Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Contemporary music task force/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Simplified assessment

I propose we adopt the simplified assessment system used by the Composers Project. The main features of this are:

• FA, FL, GA when assessed through Wikipedia (i.e. non-project) process
• A, B by short written assessment (to be gradually implemented)
• C not used (as superfluous and time-consuming)
• Start nominal (unwritten) assessment
• Stub if the article has a Stub template

This system should be easier to maintain than the present one. Stub and start can be rated automatically by bot. Any comments, questions or whatever? --Kleinzach 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK that's fine. One problem: I've been using C recently for articles that are substantial but contain a huge amount of rubbish. There are also some previously tagged C-classes. Do there go back to Start or on to B? --Jubilee♫clipman 04:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably 'Start'. See Composers Quality Scale for how they distinguish between 'B' and 'Start'. 'B' is up to the reviewing standard, containing "a majority of the material needed for a completed article. . . neutral and devoid of original research. . . . referenced to reliable sources (such as Grove), possibly using inline citations". (I'll add a quality scale here if this proposal is accepted.) --Kleinzach 05:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Are we avoiding A-class too? (The comper's project has a description but does not include it in the heirarchy.) --Jubilee♫clipman 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point. No, we are not avoiding 'A' class. It's just not used much because of the 'FA' and 'GA" processes. Anyway I can't see any reason not to include it. --Kleinzach 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. I have now added it above. --Kleinzach 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Support - In that case I support the proposed system (as modified). --Jubilee♫clipman 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that very few projects use four levels of assessment well (A is almost always nearly empty). If I were have a project assessment, it'd be:

• A with short written assessment
• Article nominal (unwritten) assessment
• Stub if the article has a Stub template

my reasoning is that there are other projects that give out FA, GA, etc., so that's not our perogative, B (or worse C) doesn't help describe anything to be improved in the article, it just annoys article writers (esp. C); (I could be wrong, but I've never seen one writer who was happy with a B assessment). We could say that the assessments are not for the writers, they're for the readers, but if we care about the readers we'll either describe what is wrong with the article in prose (or ugh with a tag template) or we'll fix it -- B doesn't tell anyone anything.

So what I figure is that project article assessments exist to point out good articles that are strong for content reasons that might be obscure to a GA or FA assessment team (who don't tend to care about actual content...). So, for instance, I'd consider rating a great but totally unreferenced article an A -- yes it needs references, yes we should help do that, but the A rating will tell people within and without the project that this is an article that people with expertise think is worth putting effort into making it conform to WP style. If we did this, we'd simply list potential A articles here in talk and if consensus (or lack of objection) is to promote, then we will.

WP needs more positive reinforcement. There's enough negativity without us being perceived as grading others' work.

Just some ideas. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

'B' (and 'A') assessments for the Composers Project have been done by Magic Piano. About 340 articles have been processed. Articles are nominally rated 'B' and then assessed (usually as 'B', but sometimes as 'A' or 'Start'). Here is an example: Talk:John Adams (composer)/Comments. AFAIK no editor has been disappointed by a 'B' rating, as they have the option of going for a second opinion via the GA process, or indeed acting on the review's recommendations. Also articles can be uprated to 'A'. (I'd also be wary about changing 'Start' class to 'Article' class as this could attract the attention of the Wikipedia 1.0 'Politzei'.) --Kleinzach 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My observation (from working reviews in a variety of fora, including the Composers project) is that many articles are not A-rated because editors use A as a stepping-stone to FA, even though standards for those are (or ought to be) different. My personal interpretation of A is "factually complete and comprehensive". Issues with an A-rated article ought to be limited to what are basically MOS issues, questions of interpretation, sourcing, and maintenance. I also think that A ratings should not be assigned without some sort of formal review process by editors familiar with the subject (essentially testing the research done to write the article, and a factual peer review whose depth rivals the FA review process' depth on MOS and prose issues). This could be seen as a bar (an additional time-consuming hurdle) for someone eyeing FA (which, unlike an A review process, is a process required to gain visibility in other parts of Wikipedia). I would not give an unsourced article an A rating -- I would slap {{unreferenced}} on it, which (along with other unresolved "work" tags) should bar such a rating. (Providing sources is not hard. Inline citations are a pain, and sometimes unnecessary.)

