Knowledge talk:Content assessment/Archive 1

2905:

in the actual articles, then it leads to confusing. On a more constructive note, it is quite straightforward to establish a set of reference points to clearly guide assessments. Simply select 4 or 5 articles in each category. This will give about 24 to 30 articles in the six classifications for which there is an implied heirarchy. Pring out the assessment criteria. Carry out pairwise comparisons of each article with each other. If someone lists the articles and the classifications, I can design a matrix with only 80 comparisons that will give highly efficient information. If you can get 80 comparisons (which is better, A or B?) I can pretty much guarantee you'll order the articles well. Then use these as reference points in order. To assess a new article, someone should judge which classificaiton they think is roughly correct, then compare with one of the chosen examples. Select which the new article is most like, and slot it in at that classification. The ordered articles then provide the clear set of reference points for any assessor. In my experience, a little work like this at the beginning makes life a

2801:

criteria, not just the whole) is valuable in giving clear reference points. Pairwise comparisons of articles in rleation to criteria is really the most precise way to go, however. It would be possible to build up a table of info where everyone has a job to just compare a couple of artilces with respect to criteria. You'd begin to build an order and a scale. Then you can set some (arbitrary) cut-points and place dessriptions around them. The problem is people try to do it the other way -- that is, use a handful of words of description and try to categorize accordingly. Entities such as articles are their own best description and are best compared directly. Grading "scales" such as this are redundant. It's not that hard, just takes a methodical process and some coordination. Think about it anyhow

3652:

middle grade between A and B without having to worry about whether or not it has gone through some other distinct process that most editors will not be inclined to submit a random article to, just for the purposes of assessing it at a slightly higher class. The solutions to me would be: 1. raise GA class above A-class, 2. rename GA class to something else which will remove entanglement with the GA project, or 3. abolish the class entirely for assessment purposes. I think that option 1 is flawed because it seems to imply that once an article is at A-class, it has two reviews it can go through - why bother to use GA then when you can simply leapfrog it to FAC? (Which already happens in droves.) I also disagree with option 3 because I think that the difference between A class and B class is

2735:

collected for this kind of format -- and no, I'm not kidding). Do you have evidence for the implied correspondence of the criteria with the descriptions of 'reader's experience' and so on? Do you have evidence for reproducibility of assessments across users and times? (rhetorical). It is more than a little ironic that measurement has been tagged as a "core topic" :-) Anyhow, if you're interested in a really stringent and highly precise process of assessment, let me know. It would take quite a bit of work though. For that matter if you're interested in tightening up the process at all, let me know, but anything will take a bit of data collection. It's fine as long as the info is treated as very coarse-grained and unreliable, but please don't presume it's anything else. Cheers

3597:

A's as potential FAs that just haven't had a peer review to make sure there's nothing we've missed, etc., whereas GAs might not have a tight, well-written lead, but a decent lead; it might not cover some things that should be covered, etc. I guess I saw the difference as a difference in prose and how well-written it is, than just that it has inline cites. I think the reader's experience line in our assessment scale for GA is apropos "Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job." I guess I see cites as a basic requirement, I didn't see it as something that elevates it up the scale -- even

2998:

comprehensive process. Even if you don't want to have multiple exemplars, I'd still select two or three FAs if you want to order through pairwise comparisons. Perhaps people can suggest articles they think are the clearest (possible) examples of each classification, and if we get four or five in each, I'll mail the info to those who are will to do comparisons. I'm guessing based on pairwise with essays it should take less than half an hour to do ten comparisons. Maybe less than that, but about three minutes per comparison to scan over and look for a few key elements.

2883:

assessor. The fact that we haven't verified that such experiences are valid doesn't destroy their value as basic guidelines. We're not making any claims about them! Maybe we could introduce a few "should"s into them, if you're concerned, but I think they are implied. I think the idea of a range of examples is an excellent, and I would be very happy to see someone work on this! In my teaching organic chemistry, I've found students find worked examples to be an excellent way of going from the abstract & general to the concrete & specific - great idea!

527:" and a "Stub Class" article, if any? If they're different, this is a terminological train-wreck, and a likely to cause all manner of confusion down the way; if they're essentially the same, the relationship between assessing the grade on the one hand, and bog-standard stub-sorting on the other should be clarified. If an article self-classifies itself in one way, and the associated talk page makes some seemingly-inconsistent grade assessment (and puts it in a category with some similar but distinct-but-overlapping scope), heads are going to be scratched. 3205:, which is currently rated as "start", since it couldn't be rated as "B-Class." Goten's article, in my perspective, is slightly higher than the expectations of a start article (especially when it was "started" in July 2003), but falls a little bit short of the expectations of a B class, therefore assessing it as a C class. But, other than Goten, I believe there are thousands of articles in Knowledge that are listed in the B class or the Start class that should really be listed in the hypothetical C class. 1227:"This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built." I found this so upsetting I took the liberty of changing this to read, "This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage." I understand what was meant was not insulting, but the "not good enough" part comes across badly. Please feel free to discuss this wording further, but I didn't want to leave such a negative phrase up any longer. 4599: 4535: 4474: 4413: 4352: 4291: 4171: 4107: 4024: 3963: 31: 4795: 4781: 4757: 4580: 4516: 4455: 4394: 4333: 4272: 4152: 4088: 4005: 3944: 3056:." I think there's a good reason for it - "What" is easy to pull out of a book and is usually uncontroversial, whereas "Why" will often involve a POV. Try writing about "Why" the stock market and the federal budget have suffered during George Bush's term and you'll see - but if you list the relevant numbers in the appropriate articles with citations no one will question you! You really need to raise this 4965:

whatsoever? (If yet another #if is necessary to stop this category name being formed by the existing code, I'm not sure it'd make much difference to the overall esotericness thereof.) I have a distinct feeling that if I ask these assorted wikiprojects why, or take these to CFD, the familiar mantra "necessary for 1.0" will be deployed, so I'd like someone to give me the "1.0 take" on this.

4204:

The "spectrum" from red to blue representing the spectrum of assessments; (b) The idea of bright red being a warning (STUB WARNING!) and the green of GA was supposed to go with the green icon that is used. At some point someone made that green more pastel, presumably for the reasons Tompw gives in the post before this one. So, is there any powerful reason we need to change?

879:

article that couldn't stand to be improved on, whether for style or content. However, any attempt to do so is immediately reverted by the article's "protectors" who actually believe the above statement. The sentence "Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered "complete", although obviously edits will continue to be made" is just as bad — in fact,

2517:. What wording would you use when rating something at the base of the scale? It is only the two base ratings that concern me. I don't want editors and new editors to be disheartened or turn their backs on articles because they have been judged of little or no importance and of trash quality. The vast majority of articles will be given the base ratings. -- 3193:

table, but before the article can go from B class to GA, it has to go through some kind of nomination process. That means that there are only three classes to put articles without putting it through a week or month-long, headaching process; B class, Start class, then Stub class. And since I think Start and Stub class articles are the

169:

aware that we will need all of these things as well as new organisational material; currently these "non-articles" simply fall outside of the assessment process. However their quality and completeness will need to be assessed - if you want to make proposals on this also, I'd appreciate this. Thanks for your trenchant remarks.

1410:*"In the rare cases (19 so far) where a service member has been awarded more than one Medal of Honor, regulations specify that an appropriate award device will be centered on the MOH ribbon and neck medal." The parenthetical phrase would be less intrusive if place after "Honor" (i.e., before the comma). Remove "will". 3648:

the lack of references, but are otherwise brilliantly written and contain plenty of depth and nuance. I would say that some of them are clearly (to my eyes) A-class. I wouldn't disagree, however, that B-class articles should at least have some external links if nothing else in the way of outside sources.

4837:

The exsisting colour scheme was carefully chosen so that the colours used for the various grades were as disinct as possible (by being equally spaced within the RGB colour space). Therefore, if you wish to propose a new clour for any grade(s), please show *all* the grades/colours togther, rather than

4203:

I think we should go back to the original colours as a starting point for discussion. The only changes I would support would be for GA and A (I prefer the new colors for those two), but I'd also be happy with the way things were. There were several ideas when the colours were originally set up: (a)

3500:

Given GA's track record, I very much doubt it is in our interests to make arbitrary changes in an attempt to tag along with whatever new standard they're trying to impose this week. I would go so far as to suggest we simply remove the distinct GA level from the scale here (as it's not something that

2904:

I'm not saying things like reader experience aren't helpful. The problem is that when you construct a matrix like this, it is logically implied that for a given classification (e.g. "B-class") the criteria and the editor's experience correspond. This is an empirical question. If they don't correspond

2850:

My point wasn't the descriptions are poor -- they're not too bad. The point is there is an implied correspondence between sections of the rubric (such as criteria and reader's experience) for whcih there is simply no evidnence. To claim a reader's experience is even statistically (e.g. most likely) x

2840:

As far as all the exhaustive descriptions of "reader experience" and so forth, I'm pretty sure they aren't really needed—we could just as easily have described the article levels as "bad", "not so bad", "decent", "good", and "great", and most people would understand what was meant—but I doubt they're

2575:

Yes, I had thought the discussion was over, I think other do too. I suppose we have taken for granted that some form of assessment is needed, but that's because we as editors want to know where our articles stand, and where improvement is needed. I don't see any advantage in changing the system on

2561:

Perhaps it is because—how should I put this—nobody takes your proposal seriously? The only reason I've kept up the discussion was because I considered it impolite to leave you without a response. If you're going to make accusations and veiled attacks, however, I shall leave you to your own devices;

5004:

If they're a) to be tagged, and b) the tags are to categorise these on a by-namespace basis -- neither of which I'd consider a given; the first of these I noticed had about three templates in it, so it's hard to see size as a pressing concern (certainly in every such case), and the need to tag them

4943:

Currently pages that have "significant gaps or missing elements or references" or need "substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or" contain "other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)" are eligible to

3596:

Hmm, I'm torn. I'm one of the ones advocating inline cites, but I didn't think it meant ipso facto that this meant that would kick it up the assessment scale. I definitely don't want to cause that kind of trouble. My view was that this helped place articles squarely between being a B and an A. I see

3257:

Also, since this original discussion took place, the Mathematics WikiProject has started using a B+ assessment level. This shows up in the bot list just as a B, but on the article talk page it appears as a B+ indicating what we tend to call "a good B". This seems to be working well - so instead of

2828:

The problem is you're assuming it's doable. There is no reason at all to think you can get information that is worth even the miminal efforts. Ther are so many problems with this appoach, it's difficult to know where ot start, though I'm happy to send powerpoint outlining five years of research into

2087:

While I'm grumbling, I'd like to see a summary table (for each project, subproject, and overall) with importance on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis, and each cell has a count of articles as a link to the table/list showing all the articles in that cell, their rating date etc. Is this something the

168:

Finally, regarding dab pages (lists are another thing, and things like "Science events of 1999"), the standard assessment scheme doesn't apply. Maurreen has spoken of having an "atlas" within Knowledge 1.0, clearly this is also to be evaluated differently. As we move forward on WP1.0, I'm becoming

5066:

Can someone confirm that articles should progress from GA to A to FA? (This seems strange considering that GA and FA articles have in my experience so much buzz compared to A Class. I've heard of Wikipedians trying to make an article GA or FA but not A. I've never even heard of A Class until now.)

3663:

reviewer and thus judge the article to have passed GA standards. This will help both projects because it will greatly increase the number of Good Articles while at the same time keeping it easily integrated within the assessment system. And of course, if someone disagrees with the GA status, it can

2860:

Well, remove the entire "reader experience" thing, then. As I said, the primary objective here is neither to determine the exact quality of an article relative to other articles nor to obtain a canonical description of how the article is regarded by any particular reviewer, but merely to determine

2800:

Yes, that's right, the difficulties I'm speaking of are wide-raning (if that's what you're pointing to). Depending on what you mark I can give some tips. I'll think about simple speficic tools. The most obvious thing is more examples. For many reasons, exemplification of anything possible (specific

2314:

make absolutely no mention of quality with regard to stubs. In fact they speak quite highly of them. It says "The community values stubs as useful first steps toward complete articles." So it is all about the degree of completeness. It talks about their size and about the amount of information they

1969:

Changing "importance" to "priority" is really easy. It literally requires just one edit, and that would take care of the listings themselves; the categories could be renamed/deleted, but if the main table says priority, no one would care about the name of a category. Still, it is a question whether

1223:

70-100% complete (depending on breadth of topic, POV, language quality etc), and Starts fill in the ground in between. We could perhaps change "most" to "much" without hurting things too much (though I agree it's also a bit vague). That would be more appropriate for those Starts that are close to

907:

It may lack a table? What? I know including a picture, no matter how uninformative and useless, is required to get an article to FA status, but since when is a table an indication of anything? I'm sure some articles that should have tabular data lack it, but as a general measure of quality it looks

481:

I see your table describes GAs as sort of 'only slightly deficient' articles that other encyclopaediae could do better. Although many of them are such, many of them are excellent short articles that broadly meet FA criteria but are too short to be realistically featured, and so are probably rather

182:

Interesting. Currently for tropical cyclone articles we use Stub-Start-B to distinguish content and B-A-FA to distinguish length. So once an article has sufficient content to be considered "complete" we mark it as B. Then it's a matter of improving the quality (including more content, of course)

3647:

examples do clearly progress significantly enough to warrant a middle-classification between what is regarded as A-class and B-class. I would strongly disagree with the notion that B-class articles should have citations, simply because we have plenty of great articles here whose only major flaw is

3562:

I wasn't so much thinking of a discussion here about the effect of inline citations - I agree that would be silly. But there has been a big change in GA standards over the last few months, and some GA reviews I've seen recently (I read a lot when doing assessments for V0.5) seem to have been more

3225:

there was a C-Class like you suggest, but then things were switched over to the system we currently use. In principle, therefore, I wouldn't have minded a C level, but at this point after 70,000 articles have been assessed using the current system, it wouldn't be appropriate. We haven't seen any

3090:

going to be assessed if there's a WikiProject for them, so it seems somewhat counterproductive to remove the tags. Much better would simply be to assess the article; most projects are very liberal about having people—even those who don't consider themselves members of the project—helping out with

2882:

I think that things like "reader experience" are helpful because (a) they provide more guidance to the assessor and (b) they remind the assessor (who is most likely to be mainly an article editor more than a reader of such material) that most people seeing the page will see it differently from the

2546:

I'm having a problem understanding why you are the only one debating against this proposal. I'm assuming good faith but at the some time I can't help feeling that there is some other motive. There seems the be a drive to support a rating scale that directs more honours on to articles at the top of

878:

The claim that the editor's experience of featured articles is that "No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light" is simply preposterous, and is one of the main reasons I consider the entire Featured Article concept to be misguided. I have never seen a featured

748:

The cyclone assessments have been done by members of the project themselves, which is of course how it should be. The WP1.0 team members typically don't have the specific expertise needed for good assessments on specialised articles. Several projects have done similar things, but mostly they have

555:

There's no maximum length defined by the stub guideline, so that's by no means clear. Where in any case is the 1.0 definition that makes this explicit? Given your comment on SFD, I rather anticipated your answer on this, but as I say above, this clearly needs to be clarified one way or another.

