Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia/Assessment

As a FA-class article, Indo-Greek Kingdom is not a featured article anymore. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hence its removal last week Otebig 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Language importance criteria

I'm curious about the criteria used to assess the importance of language articles. The following were found with CatScan by intersection of the WikiProject Languages articles category and the various WPCA importance categories:

• High-importance: Kazakh language, Kyrgyz language, Pashto language, Persian language, Tajik language, Turkic languages, Turkmen language, Uyghur language, Uzbek language
• Mid-importance: Avestan language, Bactrian language, Central Asian Arabic, Chagatai language, Dari (Eastern Persian), Iranian languages, Karakalpak language, Khotanese language, Khwarezmian language, Languages of Afghanistan, Sakan language, Scythian languages, Sogdian language, Tocharian languages
• Low-importance: Parthian language, Tangshewi language, Tangut language, Western Yugur language

I can understand that some of these which are peripheral to Central Asia should probably be lower importance, but most of them are pretty significant either in contemporary or scientific importance or in historical impact. —Firespeaker (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For WikiProjects, the ratings show which articles are the most important to Wikipedia, in connection with the area/topic covered by the WikiProject. To me, this means considering first and foremost the traffic to an article (either by estimate or using a tool like this), and then by the article subject's importance to Central Asia. The traffic will be heaviest to modern languages, so they get high rating. Extinct or near extinct languages which formerly played an important role in the region are not going to get as heavy traffic, so there is not quite as great a need to have them as complete and expanded as the more heavily-visited articles. That's not to say they're not important (in fact some of them are more complete than articles on modern languages), but it terms of which articles WPCA participants should focus on if they're looking for ways to contribute, the high importance articles warrant more attention, as they are more significant and interesting to a wider swath of people. As for the difference between mid and low ratings, well, that is more arbitrary. Usually I rate as "low" articles which seem to have few visitors (averaging 30 or less a day) and only relate to a very limited part of Central Asia, or even if widespread, never played a major role. Different editors have different ways of assessing. I'll just say that I don't agree with a few of the ratings here - for example, as an active language, Dari should be "high", while Central Asian Arabic should be low given its visit count - but again, another editor might have a different logic for rating it as such. Any other editors want to weigh in on their criteria and considerations when assessing importance? Otebig (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your systematic approach to rating, and would say it has merit. Your example with Dari and Central Asian Arabic fits my intuition about how those should be rated as well. One extra thing to take into account for what to focus energy on (aside from being a modern language versus being extinct) is the scientific importance of knowledge of this language. This might be why some articles seem unexpectedly complete. And yeah, I also want to hear from other editors on this. —Firespeaker (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Other ranking criteria questions

Why is an article like Russians top priority, while articles like Turkic peoples and Kazakhs low priority? —Firespeaker (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about article assessment

I am investigating how articles are assessed and I want your insights about a specific article. I am trying to determine the frequency of articles being rated or if there are delays in article ratings. The article Demography of Afghanistan is rated Start by the project here. I have two questions:

1. Do you believe that the article in its current state should have a higher rating?
2. Do you believe that the article in the state that it was here should have a higher rating?

Your help is greatly appreciated. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)