I think C is a useless rating; B articles should provide a decent and reasonably complete overview of the subject, while Start articles are probably missing some sections or significant details. Magic♪piano 13:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All of you make good points. Myke's system has the advantage of simplicity and transparency; Kleinzach is following what appears to be the established practice; Magicpiano is recommending common sense.

My own feeling's are that simplicity is not always the best - Occam was wrong! What is needed is consistency and clarity. Rating an unsourced article as A-class would be misleading since A is the highest possible rating anyone can give without peer-review: it implies near-perfection. I would use it for articles that are clearly FA/FL candidates; I would also place it only after serious discussion with other project members. B-class I would use for GA candidates; again, I would probably place it after some discussion, though if the basic Wiki needs are met (NPOV, NOR, sourcing, etc) but work is still clearly needed to cover the subject properly then discussion will be less necessary. C-class has no real purpose (though it could be used for substantial articles that contain substantial rubbish, substantial irrelevencies, waffle etc). Start-class says what is means: the article is starting to take shape - it can be placed at any time by any project member. Stub-class is obvious enough. Article-class means nothing - what type of article: good, bad, indifferent? Hope this makes sense. One final thought: a short article is not necessarily low-class. If everything is said that can be said in ten lines and draws on the only three sources available, and all the Wiki policies are followed, then the article can be A-class. The converse is true: a 10,000 line article with 1,000 sources but with enormous amounts of OR, POV, trivia and irrelevant material will only be Start (if we avoid C-class). --Jubilee♫clipman 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Ok, Occam was actually right: he said that we should not unnecessarily add things to a system. The modern interpretation is wrong... --Jubilee♫clipman 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. As I think we all want to see a simplified system I've revised the assessments page. I hope I've done this in line with this discussion. (Please read and change it as necessary!) I note Myke Cuthbert's reservations about class B, so I've amended the note for the page:

• FA, FL, GA class when assessed through Wikipedia (i.e. non-project) process
• A, B class by short written assessment (subject to consensus, and further discussion before being implemented)
• C class not used by the project
• Start class nominal (unwritten) assessment
• Stub class if the article has a stub template

So let's discuss this again before we start the actual project-based assessments — assuming of course that we have some volunteers at some point!--Kleinzach 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good and about right. I'll have to read all the descriptions, but I suspect they follow the normal pattern anyway as found on other projects. Thanks Kleinzach! (I just realised: Oh no, we actually have to do some work now...!) --Jubilee♫clipman 04:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the various list classes to the page. I think we have included all of the ones we actually might need now. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Quartal and quintal harmony (again)

I propose replacing the present text with the text I've edited in my userspace: User:Jubileeclipman/(mirror) Quartal and quintal harmony. Please answer on the talk page: Talk:Quartal_and_quintal_harmony#Finished_basics. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

YDone. Comments welcome on the talk page. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Quartal and quintal harmony article needs reassessment

Please assess the quality of this article and comment on the talk page: Talk:Quartal and quintal harmony. Is it B-class? You may wish to review the cuts I made and the reasons for them: I've put everything on the talk page. I've also proofedited the article, tidied the language, removed over-wikification, and so on. There are still a few POV issues, eg the Procrustean Bed thing. There are also very few inline/footnoted citations. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonpop (again)

I tagged the article AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonpop. It hasn't been edited seriously for at least 3 years... --Jubilee♫clipman 06:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Rosenzweig

Anyone know much about Michael Rosenzweig (composer)? He's currently nominated for deletion. I seem to remember he was performed a lot in the 1980s, and I think he was featured at the 1986 Almeida Festival, but since the advent of the web he's gone a bit out of fashion, and there don't seem to be any decent web references. --Deskford (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Afd is here. --Kleinzach 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)