Template talk:Grading scheme/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Example selection

Please try to select somewhat scholarly examples for the article classes. For instance, I wanted to view Category:Core topics articles by quality and at first thought it was vandalism that All your base are belong to us was an "example" article on that page. It's a valid example, true, but I think we should encourage participation in articles outside pop culture. Moulder 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know... I picked that one just because it's so well known - and not boring. If you have to pick one Good Article out of the hundreds of them, you might as well pick one that everybody knows. I envisioned it bringing a smile to people's lips, rather than causing alarm. But if you don't like it I don't mind if you pick a different one. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 03:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from and appreciate the thought; I'm more concerned about Wikipedia's credibility than personal preference (like I said, it's a valid example). That and WP:BIAS - is everyone familiar with it? :D I'm pretty sure we are, but you get the idea. Moulder 03:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be remembered that this grading scheme my be reached from dozens of places, and if you had come from here the example wouldn't seem so odd. I don't mind if we use a different example, but IMHO the Katrina example looks atypical of GAs, 72 refs is not usual for a GA! I wonder if something like Aristotle might be more appropriate? Walkerma 04:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good point, I hadn't thought of that. Katrina hadn't passed the inspection at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment until just today, so that was the first thing that came to my mind. I think Aristotle is close to A-Class, but I wouldn't mind it being the example... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a more up to date example in B-class as Antarctica is now a FA, I used the Munich air disaster article one of the most notable airplane crashes in history as a example, I could change the example if needed. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also updated the Good article example of Hurricane Katrina with Agriculture as Katrina is A class and is doing well in FAC. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. The links refer to static versions, so you don't have to update them, but I suppose it's better to give a closer picture of the current state of Wikipedia. Λυδαcιτγ 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:Grading scheme?

shouldnt it? -Quiddity 06:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's included from at least 75 pages, so it would have a bit of impact. The main page, which explains this scale, is Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, so Wikipedia:Grading scheme could redirect there. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wasnt thinking. the large size of it deceived my template-concept recognition cortex. so it goes :) And will do on the redirect. -Quiddity 08:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When will this be official?

When will this grading system be made official on Wikipedia? This is indeed a grand idea that should be used on every article that is on this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's already being used by dozens of WikiProjects, and is spreading (albeit slowly) to every article on Wikipedia. What other changes in status are you suggesting? Kirill Lokshin 04:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagging it with {{policy}}? Is that really necessary? I mean, Wikipedia:Featured articles doesn't have the tag on it... Titoxd^(?!?) 04:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very strongly opposed to making any endorsement of GA policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Needed-Class?

Any objections to removing "Needed-Class" from the table? Any page marked with it would actually be speedy deleteable under WP:CSD G8, so having it around is rather confusing for new users, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 09:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if it stays or goes, but I note that G8 states in part that: "Talk pages of pages that do not exist [should be deleted], unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article." Thesmothete 16:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I've had plenty of "notes that would help in creating an article" zapped by over-zealous admins. That's either a new clause or is widely ignored. --kingboyk 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and removed it for the time being. If anyone really minds, I'm sure they'll make their appearance shortly ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles

It is not right to claim that FAs are supreme stationery entities. They can always be edited for better and usually can be even rewritten for better. Acheiving FA status simply denotes that the article is one of the best in Wikipedia, not that they are in or even close to the best possible state. We should not discourage editing of FAs by saying that they need no further editing. Loom91 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But major rewriting of FAs for no good reason is discouraged in any case; see WP:BOLD#…but don't be reckless!. It's fine to suggest that they can be further improved, but talking about "better structure" is leaning too much towards encouraging people to "experiment" here, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 10:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that saying "no further edits are necessary" (emphasis added) is equivalent to saying "FAs are supreme stationary entities" or that they cannot "be edited for better". If significant editing is "necessary" as opposed to being, for example, "desirable" or "helpful", then the article should be considered for down-grading from FA. I fail to see how my edit, which stated "However, additional improvements always remain a possiblity." implied otherwise. However, I appreciate Kirill Lokshin's efforts to try to resolve this. In light of this discussion, I think the second phrase could be slightly loosened. I have removed the word "necessary" "usually" and made and adjustment to the second phrase. Thesmothete 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is correct to say Featured Articles are not supreme stationery entities. Information is always changing and usually could exist that one piece of information in which makes an article better. However, I do believe featured articles should have some level of protection to them. According to Template:Grading_scheme, "No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible." I agree information could and should always be added or removed if/when needed. However, once an article gains featured status, it becomes a prime target for people who wish to do undermine the ideals of Wikipedia. In short, the article’s potential to be vandalized increases. I propose only registered users should be able to make edits/changes to featured articles. This is not to say they should be restricted to participate in any discussion or talk regarding that article. What this does is it 1) Makes users accountable to their Wikipedia identity (or account), 2) It filters non-experienced non-registered users from ruining the integrity or structure of the article, and 3) It prevents people from hiding behind a set of decimals and numbers (IP address). I acknowledge nothing can stop vandalism, but measures can be taken to protect articles from it. I know there are bots out there that are supposed to "protect". However, I feel extra precaution should be taken towards articles Wikipedia regards closest to encyclopedic information. Killer Swath 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

