This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lympathy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Special note: The naming convention for the newsletter has altered. Instead of being labeled the month it is delivered, it is now labeled the month the content applies to. See discussion.
Assessment Department: This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's video games articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program, and more specifically in the Video games essential articles page.
Two new quality ratings have been implemented into the Assessment Department's scale. The new Wikipedia-wide C-Class rating (see category) has been added to the scale between Start-Class and B-Class. Because of this, the criteria of the B-Class has been tweaked to better illustrate the difference between a B-Class and C-Class article. An older rating, List-Class (see category), has been added to the scale as well. It is mainly used on pages that have very little prose and are primarily tables and lists of information.
Editors are encouraged to submit articles for assessment if they feel an article has made significant progress up the assessment scale or has gained importance within video game articles. Assessed articles generally receive some feedback to further improve the article. Experienced editors are also encouraged to help with assessment of articles when the number of requests gets too large.
Peer Review Department: The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a Featured article candidate. It is not a academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Editors are encouraged to use the Video game peer review process, as well as the regular Wikipedia-wide process, to improve the quality of articles. While a peer review can be done at any time, it strongly suggested to use this process before an article goes up for Good article nomination and Featured article or Feature list candidacy as articles cannot be a candidate for GA or FA while at peer review.
Editors are also encouraged to leave feedback for articles undergoing peer review. A process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take. Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please leave the list of prehistoric octocorals alone. I was working on it when you proded it and clearing up the very same problems that you proded it for in the first place! Please be more careful next time when using tools like Twinkle. Abyssal (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand perhaps I should be careful but by the same token, you should ensure the page is tagged with an appropriate {{under construction}} sign as it appears to the visitor to be a list of unlinked articles. I thank-you for your edits and I will continue to watch the page and help out where I can but if the article doesn't improve I will re-instate the Prod. I apologize for the incursion, although it wasn't Twinkle, it was me that thought it needed fixing. Lympathy Talk17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
