing the importance of the person rather than the article creates other difficulties, in particular for biographies of living people. Such people cannot possibly have had impact across several generations, and so should typically be rated Mid or Low importance. I can imagine some living persons (and their devotees) having issues with such an assessment! Also person-importance does not necessarily generate the best criteria. I have mentioned impact across generations already; impact around the world is another example. This is not always relevant to the importance of the person or the article. Alexander the Great had little impact on the Americas, for instance, while subjects like mathematics are now inherently international. (And a theorem is always a theorem.)

So I wonder if it is worth having a discussion here on this issue. Geometry guy 11:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that bio templates are not currently displaying the importance/priority parameter. Why?
WRT, above I have interpretted generation as the range of birthdates (meaning affected people of all ages). I consider Michael Jordan an athlete who has impacted people, especially ahtletes for about 25 years, but I walk around Chicago and see 7 year olds begging for Jordan attire and feel that people born in 1950 or later were all impacted by him. I am not sure how across generations applies here. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Only the core biographies have been officially rated by the biography project. Michael Jordan is a core biography and therefore of Top-importance. All other priority ratings have to be looked at with a more than average critical attitude, as they were most likely given by either people who aren't familiar with the Biography project, or by the writers of the article, fans, or other biased people. Errabee 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think across generations here refers to lasting historical impact. People from thousands of years ago still being talked about today, or the latest flash-in-the-pan that will be forgotten in a few years time. Carcharoth 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Geometry guy that rating by 'priority of the article' seems better than rating by 'importance of the person'.... I had more to say, but I've forgotten it. DonkeyKong64 (Mathematician in training) 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this just the difference between the "priority" and "importance" rating scales? (As a new WP editor, though, I don't know if this dichotomy reflects progress in the 9 months or so between the previous post and mine.) Jmacwiki (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:People acquitted of sex crimes

Is Category:People acquitted of sex crimes a good idea? Canuckle 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is a terrible idea. Its definition is ambiguous and it conflicts with the idea that there should not be a criminal record for people acquitted of crimes. I suggest you nominate it for deletion at WP:CfD. Geometry guy 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It smacks of "name and shame", when there are no convictions to justify such an action. Readers would be tempted to access the category just to see who nearly got convicted of what. Definitely CfD. Ref (chew)(do) 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --BizMgr (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur, especially since there is no distinction between (at the extremes) "People unjustly tried by corrupt DAs", "People who killed their only sex-crime witnesses before they could testify and were therefore acquitted, though later convicted of murder". Where do I vote? Jmacwiki (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Too late, Jmacwiki. It survived deletion with a "no consensus" here. They say that all "People acquitted of" categories must be considered for deletion, not just "sex crimes". There you go. Ref (chew)(do) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jmacwiki (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Close the assessment department?

It seems like whoever opened the assessment department has departed. Articles no longer seem to get assessed.

Should we note that it's inactive at the moment? Close it down? Or encourage people to ask a specific, uninvolved editor to use the criteria to assess? --Melty girl (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles are being assessed. The problem is with the assessment bot, which seems to encounter extreme problems when dealing with the half million or so articles which it has to keep track of. There is discussion taking place regarding how to deal with this matter. One of the suggestions is to "break off" the assessments for the various work groups from the main biography assessment, thus reducing the number of articles that have to be tabulated for the main biography assessment. Any support or opposition to this idea, or any other ideas, would certainly be welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Where is the conversation? --Melty girl (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of it has taken place, so far as I can tell, at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. It also mentions the possibility there, particularly in the "Table update" section, of creating more subprojects to maybe "speed up" the bot in a sense. If you can think of any additional subprojects which might fly, please feel free to propose them. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

infoboxes

The article on "Simon Rattle" has had a "WP Biography" banner for some time and a "WP Clasical music" banner has been added today. The article has had an infobox for about one year (which indicates implied consensus), but it has been removed today. There is an area on the talk page to discuss the presence of an infobox on this page. Snowman (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spring 2008 Assessment Drive

The Spring 2008 assessment drive is up and running and I look forward to working with all of you there! --Ozgod (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eftekasat Rating!