3694:

I've noticed that many articles will be covered by more than one wikiproject, and hence may have more than one banner.. and in some cases this will mean more than one assessment given. so the obvious question is whether or not the bot counts these articles once or twice? should i worry about this

3651:

At the end of the day, however, the assessment process has nothing to do with the Good Articles project in and of itself, nor should we feel constrained by it. Personally, I feel that renaming the GA-class to something else will be more productive because it will allow assessing editors to give a

3610:

I agree - an uncited article shouldn't even receive a B-Class assessment, IMO, but I do think that there are a few differences between GA and FA, and that an FAC-quality article without the little star is A-Class. While some projects don't make use of the difference, for others there is a certain

3109:

assessment are tagged, on the basis that the remaining vast wadge of stubs are never going to make in into WP1.0 anyway, especially if no human being has ever actually "assessed" them for such? (I'm assuming for the purpose of this message (though not necessarily otherwise) that 1.0 is an actual

2585:

And for what it's worth, I don't buy the argument that editors are going to be infuriated when someone says their article needs a bit more, because from personal experience, it just pushes editors to improve articles. I had said that before already, and since I see that someone else is saying the

2077:

would be fine. "Priority" to me has more of a sense of now, and priority will change later, compared to importance or significance being an enduring property of the subject. I'd suggest losing the word "Class" completely in favour of quality and importance (or significance) respectively. It looks

1286:

But I lean toward deleting the cleanup reference entirely. No. 1, I think a cleanup tag could apply to a short or very short article (although if it's tiny, it might just be easier to do the cleanup than put the tag on). No. 2, my understanding, fuzzy as it is, was that "Start" class was meant to

649:

It appears this terminology and separate classification is being defended alternatingly on the grounds of being the same, and of being different, and I see nothing to change my original contention that this is as clear as proverbial mud. Given that this is flagged as a "proposed" system, it seems

4698:

The GA and FA templates have an icon attached because (a) those icons are strongly associated with the GA or FA tag and (b) they represent an external "award" rather than a WikiProject assessment. I think it was an interesting experiment, but with over 130,000 articles now using these templates

4684:

although i'm not flat out opposed to each class having an image, these ones are no good.. especially the stub big red X symbol! it's not like we're handing in these articles to be marked, this is a work in progress.. teachers don't come around and draw big red X's on your essay after you've been

3192:

I would like to propose a class for articles that are in between B class and Start class. In my opinion, a C-Class assessment can serve as a borderline between B and Start, since the current ranks go from B and drops off steeply to a Start class. I know that there are six ranks in the assessment

2128:

This is the problem as I see it. From the figures I've seem the vast number of articles are going to get the lowest rating. That means hundreds of thousands of articles with the judgment of low class, poor quality and little or no importance. Some people will get angry and complain but what I am

614:

I think these things differ principally in their purpose. If your focus is on stub-sorting, you can ignore the assessment categorisation, and vice versa. I don't see any need for head scratching. In the few cases where there are differences, most people won't even notice, and those who do may

4964:

are rather oxymoronic? Why are they even necessary? Even if templates have to be tagged with wikiproject templates at all -- the need for which in the first place escapes me -- what possible purpose is there in that template transcluding a "class" category that seems to have no actual meaning

2211:

Not really, no. While "importance" is debatable, "quality" is a perfect description for what we're assessing. I can't imagine what's objectionable about "class" either; it's a useful shorthand. (Would you prefer "A-quality" and "B-quality" articles? That seems like a fairly trivial point of

374:

I'd be happy to see GAs listed as such in our tables, though do you think we should wait till GA becomes policy instead of just a proposal? I think the system is still evolving somewhat, that's all. I would also make the case that we should not scrap A-Class; in effect A-Class becomes what an

154:

was based on A,B,C,D,E, but the others on WP:Chem revised that to the current system. I suspect this was in order to get away from the idea that we were assessing primarily quality, because in fact these "grades" reflect mainly completeness rather than quality (though hopefully the latter is a

3534:

I could go along with that change myself, Kirill, but since it's in place I think I'd like to let projects make up their own minds whether or not they use it. I also think that the standard will stabilise in time, and that the GA tag already carries some gravitas, so it does serve as a useful

2734:

I don't know whether to commend or condemn your attempts at "grading" articles. Seriously, the results will be very crude, at best. I work with marking rubrics that have some striking similarities with this one. I know the problems with them inside out (I have done hundreds of analyses of data

2391:

As far as my being a majority of one: you might have noted that there are 44 different projects using this system through the bot (and a number more doing it through the older style of manual lists); that there are more than 20,000 articles that have already been assessed; and that, aside from

1959:, though (as has been pointed out) is should not imply a priority in the sense of "This one needs a lot of work." We need to reword the description for "Low Importance" also (barring any objections). "Quality" is pretty clear, and I think the assessment terms used are working pretty well now. 4739:

I apologize for revisiting the colors issue again, I'm sure everyone was glad that issue had dropped off everyone's radar... I'd just like to propose that we change from the current sea-foam green to a more neutral green that doesn't conflict so much with talk-template backgrounds such as on

2997:

Understood. However, at least a couple of examples from the classification will provide valuable information about the relative quality of articles in the next classification down. In fact, the FA classification is likely to provide the clearest information becasue they've been through a more

2331:

talks about quality at a number of points, actually: "Stubs... do not yet contain sufficient information on their subject matter. In other words, they are short or insufficient pieces of information... A stub is an article that is too short to be genuinely useful..." Thus, while not all poor

463:

if something is also a GA. We are regarding the GA review is an independent review, not as a replacement for our own reviews. We have come to the conclusion (elsewhere) that GAs are very variable in quality, and so we can't make simply equate A=GA as I suggested above. Look at the table for

3025:

I note that 'good' articles appear to be those restricted to the 'where','what','when' and 'who' of a subject, expressed in lists of phrases such as one might employ to teach a parrot to recite. Is this really knowledge? Where is the 'how' and 'why'? I cannot see how any deep understanding,

2530:

Perhaps a better explanation is this: most editors, when seeing that others believe that their articles are deficient in quality, are motivated to improve them; only a handful seem to prefer angry rants against the rating system instead. It is my opinion that this latter group should not be

2650:

Yes, I think we could allow that as an alternative (IMHO), though it is certainly much less specific than quality. It would work best in projects where they only assess on quality (though the list you cite was in fact the first to start using importance) I think we can offer the following

1928:

The WikiProjects are the reason why we now have over 20,000 articles assessed by over 40 projects (and many more not using the bot). Setting priorities (importance) is a natural question for any WikiProject, IMHO, and if a project neglects this they may often find themselves with a lot of

1356:

As for an A-Class article, it is pretty much equivalent to FA-Class, yet it is almost a sure fact that an article that is sent to FAC will receive a few more significant edits as part of the process. The key phrase there is that the article has a passing chance at FAC in its current shape.

2283:

Err, so what's the problem? Half our articles are "poor", "sub-standard", or "rubbish"; are you suggesting that we use a different term in order to conceal this? The answer to low-quality articles is to improve them, not to change the metrics so that they don't look so poor anymore.

887:

be considered "complete". Science is never finished. There is no area of human endeavor in which all questions have even been asked, let alone answered. Whoever thought it would be a good idea to release a paper and/or CD version of Knowledge was simply being extremely short-sighted.

1344:

and passed, and as a result, need no major editing unless significant new information comes to light. (Of course any article will need minor edits every now and then.) The current language was adopted from there. If FAs are not outstanding, that's a discussion that should be done at

5079:

Yep, that would be the full progression (although it's quite common for articles to skip levels—B-Class to FA is a common jump, for example). As far as A-Class, most projects don't (yet) have any formal process for assigning it, which makes it somewhat less process-driven than GA.

