Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/BCAD

Layout

Any thoughts on instructions for the B-class drive? I've pretty much sorted the drive page. What is the easiest way of indicating which articles on a worklist range (or a part of it) are done? I'm assuming the worklist layout will be minimal because we don't need to show paths. Thus:

1. Article name | Article talk page
2. Article name | Article talk page
3. Article name | Article talk page
4. Article name | Article talk page

Maralia has suggested 25 articles per range, which give us a navigation/tally sheet something like this:

Range adopted	Editor's name	25 done	50 done	75 done	100 done
1–99	Various editors	Done	Done	Done	Done
100–199	RichyBoy	Done	Done	Done	Done

This is fine for a 4,500 article drive but probably too long for a bigger drive.

Thoughts, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I reckon it looks good. Good job so far. Kyriakos (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can get away with a single table given the small numbers of articles involved here; but, generally speaking, see my comment on the T&A'08 page regarding splitting the tables. Kirill 13:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is worth creating 43 separate ranges for this job though? The more I think about it the more I reckon that each range ought to be 200 articles, that is doubling the numbers in the chart above. And to avoid editor dislike of sharing ranges, this means, I suppose, ringfencing each range. Because its smaller size, I guess we can stick with the strike-thru method to show articles done. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I don't know that 100 versus 200 will really make a difference in practice; but I can certainly generate it in whichever quantity you prefer. :-) Kirill 02:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I :) But this is a tricky one because while I think it's important that relative newbies should have an opportunity to participate it might prove more difficult for them than they imagine. It's try to get the balance right between the needs of this group and the needs of the much more experienced wiki-gnome group, who may well just eat it up. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Worklists

Could you put a direct link to the edit page for a talk page of an article. It would spare us the trouble of having to open the talk page, wait for it to load and then clicking edit,, and waiting for that to load. Anyway, experienced editors would be able to read the assessment from the syntax itself. Thanks. Cheers. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 05:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! The worklists have links to the article, plus its talk page. If you use the Linky add-on for Firefox, you can open all ten pages in a worklist sub-section, plus their talk pages, at once. Also, don't strike through and save articles as you go. Strike through only at the end of the ten-article section. That'll save you, um, saves :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have linky, but I think it will open ALL the links on the page, which I dont want to happen, especially considering all the extra links like help, special pages, etc, that are there on wikipedia pages. Is there something i've missed on this part? Can I open only links within a selection? TIA. Cheers. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 06:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just highlight the section containing the links you want to open. That works for me, though your mileage may vary :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which browser do u use? I use Firefox. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 06:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Here's what I do. Highlist the section. Hold down the right mouse button and go down to the → Linky menu. Then select "Open selected links in tabs". It only opens the stuff that's been highlighted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Aah, got it... thanks a ton. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we mark up each article on the worklists differently depending on whether we approved or disapproved the article, as we did with the Tag&Assess drive? -- Avocado (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, just strike them thru when you get to the end of each sub-section of ten. Quick and easy :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doubt Resolution

OK. A question here... could coords kinda define the limits of the criteria. For eg,

1. what counts against grammer? - needs a teeny weeny bit of expansion, since this is, from my experience, one of the harder ones to grade.

Sure. I wouldn't worry about minor grammatical stuff, spellings errors and so forth. If it makes sense and is reasonably well written, pass it. ("The ship was sunk in 1918 by a torpedo from a German u-boat. Although 20 of her crew were killed, the remainder, including the captain, took to lifeboats and were picked up by HMS Example, which was in the vicinity.") Fail it only if the article is poorly written: "The ship sunk in 1918, by torpedo from a germa uboat. 20 crew went down in it but most with CAPT excvaped in lifeboats and were picked up by example." --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2. organization - What is the minimum to pass the article for organization? If we go by the template comment, as long as it has sections, its ok, irrespective of whether those actually work or if they are not ok.

Broadly, yes. B-Class is not a very high bar. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

3. How much reference is enough - for eg, what about articles using only the 1911 Britannica or the Dictionary of Fighting Ships? A lot of pages only use information from these sources, which, although is accurate, may not be idea IMO. What is the policy in this regards?

Policy is to cite anything that might be challenged but, again, this is B-Class not a FAC so some latitude is permitted. The sources you cite are fine. You'll be amazed though how few citations many quite lengthy articles have. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Extra - If the page has good images, but lacks a much needed infobox, do we pass it or not.

