Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Heritage Sites/Assessment

This is the discussion page for the World Heritage Sites WikiProject Assessment team. There are several categories, listed below.

Contested Assessments

If you feel that an article was not assessed properly, you may list it here.

Add the article at the top of this section using ==={{la|<article name>}}===.
State your reasons for believing that the article was not assessed properly.
Your inquiry will be processed with due speed. If it is an obvious mis-assessment, it will be closed within a few days, and re-assessed. If it is not an obvious mis-assessment, it will be discussed here and closed within one week of your posting here. The assessment will then be changed, or not.

Discussions about Importance Ratings

Simply add the {{la}} with the article name as a parameter as a level four heading under the appropriate heading, along with a reason for the importance rating. If no objections are raised within a week the rating can be set to that level.

Top

Great Barrier Reef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a must-have for any encyclopaedia. It documents the Great Barrier Reef, the largest coral reef system in the world, can be seen from space, and is the largest single structure built by living organisms. _Jame§^ugrono 12:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belize Barrier Reef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been assigned High importance within most other projects. However, within World Heritage Sites, being a barrier reef of note should make it top - it apparently comes second after the Great Barrier Reef. I'm not sure whether Top is right though, because if we do it by my logic, where do we draw the line? The top 3? 5? 10? 100? But, if no-one objects, I'll assign it Top importance in a week. _Jame§^ugrono 12:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the template, I assigned it low importance. It can go up to mid importance at most I think since it is not that important. Top importance seems a little excessive. Chris! _ct 20:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High

The Importance Scale

The importance scale seriously needs to be fixed. Many of the most important sites, such as Great Wall, Machu Picchu, Forbidden City are rated as mid-importance? While sites such as Mount Tai, Terracotta Army are low-imporance? Who gives the criteria?

I also think the importance scale really doesn't apply here, or needs to be re-adjusted, since I'm sure UNESCO regards all of the 800 World Heritage Sites as equally important, equally deserving of protection and recognition.--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really needs to be fixed.--Kanon6917 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]