B-Class and A-Class templates

Is there any reason the "-Class" part of these tags was removed? It looks quite awkward as it currently is, just having an A or a B there. --Coredesat talk! 20:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? I assumed that consistency with the other levels—FA, GA, Start, and Stub all omit "-Class" from the label—would be a good thing; is that not your impression? Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense, it was just a little surprising since I couldn't find any discussion about it. Either that or I'm too used to seeing "-Class" there. :P I guess it's something to get used to, since consistency is always good, unless someone really objects to the change. --Coredesat talk! 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article vs. A-class article

I'm still not entirely clear on this.. if an article fails a GA nomination, can it still be considered an A-class article, or should it be at most a B-class? a slighty different question is, must an A-class article meet the GA criteria? yet another slighty different question is, should A-class articles be likely GA candidates? and if so, shouldn't we be nominating A-class articles for GA status? Mlm42 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A-Class means that it potentially meets FA criteria. So, if the article failed a GA nomination, then try to take the advice given at WP:GAC, or otherwise it will be B-Class at most (unless you believe the reason it was failed was spurious—in that case, ask at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review). A-Class articles don't have to be nominated for GA status as a prerequisite; however, in many cases, it would be nice to nominate them to get an opinion from someone who isn't a subject matter expert. Again, it isn't absolutely necessary, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is "An article can be A-Class without being a GA." Many projects nominate their A-Class articles as GA candidates once they find them - we did this at WP:Chem. Tito's comments are valid, but the situation has been complicated recently because ehe ranking on this page (putting A-Class above GA) has been affected by changes in good article standards. It used to be that there were a fair number of articles tagged as GA lacked decent refs etc, that were clearly B-Class rather than A-Class. The bar for GA seems to have been raised considerably recently, and I think it is now very possible that an article tagged as A-Class could fail GA. This arises because:

• The A/B type assessments are generally less thorough than a GA review (as typically conducted today).
• The A-Class definition clearly indicates that things are not perfect - indeed it suggests peer review. This slightly fuzzy definition is needed for a quick assessment, since you can't scrutinize every sentence for grammatical errors, etc. It's a quick and easy way of saying, "Looks like this article is pretty much there."

Of course if a GA reviewer has pointed out specific flaws in the article, as Tito suggests it's probably difficult to ignore these and say "Well it's A-Class anyway." The usual situation in 1.0 assessments I have done is that I am fairly liberal in tagging something as A-Class if it looks really nice, but if flaws are indicated then it's dropped to B-Class until those flaws are addressed. This is in a situation where only one person is making the call, as we have to review thousands of articles for 1.0. Many of the WikiProjects experienced with this grading scheme have some sort of "A-Class candidates review page" before an article is promoted to A-Class. That way any flaws missed in an initial assessment can be spotted and (hopefully) dealt with, and consensus can be reached that "This article is A-Class." This is obviously more satisfactory. Once the "inline refs" debate at GA has been resolved, we should discuss the repercussions of all this for our grading scheme. Walkerma 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