3422:

The GA discussion will definitely have repercussions here, we will probably need to discuss it once it's resolved. It seems that GA standards getting tougher and tougher, and I think many A-Class would now have a hard time as GA candidates - not the case 6 months ago. Also see

3104:

Honestly, what will that achieve, aside from exterminating every red talk-page link, and bloating the size of the database with another several hundred thousand talk pages with no information content? Wouldn't it be more sensible to have an "opt-in", where only articles with a

239:, and the isotope people have a couple of "A-Class" lists on the table below that one. This issue still formally needs to be resolved, but I'm almost certain we'll include plenty of lists in 1.0. We'll update the assessment criteria accordingly, hopefully very soon. Cheers, 2909:

easer when it comes to decisions because ambiguity makes people unsure and the process is actually very inefficient. Let me know if anyone's interested, I'm quite happy to design the pairs and to do the analysis at the end -- it's very quick. Cheers 03:59, 20 July 2006

945:

But not a significant one. Almost all 'Start'-class articles have a TOC. Saying that Start-class articles "may lack a table" is not only potentially confusing, but also not really relevant or accurate. It's too trivial and obscure a problem to be worth mentioning.

2488:

Let me understand what you are proposing. If you were assessing articles and you came across an article that was very short, say, one sentence but brilliant or quality that you would not give it a base rating. You would give it a higher rating or nearer the top.

3585:

In many ways, i think it would make more sense in a 6-tiered grading system to have the top two tiers reviewed independently, rather than the 1st and 3rd.. so maybe it would be better for the GA standards to be high, leaving no need for a tier between GA and FA.

2576:

quality, it has been refined over more than a year so the designators are about as neutral (yet clear) as you can get IMHO. Every day, dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedians are quietly assessing articles for quality this way, and that should speak for itself.

3075:

May editors remove the assessment tag from a page if they don't want the article assessed? What I mean is, if all WP articles receive assessment tags, which certainly seems to be the direction things are going in, but are not then assessed, what is the point?

1954:

I think maybe we need to rename "Importance" as "Priority". "Importance" does seem to cause upset in some circles, and priority is perhaps less emotive (though not totally neutral). It would emphasise (more clearly than does Importance) that this is a rating

4995:(The names are, admittedly, quite strange in many cases, and I suspect that the only reason for the prevalence of the more bizarre variants is the wholesale copying of template code. I doubt that anyone would object to changing the names to be more logical.) 3795:

It's not too bad, I think. While the tags to eat up a certain amount of space (which isn't all that significant on talk pages that are quite long to begin with, incidentally), the benefits of having them—which go beyond assessment (and, indeed, are primarily

316:

I don't have strong views about colors, myself, as long as they are clearly different. I like the Beatles colors because you can see them going from red (bad) to green (good). However I think the A-Class and FA-Class colors are a bit similar. Any other

4049:

Further to the above... a pastel version would look something like the following, which to my mind just doesn't seem to work very well. (Pure personal opinion that). PLus the above colours can be roughly replicated using red/orange/yellow/lime/cyan/blue.

1736:

Aside from "importance" (which has been discussed in a variety of places, including individual WikiProjects), there wasn't any debate. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever objected to "quality" or "class" (or proposed any better wording, for that matter).

503:

Quite right, I will fix this. I was looking at the discussion yesterday - it's hard to resolve, with such a variety of articles, we have a huge range at the B-Class and Start-Class level too. "How long is appropriate" is impossible to answer! Thanks,

128:

and has worked very successfully over there for several people regularly assessing 380 articles over 7 months. Since I am a great believer in using a system that works well in one place and seeing if it can work elsewhere, I proposed its use in WP 1.0

4987:

The question, then, is this: if the second group is to appear in a category (which is quite convenient), what category should that be? Putting them together with actual articles is confusing, so most projects create a separate category for them (e.g.

4627:

Wow... I honestly didn't think it would generate so much discussion. I feel the purple is too dark for good contrast, plus I feel that FA should be a similar colour to A-class. Purple and cyan are too different. By the way, I changed template-class to

2527:"Insufficient", perhaps? Or "Not useful"? (For that matter, "Start"?) But again, this is merely semantics. The complaint seems to be a more general one about the existence of "negative" ratings, and I doubt any amount of rewording will change that. 3440:

Well, aren't A-Class articles supposed to be close to FA status anyway? I don't see how changes in GA would affect the vast majority of them. Perhaps a few of them may be changed, but otherwise, I can't foresee a significant change to this scale.

541:, will be assessed as a stub in our assessment scale. The only difference is that a long article of inadequate quality may not be marked as a stub by the Stub Sorting WikiProject, but it will be marked as a stub by us if it is basically useless. 1884:

by considering quality first, once we started contacting WikiProjects for quality articles many (quite naturally) asked, "Do you want a list of our most important articles? or "What criteria are there for inclusion?" Some typical examples are

1419:

I haven't read the whole article, but these problems suggest that it needs a close copy-edit if it's to continue to be held up as a shining example. I'm listing it for a Featured Article Review to provide an opportunity for this to be done.

4037:

The only major changes has been to make A-class cyan rather than green, and to make GA-class green rather than a pale wishy-washy green. The other colours have been changed only so that the shift in colour is the same from one to the next.

4992:). Once this category grows to a certain size, a project may decide to split it up by the "type" of non-article, creating separate categories for templates, disambiguation pages, etc. Hence, the existence of the cateories you refer to. 1423:

A related issue is my slight discomfort that the topic may be construed by some readers, both within and outside the US, as too culturally and/or politically sensitive to serve as an example of the pinnacle of Knowledge's achievements.

3678:

Having the projects automatically add GA tags as part of their assessment process isn't a bad idea in theory, but I wonder if it could actually work in practice, particularly insofar as the actual GA process picks up more structure.

2963:

basis to those articles (and only those articles) that get promoted to featured status and (b) is assumed to be the highest designation available; hence, there's never any need to compare articles when assigning that class.

2547:

the list without regard to consequences. Being the creator of featured articles may or may not be a factor in this. I would hope that this not a case of manipulating Wiki to achieve a particular result in a similiar way to

3408:

The speed with which this dispute is spreading to vaguely related places is somewhat disturbing; here, it wouldn't even have been an issue if we hadn't shoehorned the GA level into the assessment scale in the first place.

3328:

Voting on bugs isn't the most effective thing to do, as developers seldom pay attention to that. However, stable versions, as well as version tagging, will be implemented soon, as Brion Vibber indicated during Wikimania.

2929:

Sounds very interesting! I'd like to take you up on the offer, and I'd like to get help from other interested parties. We can at least do a thorough job on our examples, even if we can't on the other 20,000+! Thanks,

734:

article in general meteorology which has a ranking on the assessment scale. There are several articles I have in mind for assessment—can I nominate them somewhere or does the team go in some type of order? (posted by

2820:

successful. On a practical level, if an assessment cannot be eyeballed in under a minute for the vast majority of articles, the average editor simply won't bother with it; he is, after all, a volunteer. This is why

1219:!) and the rest of the reader experience, how about "Useful, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded." 1201:

has any comments, too. You are quite right about the general tone, though I don't agree with everything you mention - it needs to remain distinct from a B-Class. It should certainly be written from a viewpoint of a

375:

assessor believes to be (roughly) equivalent to GA. We and others can then easily see articles that might be submitted as GA candidates. By the way, sorry I've been quiet, but things have been crazy at work lately.

2256:. An article can be "complete" in the sense that it includes all the necessary material and still be horribly written; conversely, even FAs are not "complete" in the sense that they never need to be edited again.) 619:

activities. I expect that by the end of 2006 most Wikipedians will be familiar with this automated assessment system, and many will be using it, because of the great benefits it brings to WikiProjects and WP:1.0.

