[WikiEN-l] "Well known"

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Surreptitiousness
<surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Emily Monroe wrote:
>> And yet it's B-Class.
>>
>>
> B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
> using C-Class, which means it is just better than a start.  A lot of
> people seem to make the mistake of thinking B-Class is nearly A-Class.
> We haven't got to that stage yet.  At the minute, we're converting from
> when having references actually was a B to a point where having
> references means a C, and that having no clean-up templates is a B.  At
> that point we may work out what A is.  We're heading towards FA being
> A+, but it all gets a bit wobbly at that point. At least we've come a
> long way from when simply having sections was an FA.

I've always thought of FA as very good, GA and A as good, and B as OK,
C as something more complete than just a basic starting point, start
as any reasonable expansion beyond a stub, and stub as short and
stubby one-paragraph things. But the actual parameters do seem a vary
a bit between projects and individuals.

I have a list of 12 articles that are either unassessed or need
re-assessing, if anyone is interested in using that as the basis of a
discussion about ratings. The articles all have one thing in common,
in that they were started by me! Though in some cases they have been
much expanded by others.

This is, of course, the problem with drives to get all articles in a
project rated (e.g. WikiProject Biography with its hundreds of
thousands of articles, many of which are stubs or starts). As soon as
you have all articles rated, you then need to find a way to find out
which ones need re-rating, and to avoid duplication of effort. How do
you do that efficiently?

Carcharoth