okay, i think i see now.. it's just that the phrase "An article can be A-class without being a GA" is somewhat misleading.. after all, a FA quality article isn't neccessarily a GA, since somebody has to nominate it first. But from what i can tell, the answer to my question "Does an A-class article have to meet the GA criteria", the answer seems to be yes - if it is, i think this should be made more clear on the template. Mlm42 07:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For as long as the GA criteria are sensible, I suppose you could say that. Of course, if GA were to decide that all page names must end with "on wheels" we probably wouldn't expect compliance ;) The key - and simple - point is that this is a sliding scale. A-class is a higher grade than GA. That's about it really. --kingboyk 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The GA criteria are not sensible; and it should be removed from this page. Consider, for example, their lastest "in-line citation" snits: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Johann_Sebastian_Bach and Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Bourbonnais train accident. In one case, most of the article is matters of general knowledge in the field, backed by several general references. In the other case, the article is a narrative of the accident, drawn from two general sources, with plenty of minor points getting footnotes. Both could stand work before FA, but not much, and not this work. (I should perhaps add that I have not substantially contributed to either article; I think I fixed a typo on Bourbonnais train accident.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, some users at FA will yell about the article having no inline citations. It's the same in GA. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Both articles have in-line citations. The railroad accident may need more specific citations for the narrative to be FA; JSBach probably does; but that's two classes up. Furthermore, in both cases, the GA people have not discussed which points need citation, as FA would do; some of them are voting delist without having read the article. (This is not a deduction; they say so.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And A-Class requires the inline citations as well (because any article listed as an A must have at least a chance of passing FAC), so I'm tempted to kick both articles down to B-Class or lower and delist them from GA myself. Entire sections of the articles (biographical details about Bach, Bach's style, and the recommendations made after the train accident) do not have sufficient levels of citation, particularly because "general knowledge in the field" is rarely a sufficient excuse for not citing an article.

Either way, many editors do take GA status seriously, so it is extremely unlikely it will be removed any time soon. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. A process that is taken seriously should be conducted seriously - and GA has never been conducted seriously. Please contact me if this thread takes off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you get an article rated A-Class

Drum and bass was rated as a Good Article recently, I was wondering how I would go about applying for an A-Class rating... Nowhere is there an indication of how to do this. Themindset 23:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've always considered A-class to mean "FA quality but not quite an FA yet". Something like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater which is practically FA standard but needs a copyedit and hasn't been put through FAC yet. That's just me though. -- Steel 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, asking the project that would be doing the rating tends to be pretty helpful. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you might want to ask at e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres. Looks like a great article, I'll read it when I have time. One thing jumps out at me though: your inline citations are only from web resources, although you do reference books. Some of the material on the early days of jungle - in particular your selection of which tracks were important - I would like to see cited, preferably from print sources. Anything which could be your opinion or which could be disputed should be cited. From what I've read so far, brilliance of the prose shouldn't be a problem. --kingboyk 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm.. the more and more i think about this, the more i realise that GA and A-class are pretty much the same thing.. the main difference being GA are reviewed independently, and the criteria are clearly defined (or, in the process of being clearly defined, at the moment), while A-class articles can be tagged by anyone, and the critia are considerably less well defined. i mean, "At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status".. what does that mean.. couldn't any GA be "at least considered for GA status"? if you look at the criteria in the grading scheme right now, i don't see any real differences between A-class and GA, except that GA's have gone through the process, and A-class haven't neccessarily..

perhaps it's a good idea to merge the two classes into a A/GA class - it would avoid confusion. To have the 1st and 3rd tiers being independently reviewed, and not the 2nd tier, seems a little silly anyway. Mlm42 10:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Bleh. "A-class articles can be tagged by anyone" isn't true in all cases; see, for example WP:MHA#Requests for A-Class status. I strongly object to taking the actual WikiProjects out of the loop more on this issue, particularly given that the GA process does not have exactly the most stellar track record. Kirill Lokshin 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

but the WikiProjects wouldn't be taken out of the loop.. i said merge the A and GA classes. it seems to me the criteria have very little difference. merging the two would mean all A class articles are in the class, and GA articles are in the class.. it would avoid confusing editors and reviewers who are trying to figure out the difference between the two classes. Mlm42 16:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That would create a class where half the articles are identified through one process and half through a very different process, though, with the result that, looking at an article with that rating, it would be difficult to say, at a glance, anything about its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't even go there. I don't know if you're aware or not but there's a lot of controversy around GA at the moment, and the system is unstable as a result. The point with A-class is that it's assessed by the WikiProjects; GA is assessed by one person who may know nothing about the topic in hand. (That's not slagging off GA which I personally support, but Kirill doesn't so don't give him any fuel for the GA fire ;)) FA is a peer review process, where (supposedly) subject matter experts, expert writers, fair use specialists etc review an article collectively. --kingboyk 16:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

maybe i'm too much of an optimist, but it seems that there should be a way to have articles that supposedly satisfy the same criteria (though this is determined through different methods) in the same class in the grading system..