Hi guys! what's up?! As i understand, this article is related to the project, so i'm requesting a rating of the article and if possible suggestions on how to improve it! Thank you for you cooperation! :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have requested this in the correct place here for you. I have already carried out slight alterations per the manual of style. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article importance grading scheme

How come you guys have this(Top, High, Mid, Low) etc, you got it documented but you don't show it on the assessment template and it's not shown on the overall assessment figures. It this template issue? Or is there some further reason that I'm not aware of. SunCreator (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It was determined that it would be too difficult to implement, and ultimately not particularly useful, considering about 1/8 of the total articles are biography. We basically leave the other projects to determine the relative importance of articles, except for the most essential ones. John Carter (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that you mis-understand, so I'll try again. If you look on the pages of some biography's for example Talk:Patrick_Henry click edit and look at the assessment code you'll see the following:
{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=B
|priority=High
|politician-work-group=yes
}}
I understand that means the priority for this biography is set and it is implemented(recognised by the template), and agrees with biography assessment information, however the talk page Talk:Patrick_Henry does not actually show the priority (to humans) viewing the template. SunCreator (talk)
We don't bother showing it because it's more or less useless, and doesn't really mean much for the project. We've had many problems and no benefits to having that, so we don't use it. Wizardman 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So the documentation of it Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Priority_scale should be removed then? SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No one have any objection then to it's removal. SunCreator (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The |priority= parameter in the above example sets the priority level for the politics & government work group, and adds the article to Category:High-priority biography (politics and government) articles. It's not an ideal way of doing things, though. If you're interested there is some discussion about the |priority= parameter on the banner's talk page, but hopefully this will be resolved soon. PC78 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese painter Pu Ru

I created a stub about Pu Ru; I thought this was one good place to ask for improvement to the article. B7T (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment seems to be the place (I also hit your userpage).Mjquin_id (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton

Hello. I'm not sure this is the correct place to do so, but I would like to request help for the Alexander Hamilton biography. I previously posted a help request to the American History Taskforce, but there doesn't seem to be anyone home there. This article needs a great deal of help from the widest possible variety of quality editors. The Hamilton article, rather bizarrely, is shockingly contentious and POV. The article is guarded by a longtime editor, PMAnderson. This editor admits to disagreeing with the consensus of current historical research about Hamilton, and works to promote and preserve edits that skew the biography of Hamilton towards a far more negative version than the consensus of historical sources supports. I have tried improving parts of the article, only to find myself personally attacked over and over. I continue to work with him, but frankly, I am exhausted, and need help. PMAnderson edits Wikipedia almost all day long and almost everyday. He is deeply entrenched in this article. I do not have the time to keep up with him on my own. If you can, please, please help this article--new editors can only help it. All I want is for the article to reflect the historical consensus about Hamilton. Hamilton is such a basic American historical biography that it absolutely needs to be accurate. If this article does not within the scope of this project, please forward this SOS to an appropriate group, and/or let me know where I can find additional quality editors to lend the article some help. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Remerçiment,très grand remerçiment.De la part de Fred.

JIM mille merçi pour le prix que tu ma fait sur les live's que ta sortie .Merçi beaucoup c'est très gentil,sinkyou very mutch.Merçie aussis pour tous les remix et mix ,verssion ext. que tu ma donner par Bart ,c'est vraiment très gentil ,merçi beaucoup Sinkyou very mutch.Si tu pouvais m'envoyer une photo dédicacer du groupe ça serais very cool.Et aussis une photo de toi dédicacer ça serais genial.Merçie beaucoup .embrasses Burchill et les autres.ViVa the NEW ALBUM,VIVA SIMPLE MINDS,VIVA LES LIVE'S.SINKYOU VERY MUTCH.BISOUS.Fred. fargier.frederic@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.18.4 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FL-class