Pass it. Please note that infoboxes not compulsory. The fail really only applies if the article has no graphic (infobox, photos, graphics) at all. What we don't want is pages that are a wall of text,with nothin to break it up or add visual interest. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in Advance. Cheers. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 06:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've used these questions as the basis for a FAQ page :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification... looks like I've been pretty stingy in assessing the articles during the recent drive. ;-) Well, no lasting harm done I guess. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Does a longer article require more supporting materials than a shorter one in order to pass Criterion 5? E.g. is one infobox at the top sufficient for a 12-screen-long article, or does it need something to break up the rest of the text as well? Thanks. -- Avocado (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not sufficient. The rest of the text should be broken up a bit as well. (Good question. added to FAQ :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow

I'm at 35 or so assessments so far in this drive, and already I'm shocked.

It is quite astounding the number of articles that I've demoted simply on the grounds that they didn't cite their sources. I've read through several articles and thought "oh yes. This is B class material", gotten to the reflist and thought "crap. Nevermind". These B-articles seriously need to get their references game in gear. Happy Assessing everyone! ;)

Cam (complaints/Discussion) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Yes, it's shocking in its own way. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's a question relating to that:

Suppose I come across an article that uses indirect citation (in that it says what it used for references, but doesn't cite the statistics directly). I'm supposed to give that an "X" under 'references and citation', right? That's what I've been doing so far, since indirect citation seems to go against what the project is trying to accomplish with the B-articles. Cam (Chat) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Inline citations rule. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a directive about this. A lot of people don't seem too fussed about inlines. Some people are passing articles with just a list at the bottom. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. Perhaps we should update the template to specify refer to inline citation? This drive, incidentally, is revealing all sorts of stuff. Like at what point should the B-class criteria be completed? For instance, it's a waste of time doing them for stubs as they are likely subject to so much change though they're useful for Start-class as they give a clear direction for improvement. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the template to clarify this, which sould help. And added a lurid banner above the worklists. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The grammar criterion is useless for a stub, since there's no quantity for which we can do a quality audit. Same for the structure criteria. Anything less than 2k isn't going to have sections, unless they have five one-sentence-sections.

This all needs thinking through before the next Tag & Assess drive. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just thought that I'd check to make sure I was correct in demoting the article to Start-class. You're right, Roger, this assessment drive is revealing a lot of stuff.Cam (Chat) 23:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have agree that I'm shocked as well. I just finished 200 articles and I had to demote an lot of them because they didn't have citations and some these articles were good. Its a shame that editors spent so much time and effort on articles but don't add references or inline citations. Kyriakos (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's something we can all agree on.Cam (Chat) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Grammar"

What to do for a 2 line stub. Does it pass/fail grammar simply because there is no grammar test applicable? It doesn't affect the net outcome though, since it's a stub anyway. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was a B-Class, I hope you stubbed it with extreme prejudice :) (More seriously, just leave it "=yes/no". Which amounts to a fail.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The second batch that Kirill cooked up has 50% stubs. Not obese stubs either. Safely stubs. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

At least they'll be be nice and quick to work through :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

COI review

I can't review Active measures because two of the disputants I have prior involvement in dispute resolution with, and it would do said position no good. If someone could for me, that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

done. Woody (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ta. Daniel (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Completing Checklist for Stubs?

Wait...So we don't have to fill out the checklist for stubs? Just for "Start" class articles? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But we still count them in our running tally right? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! You can do checklists on lengthy stubs if you like - it's not actually forbidden or anything :) - but as they're likely to be subject to so much change it seems a bit pointless. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That speeds up the process. i just ran into a 10-page worklist that had 7 very stubbish articles. It took me all of two minutes to assess those three articlesCam (Chat) 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Stub/Start

Hihi, In going through these puppies, I'm finding articles that look like I can up them to Start from Stub...Is that ok? If they have a pic/infobox and more than a couple of lines of text I'm going ahead and upping them to Start. At least thats what I get from my reading of the Start Class assessment quals? Thanks! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if they have an infobox or a pic and only a few lines of text, I stub 'em. Having two sentences and an infobox does absolutely nothing to help me if I'm doing research. If they've got a healthy paragraph, then it's borderline. I tend to stick to the "healthy paragraph w/ infobox and/or image" for stub-class minimum. Although we've proven to be sticklers for B-Class standars, we shouldn't be lowering our standards on the Stub-Start debate either.

Just a thought, Cam (Chat) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Request permission to rearrange page

Hi... there are so many questions and doubts relating to specific pages. It might be better that we rearrange them into a numbered list, with the page in question being bold-texted in front. That way, it will be easier for assessors to see the other cases and analyze.

If people are agreeable to this, I'll make it into such a list. Thanks.