and i think you are drawing too much of a divide between the two methods.. i mean, ideally (i'm definitely too much of an optimist) if the GA process were more respected, and perhaps used more than a single reviewer, then.. well, alright, maybe that if is too big. Mlm42 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A month late into the thread, but writing it down for future reference anyways: A-Class articles are supposed to pass a stricter criteria: WP:WIAFA. In practice, they are articles that are ready for shipping at FAC, and which have a chance of passing "as-is". Several projects would loudly protest the merger of A-Class and GA-Class; MILHIST comes to mind, and Tropical cyclones would strongly object as well. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Request: allow "Template:xx-Class" to create direct links

This is a somewhat technical request: Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking - scroll down 2 or 3 screens, on the right side there is a yellow bar and at the bottom of this bar there is a list of filmmaking articles by quality - with the total numbers in each category, and links to these quality classes (FA: 3, A: 2, GA: 7 etc.). Problem is, the links (FA, A, GA etc.) link to the general page Category:FA-Class articles instead of the much more relevant page Category:FA-Class Filmmaking articles. I've tried fixing it myself, but it boils down to the template pages Template:FA-Class to Template:Stub-Class allowing a parameter to be passed ("which project") that it will link through. Since the talk pages of those template pages redirect here, I was expecting this is the correct place to ask sometbody if this is correct, and how to do it exactly, since "passing parameters" can sometimes be a tricky matter. Thanks! :-) Peter S. 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What I've done as a work around in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 is creat a new table with direct links by the side. You probably want Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index for technical discusson on bot generated pages. --Salix alba (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't seem too objectionable of a change, so I wouldn't object to it. However, the default behavior should point to the full listing, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I asked my question at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Let's see what happens :-) Peter S. 09:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw it's now implemented. See Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Request:_allow_.22Template:xx-Class.22_to_create_direct_links. Peter S. 20:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

images for different classes

i'm not sure about these new images.. i definitely don't like the stub having a red X next to it. the first time i saw it, actually it made me think of something else - the check-mark next to a B-class rating makes it look like somebody has 'seconded' the B-class rating.. which isn't the case, but was an interesting idea. in general, though, i don't see what the new images add.. Mlm42 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the images earlier but was quickly reverted. Since there is additional opposition, I will remove the images again. Pagrashtak 04:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

They give symbols for the classes, but sice nobody wants them, never mind. Eyu100 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Class templates

I think full protection of the {{B-Class}} etc. templates, is a bit too strict. semi-protection would prevent any vandle problems, of which there have been none I'm aware of. As a rule meta:Protected pages considered harmful. --Salix alba (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Someone made a small change to {{Needed-Class}} and the job queue went up to 200,000 articles; Needed-Class is the least used of our templates, so you can imagine what will happen if someone adds a vandalistic image to {{Start-Class}}, which is transcluded at least several million times inside Wikipedia.. There's really no need to edit these templates at all, as any substantial changes should be discussed somewhere (preferably here) anyways, so there shouldn't be any issues here. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Tito here. We've been very lucky so far, and anything used millions of times should require thorough discussion before being edited anyway. Thanks, Tito! Walkerma 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image thumbnail for A class

FA class has a barnstar and a GA class has a round stamp, but none for the "A" class article. If GA class has one, then A class must have an image. I am thinking something like a tick mark to indicate quality. Any ideas? Idleguy 09:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was already tried, it drew many complaints, so they were removed. Besides, the only reason FAs and GAs have images is that those are the images used by the external processes that designate them, not the ones we want to use. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My favourite icon to use would be the letter "A" - this would avoid the need for image loading, and would indicate quality...! :) Walkerma 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• So there's no idea on the A class not having a logo?; while the one above (FA) and one below (GA) have a logo, it does sound lonely for the A class article. Idleguy 05:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Link for consistancy?

