Carcharoth wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Surreptitiousness > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Emily Monroe wrote: >> >>> And yet it's B-Class. >>> >>> >>> >> B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not >> using C-Class, which means it is just better than a start. A lot of >> people seem to make the mistake of thinking B-Class is nearly A-Class. >> We haven't got to that stage yet. At the minute, we're converting from >> when having references actually was a B to a point where having >> references means a C, and that having no clean-up templates is a B. At >> that point we may work out what A is. We're heading towards FA being >> A+, but it all gets a bit wobbly at that point. At least we've come a >> long way from when simply having sections was an FA. >> > > I've always thought of FA as very good, GA and A as good, and B as OK, > C as something more complete than just a basic starting point, start > as any reasonable expansion beyond a stub, and stub as short and > stubby one-paragraph things. But the actual parameters do seem a vary > a bit between projects and individuals. > That's a pretty good breakdown. It gets wooly when you start wondering how many references a B-Class article needs, which was my badly made point. > I have a list of 12 articles that are either unassessed or need > re-assessing, if anyone is interested in using that as the basis of a > discussion about ratings. The articles all have one thing in common, > in that they were started by me! Though in some cases they have been > much expanded by others. > I wouldn't dream of assessing articles in subjects I have no expertise in. I would have no idea how complete they were, and I could end up giving an A-Class rating to an article about a five pound note which managed to detail in astonishing depth the appearances of the note over the years, but somehow forgot to mention that it was used as currency. > As soon as > you have all articles rated, you then need to find a way to find out > which ones need re-rating, and to avoid duplication of effort. How do > you do that efficiently? > It is relatively easy to automate assessing at stub level, which really only leaves the rest to collaboration. Anyone can request a reassessment, and there's a sort of competitive streak in most of us that once we've rewritten an article, we usually want to see it moved up a notch. And most WikiProjects actively scour their articles for suitable FA and GA candidates, which tend to move them up. This is a situation the wiki process is designed to solve.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