Is there a reason why there is no FL-class in the assessment table? e.g. List of Governors of Pennsylvania was promoted to a Featured List but is listed by all of its WikiProjects, including this one, as FA-class. --Millbrooky (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're both featured, so I think it's less of a hassle to just have it as FA-class. The last thing we need right now is more classes. Wizardman 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would be a good thing to include FL-Class, not least because articles and lists achieve featured status via a different departments. Sincle the class is already being used by many other WikiProjects, and since our own Project banner already semi-supports FL-Class, it shouldn't require too much effort to include it. PC78 (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

C Class

I see that people are busy regrading artricles to a new C class but there is no detailed description of this class in Section 2.4. Surely a formal definition distinguishing between the new classes is required here before people shoot off re-classifying articles? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the new classes could simply be included using {{Grading scheme}}. BNutzer (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Should we adapt the grading scheme in WikiProject Biography? Green caterpillar (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think we should. I think we should just remove the quality scale we have now and just put that template there. Anyone agree? Green caterpillar (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. BNutzer (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, since no one seems to disagree, and because the FL-class issue above needs to be fixed, I'll just do it. Green caterpillar (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Reverted for now. While I agree with using {{Grading scheme}} in principle, this does pose several issues. Firstly, this project does not have an FL-Class (though perhaps this should be rectified?) - tag a biography article as FL-Class and it gets dumped in the Unassessed category. Secondly, the {{Grading scheme}} does not give the same prominence to the project's A-Class review department. As a side note, we do need to add List-Class to the assessment scale, and we could do with some updated biography-specific examples for each class. PC78 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've made a rough draft here. It has basically everything you suggested except the updated biography-specific examples. If we were to include FL-class, there's a draft here. You can edit them if you want. Green caterpillar (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've just been over to A-Class review and it appears to be inactive, though I can't find the relevant discussion regarding its future. If A-Class review is no longer in use, then the wording in {{Grading scheme}} should be fine. Personally I think we should also use this opportunity to properly implement FL-Class, though this may not be an opinion shared by others. I'll see if I can find out what's going on with A-Class, though. PC78 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding FL-Class to the Biography assessment scale

FL-Class is now one of the standard grades at WP:ASSESS and seems to be fairly common elsewhere on Wikipedia; since it's absence here has been noted by others, I though I'd make a formal request. It appears not to have been previously discussed, but FWIW I personally don't see any good reason why we shouldn't have it. FL-Class obviously applies only to list articles that have been promoted at WP:FLC, a different process to normal articles which are promoted at WP:FAC. Currently, featured biography lists are assessed as FA-Class, but I think it's a useful distinction to make.

It wouldn't be difficult to implement, and I'm prepared to carry out the necessary work myself (i.e. making the required changes to {{WPBiography}}, and tagging all relevant articles). But I though I'd get a few other opinions before proceeding any further. PC78 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done, since no one objected. PC78 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft of new assessment scale

Well, because of the FL-class, C-class, A-class review, new biography examples, the new Grading scheme that the Version 1.0 Editorial team is using, and other concerns mentioned above, here is a new draft of a possible assessment scale for the Biography WikiProject:

WikiProject article progress grading scheme [
]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
FA
{{FA-Class}} 		Article has obtained "Featured article" status.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
(as of June 2008)
FL
{{FL-Class}} 		Article has "Featured lists" status.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 None yet
(as of January 2008)
A
{{A-Class}} 		Reserved exclusively for articles that have received A-class status by the A-class review department. Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to "tweak" the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. Jesus
(as of March 2007)
GA
{{GA-Class}} 		Article has obtained Good article status.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet the good article criteria:

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Theodore Kaczynski
(as of February 2007)
B
{{B-Class}} 		The article is mostly complete, without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria:
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 No reader should be left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. Martin Luther
(as of October 2007)
C
{{C-Class}} 		The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than "Start"-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or trivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. Philip II of Spain
(as of June 2008)
Start
{{Start-Class}} 		An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. Samuel Beardsley
(as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}} 		A very basic description of the topic.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. Julian Myerscough
(as of July 2005)
List
{{List-Class}} 		Meets the criteria of a Stand-alone List, which is a page that contains primarily a list. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of Governors of Nebraska
(as of June 2007)

So, anyone have any comments or suggestions?

