[WikiEN-l] assessing

[Surreptitiousness]

Carcharoth wrote:
> 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.
>   
That's a pretty good breakdown.  It gets wooly when you start wondering 
how many references a B-Class article needs, which was my badly made point.
> 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.
>   
I wouldn't dream of assessing articles in subjects I have no expertise 
in.  I would have no idea how complete they were, and I could end up 
giving an A-Class rating to an article about a five pound note which 
managed to detail in astonishing depth the appearances of the note over 
the years, but somehow forgot to mention that it was used as currency.
> 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?
>   
It is relatively easy to automate assessing at stub level, which really 
only leaves the rest to collaboration.  Anyone can request a 
reassessment, and there's a sort of competitive streak in most of us 
that once we've rewritten an article, we usually want to see it moved up 
a notch. And most WikiProjects actively scour their articles for 
suitable FA and GA candidates, which tend to move them up.  This is a 
situation the wiki process is designed to solve.