All templates aside from the Needed-Class template have notation such as '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:Category:{{{category}}}|Stub]]|[[:Category:Stub-Class articles|Stub]]}}''' to introduce a link to the project's corresponding category. Current class also lacked this, but I added it. Anyone agree that it should appear there? -Runningonbrains 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Current-Class and Future-Class are not officially part of the assessment scale (meaning Mathbot doesn't read them), but I can't see a good reason why they can't have it... Titoxd^(?!?) 21:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow you comment fast...lol. But anyway, I reverted my change to the current template...apparently there is no main Category:Current-Class articles or Category:Needed-Class articles aside from individual projects, so it produced a redlink on article talk pages. -Runningonbrains 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Category for usefulness and practicality

Might I request per the above comment by Runningonbrains that a category heirarchy be set up so that the change made can stay?

The reason I ask is because it's all well and good having a "needed class", but unless it's possible to find out from a projects article rating table just what article it is that's needed, what use is the rating to a project? I know the tables are primarily for 1.0, but feedback as a result of 1.0 ratings (through article improvements) is one of the things that drives improvements in projects, and thus wikipedia as a whole. That way, everyone's a winner :) Crimsone 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean here. You mean to create a Needed-Class meteorology articles category to be read by the bot? You probably want to bring that up at WP:1.0/I's talk. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My word! quick isn't a fitting description! lol

I was actually coming back to remove my comment. It seems I'd lost the plot a bit, and I've since found what I'm looking for - We do have a category - it just isn't linked to our custom table a the moment. :) Thanks for replying though. Crimsone 04:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Restoration

{{editprotected}} The template is not as it is supposed to be. The wikitext was not poperly entered so the template is not shown in a box as it should. Please fix it so it can be put on articles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The template is not protected, so you can edit it yourself. I also do not see what edit you are suggesting, as the template should never be used in any article. Please explain what problem you see in more detail. Kusma (討論) 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Small syntax change"

Well it was only a small change, but it made a whole heap of uses of these templates (those that omitted the "Category:" from the category parameter) break. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/A-League player project, which is just a massive bank of red links now. I don't see how this change is useful, and although not harmful causes a huge amount of small, annoying changes to be made to places where the category parameter is used. Could someone please explain what the advantage of this is? The only reason I can make out is that someone possibly coded their bot wrongly and rather than fixing that and re-running, they changed this... – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The template was shrunk to allow more instances of the template to fit within the 2 MB memory limit, as shown on Special:Expandtemplates. At least that is what I heard. You may want to ask Oleg Alexandrov, who codes the bot and made the change. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Parameter for specific project category

In the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner template, I would like to have templates like {{Start-Class}} specified therein to allow a parameter that provides for category placement specificity. For example, I would like to specify {{Start-Class|Louisville}}, and this would place the article in Category:Start-Class Louisville articles. I would rather people be able to go directly to the WikiProject Louisville start-class articles category rather than the umbrella category for all start-class articles. Simple, right? :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This already works, but you need to specify the full category name; for example, {{Start-Class|category=Category:Start-Class Louisville articles}} produces class="assess-start " style="color:inherit; background: #ffaa66; text-align: center; " | Start. Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks! I must've misunderstood what I was looking at.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Embarassed!

Sorry about my edit and thanks for the revert! I'm embarassed. First time I'm editing a WikiProject Assessment page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to update B-class criteria

Discussion can be found here. Nifboy 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not there anymore. Please fix link. 38.100.34.2 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal died and was archived. Nifboy 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Example FA needs fixing.

The selected version of the Gilwell Park article that's referenced as the canonical example of a FA has a broken image link at the top of the article - that's hardly acceptable in an FA! You either need to pick a later version of that article or use something else. SteveBaker 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Switched it to the featured version of Supernova. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

template broken

the template is broken and looks like this - class="assess-a " style="color:inherit; background: #66ffff; text-align:center; " | A

The template isn't broken, it's meant to use in tables. Like this:

	Class
A-class	A
B-class	B
C-class	Start

etcetera / 81.226.131.216 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

I'm thinking that articles with trivia sections should be considered a "start" or B-class on the scale. Like, when an article looks like it is a GA class and above, the trivia section should downgrade it. I don't see any mention of trivia sections in the scale, so I really think it should be mentioned. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are just one part of the assessment criteria reviewers use. Different reviewers have different views of how important trivia sections are, or even if they are important at all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also hate trivia sections. However, for some topics "trivia" are a little more relevant, and I think it's hard to quantify. There are a lot of factors to weigh when reviewing. This should probably be a factor mentioned in the quality guidelines somewhere, but I think how it counts will ultimately be down to the individual reviewer of the individual article. Thanks, Walkerma 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Parameter to link to project-specific classes?