I hope we can get a working assessment scale, because the old one isn't exactly working, seeing that we've started assessing the C-class rating already, and until we have a working one, we can't really assess anything else properly within the project (except maybe stubs). Green caterpillar (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the A-Class to begin with, and would support its removal. Granted, we'd be one of the few projects without it, but I don't see the need. The gap between GA and FA is so small already. Wizardman 23:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need do anything quite so drastic, though the project's A-Class review department appears to have died on its arse. With regards to the revised assessment scale above, I would prefer to get FL-Class sorted first, plus I'm still hoping we can just use the basic {{grading scheme}}. PC78 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you said up above that you didn't like it. This is basically {{grading scheme}} with a modified A-class description, a list class, a bunch of hidden code deleted, and new biography examples. But anyway, we need to get one working soon, some way or another, before we can continue assessment.
If you want FL-class removed, here's what it looks like:
WikiProject article progress grading scheme [
]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
FA
{{FA-Class}} 		Article has obtained "Featured article" status.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
(as of June 2008)
A
{{A-Class}} 		Reserved exclusively for articles that have received A-class status by the A-class review department. Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to "tweak" the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. Jesus
(as of March 2007)
GA
{{GA-Class}} 		Article has obtained Good article status.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet the good article criteria:

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Theodore Kaczynski
(as of February 2007)
B
{{B-Class}} 		The article is mostly complete, without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria:
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 No reader should be left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. Martin Luther
(as of October 2007)
C
{{C-Class}} 		The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than "Start"-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or trivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. Philip II of Spain
(as of June 2008)
Start
{{Start-Class}} 		An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. Samuel Beardsley
(as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}} 		A very basic description of the topic.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. Julian Myerscough
(as of July 2005)
List
{{List-Class}} 		Meets the criteria of a Stand-alone List, which is a page that contains primarily a list. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of Governors of Nebraska
(as of June 2007)

Green caterpillar (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I never said that! :) It still needs a little work (there's still a fair bit of hidden code in there, for one thing), but I think we can afford to wait for a couple of days. If no-one objects to my proposed addition of FL-Class, I'll get that sorted then I'll take another look at this. PC78 (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK then, we now have FL-Class, and I've tweaked Green caterpillar's assessment scale. I've created a template at {{WikiProject Biography grading scheme}} and added it to the assessment page. Might do a bit more later. PC78 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the priority scale and parameter?

We never really use the priority scale or the parameter, except for the core=yes parameter for the core biographies part of the Wikiproject. So, I think they're just confusing. Why not just remove them? Also, I think we should remove the priority option for the {{WPBiography}} template, because we alread have the core one. Anyone disagree? Green caterpillar (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe priority is used for the various biography work groups. PC78 (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
But on the main biography assessment page, it doesn't really have a use, and it's rather confusing. Green caterpillar (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The work groups don't generally have their own assessment pages, though. PC78 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a bug in the priority parameter?

  1. Talk:Baal Shem Tov has the priority=top set but doesn't show up in the corresponding category.
  2. Talk:Abraham Lincoln has the listas= correctly set, but shows up in the Top-priority category under A.