^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 05:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're suggesting here. Are you suggesting put any articles with queries at the top of the individual worklist pages? If not, can you provide an example of what you're proposing? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No.. what I'm saying is that on THIS page, everyone puts up their doubts and questions, like if they are uncertain about how to assess a certain article. Right now, its haphazard, with everyone creating new sections for their questions. Instead, it might be better if we make a single section with all the doubts in a numbered list, it might be better. I've made an example in the next section... see if you like it. Cheers. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 12:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The new design is OK.Wandalstouring (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So is that a yes? ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 13:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's a good idea. Please go ahead :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Its done. See if it looks ok. P.S. #4 below has a long conversation after it, which I havent edited. If it seems too long, the concerned ppl can remove any posts that seem off topic. Sorry in advance for having ruined the enjoyable conversation in that section. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 14:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment Doubts and Questions

If you come across any doubts or confusion while assessing pages, add the page name below, along with your query, and someone will help you out. P.S. Don't forget to sign your posts. Please note that the # operator will not work, so you'll have to manually number the entry. Thanks.

1. Hall PH - I assessed Hall PH as B-class, but would like a second opinion. Thnaks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I reckon it's borderline and could go either way. But I probably would give it B. Kyriakos (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Coastal fortifications of New Zealand. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say B class personally SGGH ^speak! 09:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Charlestown Naval Auxiliary Air Station. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Coastal defences is B-class but I'd fail the Charleston one for skimpy references. (Are you going to do the checklists retrospecively?) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, becuause I could never in good faith fill in the numer 4 criteria. Whats the point of adding the B-class code if I can;t fill it all out, ya know?

4. Air Force Financial Services Center. I say B, what say ye? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A clear B.

Number 4 probably needs re-wording slightly because it sounds absolute but really means does it seem to you, at first sight, and without being an expert on the subject, free of grammatical errors. That's how I approach it anyway. I'm going to post something about all this in /Coordinators - hopefully tomorrow - plus the way article categories work. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, becuase its an established pilar of Wikipedia that my spelling and grammar suck. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that long enough for B? Seems to me like the criteria puts too much emphasis on gizmos like infoboxes and pictures rather than prose....I'd like to think we weren't selling picture books....Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't see why not :) It's about 750 words; some featured articles are only twice that length. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You do talk utter bollocks sometimes :) Your written communication is excellent: clear and logical. Your grammar is fine. It's only the spelling that is a bit, um, individualistic. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My philosophy has always been that if you can read it, even if its misspelled, then I have succedded in acomplishing what I set out to do. I leave it to other to handle the fine tuning, as long as they get the jist of what I am typing then there are no problems. Besides, my misspellings have, on more than one occasion, been a source of great comic relief for all manner of people. ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally this FAQ is your friend. Go read it. Does that solve your moral quandary? And will you now do the bloody checklists? :)))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! Spellogically-challenged people have a freindly FAQ to lean on. Now I can do the list without bothering others for thier two pence -er, I mean cents :))) Look out checklists, here I come (which may or may not be a good thing...) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Alfredo Astiz - I left Alfredo Astiz as a start, there are inline citations, but it seems like there should be more? I dunno, could someone else double check me? I'm quite willing to call it a B Class, but really just want another opinion. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't, but I have a more stringent interpretation than 90% of people. Ernie Toshack is my idea of through referencing... :) Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You aren't kidding :) How about I think there are enough citations for a B Class article? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Or this one as another exemplar? :)

I don't think Alfredo Astiz has anything like enough citations, especially as he's still alive and extraordinary claims are being made about him (see WP:BLP).

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's sort of what I felt...I figure someone like that isn't going to be worried about what we say here on WP, but we still have standards to maintain :) THANKS! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:52, 18 March 2008 (U

6. Alfred Heckmann - has been pulled for copyvio...is there someplace else on the project I should put a note to let someone know? Thanks! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no action necessary thanks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Buzz Aldrin I called it "Start" becuase the honors section seemed a little to pop culture-ish and undercited to gove a B, but would like a second opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bordercase, but I support your choice not to assess it as B class. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Antonio de Leyva Is that succession box at this page considered as a supporting material. --SMS ^Talk 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I considered them as supporting material wherever I found them. Because I thought they are same as infoboxes(i.e. giving info). :( --SMS ^Talk 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Boff! It's not the end of the world :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

9. Hungarian Air Force There's like 20 external links to pics of aircraft...is that someone's backhanded way of avoiding image issues? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

wow. Talk about cheap. Considering that it already has quite a few images to begin with, I wouldn't consider it to be such a big deal. I would, however, comment on it on the talk page. Cam (Chat) 06:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

10: Lebanese Civil War. On criteria 2-5, this article definitely passes. However, it's quite borderline on the citations. I've just gone and left the "class" portion of the discussion box blank until I can get a second opinion: should this article be a B-Class or a Start-Class? Thanks Cam (Chat) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I always consider it a no if someone's got fact or dispute tags in there...the inline citations are supposed to cover anything that someone could question.LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll downgrade it then.