Would it be reasonable to add a parameter (or system of parameters) to this template so that the links in the left-column could be to project-specific categories instead of the global ones?

e.g. perhaps {{Grading scheme|project=Filmmaking}} would link to Category:FA-Class Filmmaking articles instead of Category:FA-Class articles

Also, it would be nice if there was a way to add rows to this table for non-standard classes, like List class. Is there a clever template syntax that could be used for that? Thanks. jhawkinson 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing about this worries me a lot with this (otherwise good) suggestion - the fact that it may lead to the whole grading scheme losing its uniformity. The real power of this system is that Start-class means approximately the same thing to everyone on WP. I realise that there are differences - there are a couple of projects that require refs for their B-Class articles, for example - but if everyone goes their own way the system could fall apart! From June/July we will have a bot trawling through these articles picking some out for our next DVD, and that selection depends on a B being a B in every project. (Even the French Wikiepdia are using the same system!) So I think we must keep this template as a uniform standard across all projects. Walkerma 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the foo-Class templates already accept a category= parameter that causes them to link to a category, like {{FA-Class|category=FA-Class Filmmaking articles}} so it seems like a change here would only be paralleling that existing feature. Also, if you're looking at a WikiProject page, chances are you are interested in finding the FA-class articles in that project, not all the ones that exist universally...So it seems like the case for having the parameter in {{Grading scheme}} is even stronger than the case for having it in {{FA-Class}}, etc. jhawkinson 04:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes! Sorry I missed the point there, well it's getting late here. This DOES seem reasonable to me now. Maybe Tito or Kirill could comment, and perhaps add such a parameter if they think it's OK? Walkerma 04:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think these would be a very nice features to add. I will go ahead and do this probably sometime later today. For the links to project-specific categories, I'll add the {{Grading scheme|project=Filmmaking}} parameter. This parameter would be used for the category links. I'll also do this for {{Importance Scheme}}.

As for the non-article classes ({{List-Class}}, {{Template-Class}}, {{Dab-Class}}, {{NA-Class}}, and {{Cat-Class}}), I can think of 2 ways to handle this. By default, they should be hidden, since they are non-standard. I could either make a new parameter like "|nonarticle_classes = dab, template, ..." or I could show them individually when "|Template_example = " is specified. Even when the parameter is left blank, it could be shown. I prefer this second option to the first. It is both easier to program and encourages project-specific examples to be used. If there are no objections, I'll start on this later today. Also, if anyone uses other common non-article classes, let me know. For each of these non-article classes, a description will be needed for Criteria, Reader's experience, Editor's experience, and Example. --Scott Alter 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Go ahead. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just completed the first part of this - being able to link to project-specific categories. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment for an example. I did this for both {{Grading scheme}} and {{Importance Scheme}}. While I'm making changes, does anyone like the "Article progress grading scheme [ {{Tnavbar}} ]" heading? I'd almost think this should be at least a semi-protected template and we should not encourage people to be changing it. --Scott Alter 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Articles

I remove it here for all the reasons now to be found on Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Briefly, it is a strongly disputed process, of extremely dubious results; a request to move it to a less prejudicial name has alteady produced much sentiment that it should be done away with altogether. Its standards are certainly inconsistent; the same discussion has produced proposals that it be the minimum acceptable for a non-deleted article, and that it be merged with FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think removing it is right, even if it is deprecated or going away. People look at the Grading scheme template to find out what a given grade means. If I find an article with grade GA, I should still be able to look it up in the template to find out what GA means. Perhaps you want to mark it "deprecated" instead? jhawkinson 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