3632:

I've come here because I was looking for an answer to the question about whether or not editors doing assessments can class an article as GA-class without it having had a formal GA. I've been doing this so far at

155:

factor!). The system is now used in several places as is, but if changes are definitely needed, particularly for levels below B-Class, that would be feasible now (probably not in a few months time!) I would say:

1689:, which is concerned with top priorities in general. We realize that value, priority, etc., are relative. But the core topics project is mainly working to bring needed attention to more general articles such as 1948: 650:

remarkable that the suggestion of renaming or removing a "grade" meets with such entrenched conservativism, and insistence that it'll be imposed on everyone else, especially when it's not even clear what the

4645:

i'm not a fan of the purple here because it overlaps with the article 'importance' colour scheme, which are purply colours. i like having both A and FA class as blue. so i'm in favour of the 'new colours'.

4632:, which solves the problem of looking like any of the colours above. (Also, I remember the Tropical storm colour thing... I lacked time to contriubute, as the discussion took place over christmas/new year.) 4975:

It's not primarily a 1.0 issue at all (although some projects are likely to have copied it under that assumption). Aside from the whole rating scale thing, WikiProject tags generally appear in two places:

2627: 1910: 1329:

Do all FAs qualify for this category, and if so, do these descriptors purport to apply to all FAs? Many, even most FAs require further editing, and are not outstanding" by any stretch of the imagination.

1222:

For the "editor's experience" section, changing "most" to "more" is too vague and it also makes it sound too much like a B. You can think of most Stubs being <10-20% complete, most B-Class being : -->

2251:

Look at the "Criteria" column instead; that's what really defines the scale. The other columns are just there for further guidance. (In any case, "completeness" is an aspect—but only one—of quality; see

3862:

No, you're not. I agree that the colors should be changed back (the new color for Start-class is too close to the color for Template-class, for instance). The new ones look too startlingly different. --

1914: 1906: 1902: 232: 1158:

I would "Be Bold" but I thought that with such a key document caution was more in order. If there is agreement on content I would be happy to implement the changes. Tables are not a problem for me. ::

3659:

There is another way around this problem, which is simply to argue that if the assessing editor has not worked significantly on the page that they are assessing, then they could count themselves as a

150:(the founder of the WP1.0 Editorial Team) and I have had a talk about a possible C-Class between B and Start, or about the renaming of start and stub as letters, but we didn't come to a decision. My 5005:

at all seems like a solution in search of a problem; are these denoting "scope", which is generally thunderingly obvious, or 'ownership'? -- at a minimum the category should be "<Non-article: -->

1529:

look to you? I just reviewed it for 0.5, it certainly "felt" like a very nice article to me. The English wasn't absolutely perfect, but was generally a high standard. It may not be good to have a

967:

It seems to me that the "stub-class" is actually two classes in one? Shouldn't the short article, and the less than totally usable classes be separate? Say, a C-Class? - just some of my thoughts.

654:

of said class is, given the similarity in how the bottom two are "actioned" ("major editing" vs. "almost any editing"). If it actually is necessary, and its meaning is simply "useless", and not "

3731:

IIRC, both, just one for one project, and the other for the second project. If there are differences in assessment, though, projects should discuss it between themselves on a case-by-case basis.

3356:

However, I am not able to find any references or explanations for FF, FF-class, or Future-Class either on the main page or the discussion page of the assessment scale. Shouldn't this be fixed? --

3175:

Not quite sure what the problem is here. There's nothing wrong with having multiple boxes, if they're from different sources; the WikiProject templates are entirely unrelated to the V0.5 ones.

4548:

Less Neon and dulled B's don't have much contrast with the background. Personally I prefer a purpilish FA as it has a more rainbow feal, so I've tweeked new colours and added a more purple FA.

3895:

Well, IIRC, we had green and blue on one side of the spectrum, to give the impression that they would be what was acceptable for 1.0, and the other ones were reddish to indicate they're not...

218:(that is, they have a good lead, are useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised, and have references, etc) so I would say that they all are in Class A. Comments? -- 3217:

We have had a variety of suggestions in the past, including this one, but the consensus reached has always clearly been the same - the current simpler system works well. Interestingly in the

2355:

We don't edit according to quality. We edit to comply with the guidelines. We don't have guidelines that explains how we define quality or how we determine what is quality and what is not.--

1918: 2413:

Hi. Welcome back. Neither of your references mention the word quality. We don't have guidelines that explains how we define quality or how we determine what is quality and what is not. --

1391:*"All branches of the U.S. military are eligible to receive the medal, though each branch has a special design." "Though" in wrong here, since it doesn't contradict the preceding clause. 2267:

The problem with using the the word "quality" is that over half a million article will be put in the class "poor", sub-standard" or "rubbish" quality. The problem with this is obvious.

1062:

Can I question the tone of some of the text on this template. Also the consistancy between the Criteria and the other columns. this is particularly true in my view on the "Start" class

289: 2749:

have had cause to look over assessments done by scores of people from all sorts of subject areas, and (for myself) I've been surprised that we can elicit any agreement! A few points:

753: 2959:

Strictly speaking, we only need examples—at least for comparison purposes—on five of the classes ("A", "GA", "B", "Start", and "Stub"). The "FA" designation (a) is assigned on a

1086:

Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere.

4221: 1436:

Tony, you know the FAs better than most of us. Can you suggest a good example? It's easy to change this example, since no one can debate whether or not an FA is an FA. Thanks,

3393:

over changing the criteria, especially a proposed requirement for inline cites. 1.0 members might like to join the discussion to help ensure consistancy between the projects. --

1290:

As an aside, the "Start" and "Stub" labels aren't clear about how to classify items where other quality aspects are more of a concern than the amount that the article covers.

235:

recently. We don't have a separate template for featured lists in tables, but we use the FA list. For example the element folks have a couple of "FA" lists, see our listing

1898: 1881: 1396:*"The Congressional Space Medal of Honor is a separate award and not equivalent." Insert "is" before "not"; "equivalent" to what needs to be explicated for ease of reading. 4897: 836:

I've been thinking that maybe we should update our examples to limit such confusion - thankfully all of them have improved since the example was taken! Thoughts anyone?

5032:

previously graded at Stub class, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit into that class now. How do I go about getting it re-assessed so I can see the fruits of my labours?

2151:

If you look at the so called "Quality" scale Editor's experience column talks about the degree to which an article has reached completeness. So you could use terms like

774:, and to encourage use of the bot for tracking assessments. The bot will make it easier both for the project and for us at WP1.0 to keep track of thousands of articles. 2720:

This will only affect the wording that appears on the Talk pages. I make no proposal to change anything that would affect how the projects are operating at present. --

1686: 117: 3709:

As far as I know, the bot has been counting such articles only once for quite some time now; that was something specifically requested when the issue first came up.

1197:

Very helpful, thanks! You are wise to proceed with great caution, the Start tag is already applied to 6,729 articles that we know about! We should probably see if

767:. Often people are a bit reluctant to assign grades to the articles, so in that case team members do their best to look at easy things like layout, references, etc. 4901: 2780:

If you can see any simple, specific tools we could use to enhance our procedures, or anything you think that is glaringly wrong, I think we'd like to hear from you!

2631: 2115: 1772: 1886: 764: 236: 3535:

benchmark. If I were setting standards for a particular WikiProject I'd put it in the bot tables in the comments table rather than as a "grade" in this scheme.

143: 2346:

Kirill, you are a majority of one for those who can't see the problems with the terminology. Particularly at the base end where the majority of articles are.

1249:" phrasing, or otherwise editors may not feel encouraged to make edits to an article. At the same time, the language does not need to be unnecessarily harsh. 1880:

for some examples (Pokemon, Medicine, Anti-War Movements and the Music listings are some of the older listings). In our plans at WP1.0 for WikiProjects we

139: 2535:

the quality of the encyclopedia—rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it is not, on average, abysmal—of extremely valuable information.