11: Battle of Gazala I'd appreciate a second opinion on Criteria I. Other than that, it's a very good article.Cam (Chat) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I assessed it as B as all the major points are cited. It is not FA cited, but certainly a B. Woody (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

12. Battle of Malaya - I assessed it as Start as clearly B1 not satisfied, but does it satisfy B3 as it's Lead section is too short. --SMS ^Talk 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Lead is adequate. Whilst it is not a big enough Lead for GA, for B it is acceptable. Woody (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

13. Battle of Long Tan - What about B5 for this article? --SMS ^Talk 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of an iffy one. Personally, I count an infobox as "supporting material", so I'd pass it. I would also, however, attach a "photo needed" tag on the talk page, or at the top of the article, to draw attention to it.Cam (Chat) 22:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

14. Nepalese Civil War and Nepali Maoist Peoples War - These seem like the same article (they are tagged for a merge) I'd like someone else to deal with this. I'm inclined to fail for B1 on both. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Both B-class. The refs look fine for B-class to me :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

15. Irish battles - Don't know what to do with this...-MBK₀₀₄ 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've assessed it as Start (and that's being generous) and tagged it for ((tl|references}}. In all truth, it's probably AfD material. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dropping Out

I don't have time to continue with the drive, and don't want to hold things up -- I'm putting the range I was working on back up for grabs. -- Avocado (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your courtesy in letting us know. Thank you very much :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked on other project. Thanks for picking up my section Legotech. Sam D Ware (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A-list ranges

Two are now partially free. Would a couple of editors like to take them on? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm about halfway through my other range, but I'll work on one of them as soon as I finish my current worklist:)Cam (Chat) 22:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(Oooh. This list has all the good articles. Byzantine Military Organization, Modern Canadian forces Command. Thanks for opening this range up for "adoption"!)

There's another partial one coming up soon too. :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

targeted for your assessments

Has anyone else had editors contact them to "demand an explanation" for the assessments you gave as part of this drive? I've had, like, 3 or 4 editors send me the "can I ask WHY you changed this to this?" rant. Anyone else experience that as part of the drive itself? Cam (Chat) 06:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just refer them here (which is partly what this page is for) or to any of the BCAD coordinators (See hatnote on BCAD main page). And no I haven't, though I did last drive. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've discussed it with all of them anyways. I think the major issue was the addition of the "inline" bit to criterion 1. I'm thinking that if we ever do something that major again, we need to make it slightly more public among MILHIST project. It caught a lot of editors slightly off guard. I'm slightly perplexed as to why you WOULDN'T think Inline Citations were necessary. That was the first thing Kirill told me when he did some prelim assessments of some of my articles. "Inline Citations". I find it odd that people are shocked by the change. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess if you are an admin they are less likely to vent off... but still, people vent off at you when you FAR their 3 year old FAs for having no refs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you Serious?! You'd think that'd be a no-brainer(no cites = not a B, let alone an FA). Although, considering that that is what happened to all the FFA articles in the project, I'm not entirely surprised. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most projects are fine with articles being B simply because they are long. I guess that's ok, if it is 15+ k. In any case, lots of people nom stuff at GAN with half inline-sourced articles. Some of them got angry when I tossed off a pile of GAs for not having refs, so I give them a notice beforehand for certain touchy projects. But unaccredited stuff below GA, shouldn't need a warning notice to request compliance. Also Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chennai among others. They got angry when it was FARed, and they 40% reffed it and voted "keep" and one of them got angry when I pointed that it was only 40% done. One of the unreffed sentences happened to be false.... MILHIST doesn't do mass piling-on by project members. If it did, it would have about 50% more FAs from shoving rubbish through the system. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a major departure though: it was just a wording tweak. In any case, WP:V which is Wikipedia policy says: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

BCAD is now closed

As the B-class articles have now all been assessed the drive is over. Please make sure your tally is up to date as this will greatly help in the distribution of awards. Thank you for your efforts. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are still articles needing to be assessed. Can we still finish our sections?? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^T | _C 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, nothing is set in stone, and that would be greatky appreciated. Just wanted to draw a line under new people joining.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

whew.....I've got forty more in the last range...anything else need to be caught up? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel appropriate. I'll be making the awards later today but if anyone gets up to the next band as a result of extras over the next week or so, just drop me a line on my talk page and I'll make any supplementary awards. In the meantime, thank you all very much for all your help --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards

When are they going to be handed out? Did someone forget about those of us who didn't make the top three? -MBK₀₀₄ 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all forgotten :) I was just giving everyone time to update their totals. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OIC, I'm complete, if you'd like to get at least one out of the way...-MBK₀₀₄ 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's been done :) If anyone has been short-changed, please let me know! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)