...And I've reverted you. There is nothing like consensus here, don't remove it until you get some. --tjstrf talk 00:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We actually had a long debate on this issue earlier in the year, and despite the fact that I was the one proposing removing GA-Class from the scheme, I backed down when it was clear that many people felt strongly it should stay. No one whould unilaterally change a grading scheme used on over 600,000 articles without discussing it first, and the discussion must involve the WP1.0 editorial team since we are the ones overseeing this scheme (and also using the information). However, an individual WikiProject can certainly decide to opt out of using the GA level if they wish. Walkerma 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It should not stay without warning that the process is despised, of no clear meaning, and may lead to rejection at FA. Please read the present discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles, or, better yet, join in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read that discussion page, and that is exactly why I know to revert you. While there are a lot of people expressing minor concerns and ways to improve, you're the only one yelling "ABOLISH!!! ABOLISH!!!".

And no, we don't need a warning that the grading system has mixed results, because that is true of every single ranking on this page, even FA. --tjstrf talk 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm still trying to fix it, or move it to a non-prejudicial name, where I will be happy to ignore it. Girolamo Savaronola and Steve Block !voted to abolish it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think this sentence important; there is no consensus on what GA means, if anything:

GA class has been compared to B-class; mergers with A-class or even FA-class have been proposed. Its meaning is uncertain; its value disputed.

None of the following opinions are mine. Many of them are by regulars and defenders of GA.

• Fits uncomfortably in the Stub-B-A-FA system
• I think having a clear path from Stub to Start to B to A to FA makes sense.
• I am all for the merger of the A-Class and GA on the quality scale,
• I've always seen GA as B-class
• title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles&diff=134642096&oldid=134641865 I used to remove GA tags on articles I was taking to FA. The people who edit GA heavily might not realize the degree to which GA is viewed as just more tag cruft by other editors
• I know the Chemistry wikiproject once refused or currently refuses to allow articles to be classed as GA class in their templates, (Don't ask me how that makes sense, if they don't want any articles classed as GA class, then why does their template allow the classification?)
  • (Because they are constrained by this template, and other things.]
• GA is far too close to FA.

These can be summarized by: there is radical uncertainty about where GA lies on this scale; there is doubt about whether it ought to be on this scale at all. These opinions should be clearly indicated, for the benefit of newbies who will otherwise be led to use GA as just another rung on the ladder. To prevent this is censorship; and there are remedies for that. I will accept mediation; the Cabal seems to be working slightly better this week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a case to be made for moving GA out of this scale, although it certainly should not be done without discussion, and may be better decided at the WikiProject level. In particular, this question has nothing to do with arguments to abolish GA or change its name, but rather with the uncertainty over what it means, and the fact that it assesses articles in a completely different way, and with different criteria, to the Wikipedia 1.0 process. Steve Baker, who is a strong and particularly coherent supporter of GA, has made a compelling statement at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#On the A vs GA debate. Although he finds it helpful to place GA between B and A, some of his arguments suggest it may not be. I have added my own comments on the issue there. Geometry guy 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Stub example

Why was the stub example changed from Coffee table book (as of July 2005) to Dave Briggs (as of June 2007) ? The Dave Briggs stub actually looks too good to be a typical example of a stub (though it's a close call) -- it has a link, a box, and the key info. Coffee Table, by contrast, is more typical of a stub that someone would write in just as a placeholder. More importantly, as the older stub, people can see how Coffee Table book progressed over time into a half-decent article, which is probably more instructive and helpful to editors trying to understand the overall progression of articles. I propose that we revert. Thesmothete 16:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thes

I noticed the previous example was a cople of years old so I thought I'd refresh it with something recent. Violentbob 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can appreciate that, but let's look for a stub that is the best example for the benefit of the template. It might not be coffee table -- perhaps it is something else. But I really don't think Briggs, although newer, is better. Thesmothete 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Coding screwed up

{{editprotected}} Judging from the look, I think something happened and the code broke. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't immediately see the problem; could you elaborate, by chance? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing apparently wrong for me (currently using Firefox 2). Which browser are you using, what appearance does the problem take, and which change to the template caused the problem (try viewing versions from the history)? --ais523 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disabling edit protected tag for the moment. If you can list specific change(s) that need to be made to fix any problems, you can of course re-enable it. Resurgent insurgent 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)