3886:(edit conflict) Nope, not the only one; they're too neon-ish for my taste. Is there any reason we can't just use a normal six-color spectrum here, though? 3824: 2352:

What is this obsession with quality. Most people think they know quality. But quality is subjective, everyone has there own idea what constitutes quality.

2078:

like the template has already been renamed, so it's primarily Bot output or hand-generated pages that still use Low-Class. Is the bot-owner listening here?

79: 71: 66: 2756:

much better that no system at all! At least the wiki system does allow unrealistic assessments to be corrected by others and to evolve towards consensus.

3467:

The main effect is how we deal with the ranking of B/GA/A. I'm hoping we don't need to make any changes, you can see my own views in more detail at the

3218: 1917:, it was natural by that point to try including it, though personally I had thought it would be entered manually - but projects such as Military History 3230:

desire to change from this system. Of course an individual project can adopt their own system, it just couldn't be read separately by the bot. Thanks,

2430:

More semantics. What do you think "very best work" and "perfect" are in reference to, the weather in London? This isn't all that complicated, really.

1596:

Yes, obviously. It really doesn't work any other way (we've tried doing lists by hand, and they simply become unreadable past a few hundred articles).

995:

I meant that not-short articles seem to be classifiable under stub, from the description of what "stub-class" is. Sorry for any confusion in my query.

130: 4674:

Could someone please create versions of the images with transparent backgrounds rather than white? Also, why were images added to the other classes?

1118:

Sorry I see what is being attempted here but there is a disparity in experience between "Criteria" whic is good "stuff" and these other columns. ::

2637:

The term "quality scale" has been replaced with "assessment scale" but this does not stop the Projects talking about quality as much as they want.

2270:

We have systems to ensure quality. So don't get yourself worried about that. As articles are reworked the quality improves. It's a fact of life.

103:

shouldn't be assessed on this scale. It's easy to say that they just shouldn't be assessed but I would like to be able to categorize them somehow.

4982:

Not-articles - includes templates, categories, and a variety of things in articlespace that aren't really "articles", such as disambiguation pages

4861: 4703:

changes - IMHO it's best to discuss first any template changes here (or on the template talk page), and reach consensus before applying changes.

3428: 1924:

It is apparent that try as we at may (at WP1.0) to come up with bright ideas, many of the best ideas (and much of the impetus for assessment) are

1893:. Going back through the archives it's clear that this idea came from the projects to WP1.0, rather than the other way round (though we at WP1.0 3289:

as there are for A class articles and so forth. It would be nice to see some consistency, I just can't figure out how to edit this table myself.

1333:

By locial inference, does this mean that an article that is not an FA is necessarily in need of minor edits, as the descriptor for A class says?

3201:

one level lower than GA)," I think a C class can be created to describe "good, but not quite." An example of a C class article in my opinion is

1203: 398:

So now there's a separate GA-Class? And it's *below* A-class? That does not make sense to me. Once a GA is upgraded to A-class it loses it's

3501:

the WikiProjects can work with themselves, and lacks the existing gravitas of FA) and let every project decide whether they will give articles

3386: 820:

Right now it is featured, but at the time the snapshot included in the template was taken, it was not featured, and had some problems with it.

760: 4961: 4882:. Is there an easy howto guide somewhere or does some kind soul mind helping us out with this? Apologies if I am missing something obvious. 1755:

There seems to be something larger behind your questions. Maybe we could help more if you tell us more about where your questions are going.

482:

better than your description here implies. I'm trying to resolve this dichotomy now - you might be interested in the discussion going on at

2057:

is a prime candidate to get rid of first - it appears by name on lots of the bot-generated pages and is the thing I've felt is worst-named.

4239:

We also need to sonsider what they look like on the standard class="db-bWVzc2FnZWJveA" background which is where they frequently appear so:

4224:. My opinion is that changing A class to a light blue is reasonable allowing a darker green for GA; but apart from that no change please.-- 3353:

has a box that says, "This article has been rated as Future-Class on the assessment scale." There is a reel of film symbol that says 'FF'.

1679: 3258:

a C-Class, your project could simply use a B- (going into bot category as B-Class) or even a C (going into bot category as Start-Class).

2787:

BTW, I'm a college professor, so I'm very familiar with marking! Perhaps you can do some assessments for us! Thanks, and keep in touch,

892: 292:... interested in comments and feedback as well as seeing if unification makes sense? Ours are templatised so are easy to change around. 215: 726:

How does an article/group of articles get nominated for assessment by the Editorial team? I have noticed that nearly every article in

567:"The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level 4900:, the easiest way to set up a template is to copy an existing one and modify it as necessary. If you get stuck you can ask here or on 3427:- it's already affecting us. The person posting the question on that page is someone who recently set up a bot assessment scheme for 2129:

concerned with the people who be disheartened and feel no encouragement to work on articles that the administrators have written off.

163:

By all means adapt the scheme to your own field, create different "grades" if that helps the assessment process on a particular topic.

99:

How do articles that don't fit in the normal set of classes get assessed? For instance disambiguation articles or category articles

2861:

whether a given article is halfway-decent or not (with a bit more precision than a simple two-level "garbage"/"not garbage" scale).

47: 17: 4194:

The trouble with darker colours is that the contrast between background and text isn't wonderful, which doesn't help acessability.

3127:

If I'm correct, then assesment for 1.0 may replace previous assesment boxes for 0.5 on talk pages? Please answer on my talk page.--

1678:

It depends on the context. These templates are generally being used by Wikprojects in conjunction with a subproject of the overall

202:

Ok, I have another Question. *Hand shoots up* Who goes to a "Discussion" page for info, unless they wish to discus the info given?

254:

While listing the examples, it would have been more helpful if it was mentioned which version of the article it was referring to.

4989: 3820: 3757:

There is also a problem with lots of space being taken up at the start of the talk page with lots of direrent boxes. For example

435:

template until it becomes featured, no? These assessments aren't meant to replace other Knowledge article recognition programs.

160:

If you and others at WP Tropical cyclones feel that a revision is urgently needed, propose it formally here and we'll discuss it.

2759:

The "grades" are of necessity broad, to reflect the coarseness of the system and the variation of subject matter (an article on

802:

is here given as an exapmle of a B-Class article and lists problems with it. However, it is a Featured Article. I am confused--

3350: 1090:

I am myself unclear on how to improve this but again the tone is in my view unhelpful. I'll think a bit more about this clause.

2770:

The system is straightforward enough to allow pretty much anyone do assessments quickly. More sophisticated systems such as

811: 4823:

The first proposal is better than the second one, although I'm still undecided whether it is better than the current one...

4944:

be graded as B-Class. Copyright problems are a serious matter; therefore, I request that articles with copyright problems

2774:

have been worked on, but I don't think we have enough people available to assess a significant number of articles that way.

932:

TOCs are generated automatically, so that would mean the article is either too short or not properly sectioned. Now that I

784:

If you want to start using the bot straight away, reply here and we'll get you up & running. Thanks for contacting us,

4565: 4501: 4440: 4379: 4318: 4257: 4137: 4073: 3990: 3929: 2514: 1873: 1869: 444: 2829:

the waste of time that is 'grading' using this sort of schema. No, they won't do it. Doesn't mean it's worth doing badly.

1495:

Everyone has their own ideas about how references should be formatted - what do you think is wrong with the reference of

4558: 4494: 4433: 4372: 4311: 4250: 4130: 4066: 3983: 3922: 3468: 3424: 3390: 3057: 2822: 2771: 2618: 1636:

as a less loaded term. And more clearly linked to a specific task rather than an overall statment about the article. ::

483: 589:

I'd read that, I was looking for something a little more... definitional. Anyway, points and questions still stand.

