This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Latest comment: 9 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Rosiestep: I am trying to clear up assessment conflicts on women's biographies. I am not too sure how to handle articles like this one. As the article contained only about 130 words of running text, I had given it a BS rating of Stub class but you later assigned individual wikiproject ratings of Start class. I've come across quite a few like this and am not too happy about overruling assessments by seasoned editors. Perhaps it's better just to leave the conflict untouched? (cc MSGJ)--Ipigott (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The criteria for being a stub is not hard and fast, so differences in opinion are natural. I would personally agree with start-class for this one because, although short, it is well structured, has links and references, even an infobox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ipigott: I have a script installed which indicates "ORES predicated quality" at the top of each article. For this article, it records: "ORES predicted quality: Start (2.12)". I don't use that information as a hard and fast rule in making a rating decision, and on short articles in particular, I check "Page size", too. In this case, "Page size" indicates: "Prose size (text only): 795 B (130 words) "readable prose size"". By size alone, it is a Stub, but structure, linkage, references, infobox (as stated by MSGJ) influenced my decision and that of ORES. All that said, I'm not averse to anyone changing a class assessment made by me if they've been methodical in how they make the decision. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Rosiestep: Thank you for your prompt explanations. I also installed the Ores script years ago and receive its assessments at the top of every article. I also have Rater, which usually gives the same basic guidance. It seems to me that these tools, which have been designed for all language versions of Wikipedia, do not sufficiently take into account the traditional approach to assessment on the English wiki. For me, any article which has only 130 words of running text is a stub (as it also would be in connection with DYK) and as such deserves improvement by the original creator or by other contributors. Until the new banner shell approach, discrepancies like this did not come to light so openly. In most cases, I would never have noticed them. If I were to rely on Ores, I would have to give Start or even C class assessments to many articles which only contain a couple of lines of introduction, all the rest being bullet-pointed lists, extensive references, image galleries, infoboxes, bibliographies and the like. In the case of Ores C-rated biographies of women in sports with extremely brief introductions, I often just assess them as List. Many users simply seem to draw on the Ores and Rater assessments without carefully examining the article as you do. In any case, in the light of your explanations, I have removed my banner shell assessment on this article and will also do so when other contributors intervene with higher (or in some cases lower) assessments based on Ores or Rater. I'll now go back over the other articles on the conflict list and try to revise my assessments along the same lines. An empty banner shell assessment seems to be the most sensible solution. I would hate conflicts like these to damage the excellent level of collaboration we have always enjoyed.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I regard discussions like this as healthy as we are coming to a common understanding of what different quality assessments actually mean. Perhaps it would be an idea to refine the definition of a stub, in which case Wikipedia talk:Content assessment would be a good place to discuss — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply