Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Assessment

Importance

We need to decide on an importance scale. Borrowing from the one for roller coasters, we could do something like:

• Top: General and main articles related to
  • amusement parks (e.g., main articles like Amusement parks),
  • types of amusement parks (e.g., trolley park, theme parks)
  • history
  • essential mechanical articles,
  • any subparts of those main articles
• High:
  • Rides in general (i.e., Amusement rides) and ride categories in general like roller coasters
  • All manufacturers (eg. Vekoma) ??
  • Any prolific persons associated with the topic (eg. LaMarcus Adna Thompson), designers, planners, owners
  • particularly notable parks, either because of
    • historical significance (eg. Steeplechase Park),
    • park set some record or milestone, or
    • popularity of park
    • big chain parks
  • particularly notable rides, either because of
    • historical significance (eg. Mauch Chunk Switchback Gravity Railroad),
    • ride set some record or milestone, or
    • popularity of ride

• Mid: Most parks and rides will fall in this category:
  • Not record breakers or highly notable (this will include most of Screamscape's "Small Parks" (at least the American/European ones)
  • Most water parks
  • parks outside the US and Europe should be covered more to balance out systemic bias

• Low: Any loosely related articles

First Round

Any thoughts or suggestions? --Tinned Elk 18:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it! I think we need to decide right away how we use the importance scale. Personally, I don't think it should be followed overly strictly, but more as a guide to get our priorities sorted. I don't know whether it's possible, but it would be much easier to have just 3 levels of importance - high, mid and low - you can generally get a feel for what would fall into those. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The four levels are based on that Wikipedia 1.0 thing and is set up in the assessment bot. But we could just put the Amusement park article in TOP and then everything else in high, med, low. Because the decision of whether something is notable is still very subjective, I think that we can't be too strict about this. I invited some of the other members to the project to comment if they care too. If we don't hear in a couple of days, we might start making assessments based on these criteria.--Tinned Elk 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would set most of the big chain parks in the High category, with most of Screamscape's "Small Parks" (at least the American/European ones) in the Mid. Most water parks could probably be Mid as well, but those and parks outside the US and Europe should be covered more to balance out systemic bias. Other than that the scale looks ok. Roller coaster designers and park chain CEOs (e.g. Dick Kinzel) should have attention to their articles as well. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Second round

I edited the list above, bold showing new. So low would be?? Can you come up with an example? Think i marked something low yesterday, I should go look. --Tinned Elk 22:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, what about all manufacturers. Should it just be major mfers? --Tinned Elk 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, seems good to me. They echo the roller coaster importance quite nicely too, which helps having uniformity across the topic. As for the low importance articles - RollerCoaster Tycoon, American Coaster Enthusiasts, No Limits (software)... they're fairly irrelevant to the topic but merit being in the WP. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved to assessment page

I moved the above criteria to the assessment page. --Tinned Elk 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Update to importance scale

There hasn't been any activity here in a long time, but for anyone who is interested, I've completely reconstructed the importance scale. I brought it up to Wikipedia's standards as outlined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team Release Criteria and at {{Importance scheme}}. I feel that the new table retains some of the original information but makes it easier for a non-project member, who may already be familiar with other project importance scales, to understand the grade assigned to an article without checking the chart. Prior to the changes, it was also less clear where certain topics would fall under the listed criteria if it wasn't specifically mentioned. You can view the changes I made here – diff. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)