3318:. This would allow you to tag an individual revision of the article. I think that would be helpful to your project. -- 1890: 752:

The cyclones group is unusual in that they are also participating in testing out a "bot", you can see all the results

2499:

In theory, yes. In practice, I can't imagine a single topic where a one-sentence article would be of high-quality.

214:

fit into the assessment criteria? There is no featured list which is also a featured article, but they all meet the

5011:". So I hope you're correct about the last part... I'll drop notes at a couple of randomly-slected wikiprojects. 2118:. I find it exciting that others can see the potential harm that can be caused by the choice of the wrong words. -- 1135: 759:

We have contacted all the WikiProjects that were on an "active list" in October 2005, and meteorology was contacted

146:. Your group seems to have an excellent grasp of the issues, and of what we intended for the assessment criteria. 4799: 4785: 4761: 4603: 4584: 4539: 4520: 4478: 4459: 4417: 4398: 4356: 4337: 4295: 4276: 4175: 4156: 4111: 4092: 4028: 4009: 3967: 3948: 3696: 3165: 3133: 2295:

Agreed. Until someone gives a good, convincing reason why "quality" is inaccurate, I'll oppose any change to that.

1933:

may be quite weak. Likewise, a project that ignores quality standards is failing in its duties to the community.

1868:

The terms importance and quality naturally evolved on the Knowledge 1.0 project. Quality assessments were part of

727: 439: 38: 1387:

I wonder why, then, a cursory reading of the first few paragraphs of the article revealed the following problems.

977:

Not all short articles are useless, though. Short, but useful articles fall under the traditional definition of a

4591: 4572: 4527: 4508: 4466: 4447: 4405: 4386: 4344: 4325: 4283: 4264: 4163: 4144: 4099: 4080: 4016: 3997: 3955: 3936: 3758: 2678:

They would be only link names with the links going to QUALITY and IMPORTANCE respectively in the Project spaces.

307: 3030: 4865: 4598: 4534: 4473: 4412: 4351: 4290: 4170: 4106: 4023: 3962: 3669: 3249: 2071: 211: 3867: 903:

The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table.

3641: 3471:. I think we will need to clarify our consensus view for the hundreds now using this assessment scheme, or 2061: 353: 3475:'s question on the Grading scheme page will become very common, and it will hinder the assessment process. 5029: 1074:

surely a might negative - combative in fact - some editor's take offence at this type of thing (and have).

3800:

about assessment at all)—generally outweigh the minor inconvenience when multiple ones appear on a page.

3156: 1998:. I've never liked to classify articles by importance, but to be honest, it does give many benefits. A {{ 1033: 968: 487: 4794: 4780: 4756: 4579: 4515: 4454: 4393: 4332: 4271: 4151: 4087: 4004: 3943: 3762: 3160: 3128: 2235: 2232: 2193: 2015: 1930: 1646: 1643: 1582: 1579: 1168: 1165: 1128: 1125: 996: 771: 293: 5084: 5073: 5055: 5036: 5015: 4999: 4969: 4930: 4913: 4890: 4868: 4847: 4832: 4817: 4721: 4707: 4689: 4678: 4663: 4650: 4636: 4621: 4233: 4208: 4198: 4188: 4054: 4042: 3904: 3890: 3881: 3856: 3836: 3804: 3774: 3740: 3726: 3713: 3703: 3683: 3672: 3624: 3605: 3590: 3567: 3509: 3479: 3450: 3435: 3413: 3402: 3374: 3360: 3338: 3322: 3303: 3293: 3262: 3252: 3243: 3240: 3234: 3209: 3179: 3170: 3152: 3138: 3114: 3095: 3080: 3064: 3026:

particularly of science, engineering or mathematics could possibly be imparted by such bland articles.

3002: 2968: 2934: 2887: 2865: 2855: 2845: 2805: 2791: 2739: 2724: 2695: 2685: 2668: 2644: 2607: 2595: 2580: 2566: 2555: 2539: 2521: 2503: 2493: 2482: 2469: 2459: 2449: 2434: 2417: 2404: 2359: 2336: 2322: 2304: 2288: 2277: 2260: 2242: 2216: 2202: 2122: 2101: 2038: 1963: 1937: 1853: 1836: 1822: 1803: 1779: 1759: 1741: 1730: 1705: 1667: 1653: 1623: 1600: 1589: 1558: 1537: 1506: 1490: 1476: 1452: 1440: 1430: 1366: 1294: 1258: 1240: 1184: 1175: 1152: 1051: 1036: 1017: 999: 990: 971: 950: 940: 937: 924: 912: 909: 863: 849: 840: 829: 814: 788: 703: 662: 624: 593: 584: 560: 550: 531: 508: 490: 472: 452: 419: 392: 379: 365: 334: 310: 277: 267: 243: 225: 194: 173: 110: 4660: 3206: 3044:. Your comment reminds me of my (history?) teacher's comment {paraphrased): "In O-level we teach you 5071: 4909: 4741: 4617: 3832: 3770: 3563:

thorough than some FA reviews! That does raise issues when the GA level does appear in our scheme.

3398: 3300: 1983: 1876:. As for WikiProjects, many besides chemistry developed assessment schemes quite independently, see 1401:*"Scott did not approve the medal; however, such a medal found support in the Navy." Either "approve 1381:

is displayed as the example of FA-class articles, next to the statement that these articles require:

859: 736: 263: 3722:

Then the next obvious question is, if there are two differing assessments, which one does it count?

2373:

article by definition; are you suggesting that articles can be not useful yet still of high quality?

1682:. My limited understanding is that the Wikprojects are setting the levels within their own projects. 5081: 5050: 4996: 4927: 4923: 4827: 4813: 4716: 4229: 4185: 3899: 3887: 3877: 3851: 3801: 3735: 3710: 3680: 3619: 3506: 3445: 3410: 3371: 3333: 3176: 3092: 2965: 2862: 2842: 2590: 2563: 2536: 2500: 2479: 2456: 2431: 2401: 2333: 2299: 2285: 2257: 2213: 2033: 2011: 1831: 1776: 1738: 1597: 1569: 1485: 1361: 1340:

What it means is that the articles that qualify for the FA class are any and all that went through

1253: 1046: 1012: 985: 824: 579: 545: 449: 436: 4808:

I can't edit the template myself, and discussion should probably occur first anyway. Thoughts? --

2816:

I would go one step further and actually suggest that a more stringent assessment system would be

3027: 2764: 2051: 2019: 2007: 1999: 1877: 807: 4864:, as it pertains to the Assessment project and several issues raised or broached here. Thanks! 1405:

the medal" or "approve the proposal" is required here, whichever conveys the intended meaning.

770:

We will be re-contacting all the projects over the spring/summer, in order to request lists of

2548: 2385: 2003: 1921:

directly from article pages. (Comment:I had a lot of fun reviewing the history of all this!)

1469: 1346: 1099:

Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added.

846: 2343:

Doesn't mention the word quality. It talks how big they are. Doesn't mention poor articles.

4887: 2562:

you're free to sit here screaming into the silence for the next six months, for all I care.

2226: 2116:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Australia/Assessment#What is the purpose of these Assessment tags

1637: 1573: 1159: 1119: 414: 189: 3281:

On the table listing grades and the assessment sidebar on some pages there are no links to

1107:

This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built.

5068: 4905: 4843: 4613: 3828: 3766: 3394: 3367: 3357: 2777:

We don't have any objective "assessment of our assessments" at the moment. Maybe one day!

2745:

I don't think we have ever regarded these assessments as anything but coarse-grained. At

2381: 2253: 2098: 1503: 1341: 1216: 855: 778: 349: 259: 222: 2586:

things I would say anyway, I don't know what benefit it would be for me to keep arguing.

