Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Assessment

Revision

I think this doesn't provide enough detail; it feels weird to mark so many articles as "low importance." Thinking of a new scale like this:

1st class. A key entry point to Coreana. (= current "Top") Examples: Korea, Korean Peninsula, North Korea, South Korea.

2nd class. High-profile or central articles. Includes individuals with a very high international profile, primary administrative divisions, keystone articles for major categories. Examples: Seoul, Economy of North Korea, Ban Ki-moon.

3rd class. Major topics. Includes higher-profile individuals, most secondary administrative divisions, any category-main articles. Examples: Gyeongju, Korean name.

4th class. High granularity, covering a small topic area. Includes lower-profile individuals, most tertiary administrative divisions. Examples: Yulha-dong, Jjigae.

5th class. Extremely high granularity, covering a very small topic area. Likely to be difficult to expand, and may be a candidate for merging into a broader article. Examples: Jipyeong-ri, Budae jjigae.

-- Visviva 13:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Have implemented the above. -- Visviva 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment color codes

Why not use the standard assessment color codes? -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, those colours were chosen solely by me, when I updated {{Korean}} with the previous scales. After adapting the standard, I decided to leave those colours, because they are similar to the standard (except for FA). Do you think it is necessary to use the standard? eDenE 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's preferable but certainly not necessary. It makes no difference at all for those who work only on the Korea project, but if they contribute to multiple projects its a distraction ... particularly now that some pages are showing the official statistics. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)