__meco (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. The priority scale only applies to WPBiography work groups; since the article is not tagged as being part of any work group, the priority parameter does not apply.
  2. Possibly. The article is sorted under "L" in other categories. PC78 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Appreciated. __meco (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Raymond of Toulouse

I leave this one up to you all, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_VII&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Count_of_Toulouse_Raymond_VII&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_VI,_count_of_Toulouse&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymund_VI,_Count_of_Toulouse&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raimon_VI_of_Toulouse&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_VI&redirect=no and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Count_of_Toulouse_Raymond_VI&redirect=no all need to be checked out. My apologies for not knowing if there is an easier way to post the links. Arenlor (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

K M Kader Mohideen

This is regarding the biography of Vellore MP, Mr K M Kader Mohideen. The article states he was a senate member of the standing committee at the Bharathidasan University in the late 1970s.

This is improbable as the Bharathidasan University itself was started in 1982. It appears the writer's not very careful style had contributed to this inaccuracy.

This is a time line error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.203.184 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


Tila Tequila = American?

This has been a long-running Talk:Tila_Tequila#Vietnamese_American dispute on the talk page of Tila's article. I am not quite sure if this is the right place for such an inquiry, but I would like an editor (or several, if that's the case) to drop by and check it out. I want this matter settled, it's a bit annoying how the page is tagged one day and undone, yet redone the next. Thanks in advance. ★Dasani★ 08:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Museum?

There is an African American museum in Macon, GA, named the Tubman African American Museum; named for Harriet Tubman. Could this be mentioned on the Harriet Tubman page? I know some bio pages mention bridges and other things named after the person. I would not consider this as trivia but more of a recognition or memorial of sorts. I asked this question on the page itself but didn't get a response. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Brinkley32 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. DThomsen8 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Adding to Ralph Cooper Hutchison

I request some editing help with the Ralph Cooper Hutchison article. I added a remark about how Hutchison went on to be president of Lafayette College, and included a book source, but so far there has been no response. I removed the University Project template from the article. Academics are not within the scope of that project. DThomsen8 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Rewrote Alexander Pechersky Article

I rewrote the whole article on Alexander Pechersky, the Sobibor uprising leader, from the ground up, basing it more on the Russian Wiki, but also using a lot more references (before we had 0). Any suggestions would be appreciated and if possible maybe we could regrade the article? I am a bit new to this, so not sure if I am posting this comment in the correct area.

I also created completely new bio-articles on Erich Bauer, Kurt Bolender, Hermann Michel & Gerrit Kleerekoper. If anyone care to look, and maybe grade those as well. Thanks! Meishern (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FAQ update needed for MetaData assessment script

The "MetaData article assessment script" referenced under the Frequently Asked Questions section of this project page has been deleted - intentionally according to comments found in the history before the page was blanked. Would someone familiar with this situation please make the needed changes to the project page FAQ? Thanks! Rostdo (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic ingredients of a good biography?

While perusing this page, I found metrics for biography articles, but the metrics are vague. There's no basic ingredients list of what an encyclopedia level biography needs to contain.

I came here because of Rudolf Wolters containing no information on his marriage to a person named "Erika" other than that she existed, and only passing reference to this person having a son. There's no other information about his immediate family. This to me seems to be pretty basic, core information that any good biography article should contain. Yet, it's missing. This article achieved featured article status with it missing. I don't understand this. For this reason alone, the article should not be a featured article. There's other reasons too, but that's beyond the scope of my concern here.

There should be a basic ingredients list of what a good biography article should contain. This is curiously absent. Casting about on other projects, I see this sort of thing is absent from some (all?) other projects as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue with a list such as you propose is what to do when the demands of the list are at odds with Wikipedia:Verifiability. As the result of fire, insects, human error and other causes, records have a tendency to be lost or destroyed over time. Differences in record keeping standards have also varied over time. As a result, basic information such as names, places, and dates for a variety of life events are not always available. There may also be multiple competing versions of information. How do you propose to deal with situations when there is no reliable source for the information demanded by this proposed list? --Allen3 talk 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Michael Chabon

I have reviewed this article as part of the GA sweeps process. The article is basically OK, but there are a number of dead links which need fixing. I have put the assessment on hold whilst these are addressed. Comments at Talk:Michael Chabon/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment/Archive_3&oldid=1137392378"