2445:

If you can find a word that is defined in the guidelines then we can start from there. --

2114:

Thanks guys for the help. I was looking for some background information for my debate at

1415:*Stubby, one-sentence paragraphs, including one in the lead and quite a few further down. 658:", why not "useless grade", "placeholder grade", or some other less overloaded synonym? 2691:

I have to go interstate for a few days but I want continue this debate when I return. --

4879: 4809: 4225: 4184:

The colors are approximate, but the general sense of my idea should be clear, I think.

3872: 3864: 3823:

where a smaller version of the templates is being investigated. You can see its use at

3665: 3612: 3222: 2746: 2328: 2311: 1565: 1481:

Just by looking at the references, they're not properly formatted. Any other examples?

1378: 1317:

Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.

1005: 978: 655: 538: 524: 465: 125: 3601:

gives preference to articles that have inline cites as an effort to encourage this. --

2225:

Agreed "importance" change to "priority" is the only term change I see as needful. ::

1701:, geographic areas, etc., topics on the higher levels of a general tree of knowledge. 5043: 5033: 4704: 4220:

further changes. Just try and avoid a truly massive discussion on this topic, it has

4205: 3634: 3598: 3564: 3476: 3432: 3259: 3231: 3061: 2931: 2884: 2788: 2760: 2721: 2692: 2682: 2665: 2641: 2604: 2577: 2552: 2518: 2490: 2475: 2466: 2446: 2414: 2356: 2319: 2274: 2199: 2119: 1995: 1960: 1934: 1850: 1819: 1815: 1800: 1756: 1727: 1702: 1664: 1620: 1555: 1534: 1530: 1473: 1437: 1350: 1291: 1280: 1237: 1181: 1149: 837: 803: 785: 749:

just come up with a handful of decent and/or important articles (still very helpful).

700: 621: 505: 469: 389: 376: 362: 331: 303: 240: 170: 147: 4120:

Who said anything about pastel? ;-) I would prefer something rather darker/duller:

258:

has been edited 300 times since it was put up as an example of a 'B grade' article.

3660: 3611:

difference between A- and GA, and changing the scale would be slightly disruptive.

3290: 3286: 3282: 3077: 3041: 3037: 2640:

This could be a viable solution to problem terminology turning up on talk pages. --

2396:

has complained that we shouldn't assess "quality"! To put it quite bluntly, it is

2166: 1287:

indicate length and breadth more than quality. But maybe my understanding is wrong.

947: 341: 327: 2664:

We should let the WikiProjects themselves decide what to use (they will anyway!).

1987: 388:

I understand. :) And I wasn't meaning to scrap the A class, maybe just divide it.

1325:

No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light.

781:, I hope you and others will nominate some of the important meteorology articles! 5047: 4883: 4824: 4713: 3896: 3848: 3732: 3616: 3602: 3442: 3330: 3319: 3145: 2587: 2365:

You're still playing at semantics. How does "too short to be genuinely useful"

2296: 2030: 1991: 1828: 1482: 1358: 1250: 1198: 1043: 1009: 982: 821: 576: 542: 429: 409: 402: 184: 107: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1827:

Why change Start to "needs expansion"? It's shorter, and it gets to the point.

1810:

Also, the quality levels are based on those used by the chemistry wikiproject.

4839: 4686: 4675: 4647: 4633: 4195: 4051: 4039: 3723: 3700: 3587: 3472: 2999: 2852: 2802: 2736: 1698: 1694: 1500: 1449: 1448:

is very nicely written, but may be a little image-crowded. What do you think?

1427: 1384:"no further editing ... unless new published information has come to light." 799: 345: 274: 255: 219: 5012: 4966: 3202: 3197:

ranking articles in Knowledge, and B class is "okay, almost there (Since it

3111: 2675:

I would be very happy with ASSESSMENT and PRIORITY appearing on Talk pages.

1849:

On the last point, we should stick with "Start" for the reason Tito states.

1750:

There was no debate, per se. Something close to what you are looking for is

1496: 1445: 921: 889: 659: 590: 557: 528: 3765:

so it only used two lines, which should save a bit of talk page clutter. --

3299:

Done. Seems like a really good idea, especially for consistency's sake. -

1793:

How about changing "Start" class to "Needs expansion" or something similar?

523:

Any chance someone working on this could clarify the difference between a "

290:

Knowledge:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#Codes_and_meanings

2310:

I'm going to have to resort to the guidelines on this. The guidelines for

1246: 1032:"Classes lower than this" ... would be? IS there a D-class or an F-class? 572:

but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible

1789:

Thanks, Kirill. WikiCats, now some questions for you (and anyone else):

299: 2465:

It's not semantics. Everything we do is determined by the guidelines. --

116:

The assessments themselves are done on individual project pages such as

3761:

has 7 boxes on it, and I've seen pages with many more. I've now redone

3315: 3053: 2531:

mollified at the cost of depriving those of us who actually care about

2318:

Do you have a guideline that says that Stubs are all about quality? --

2273:

Substituting the work "quality" does not mean the end of the world! --

1690: 1663:

My fear is that there was no debate into what these terms should be. --

1526: 1004:

Yes, they indeed can, if they are useless. Short articles, that can be

777:

On the subject nominations, we will be taking nominations very soon at

2825:

has gone through a few dozen articles while we have more than 20,000.

1554:

Are these assessment tags meant to be placed on article Talk pages? --

1078:

Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not.

3239:

Obviously, the AfD class exists - a lively and contentious category.

2701:

I propose that the link name on the Talk page template be changed to

1180:

I appreciate your asking. No one has disagreed, so please go for it.

2097:

I echo WikiCats' comment below - thankyou for the history lesson. --

1008:, can be assessed as a higher-class article if they're more useful. 3144:

What if another project has already assesed an article, such as on

1468:: Looks nice to me, though I may be accused of bias as I hale from 845:

Link to the specific revision number, not the article name. Simple.

459:

Not at all! We keep our existing A/B/S/S system for WP1.0, but we

124:

is where discussion should take place. The scheme evolved over at

1111:

What a put down, this is not an encouragement to editor's efforts.

4712:

Actually, here. That way, it gets more eyes that can discuss it.

4216:

I say revert back to the old colours for now and discuss on here

1980:"Who says that this article is a higher priority than the other?" 1148:

You make some good points. But I don't know how to edit the box.

2681:

I would be very happy with this as a solution to my concerns. --

1897:

have thought of it!). We then began to discuss this in earnest

1499:? Presuambly such a small technical matter is easily fixed? -- 2025:

Sounds like a good place to restate my first law of Knowledge:

1982:

It literally is an endless can of worms similar to the dreaded

2651:

alternatives to WikiProjects when they set up their templates:

1976:"Who says that this article is more important than the other?" 1799:

Does anyone know of other offenses taken because of the tags?

615:

double check to see if "stub" is appropriate, thereby helping

273:

Changed the example links to specific revisions of that time.

25: 4838:

one in isolation. Also, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. :-)

3036:

You may be right, that's probably a major difference between

2617:

I came across this terminology on the Computer Project. e.g.

2332:

articles are stubs, stubs are, by definition, poor articles.

1472:! We'll see if anyone here objects, then change it. Thanks, 4878:

Ello. I would like to set up this assessment machinery for

4960:

Would it be churlish to point out that category names like

4856:

More thoughts on GA standards, citations, and assessment...

2027:"No matter what you do, someone, somewhere, won't like it." 1103:

Would not "more material for a complete article" be better.

2455:"Perfectness"? But I don't think that's an improvement. 1245:

I'm not sure. There needs to be some sort of "kick in the

3248:

Just to clarify - the A-Class doesn't require GA-status.

1909:, though in fact they had themselves taken the idea from 1905:. When I stumbled across the Math importance criteria I 763:

in April. Based on replies we fill out a table such as

5010:", or less tortuously, just "Blah <non-articles: --> 1811: 151: 2047:

If things are being renamed, I'd like to suggest that

2014:}} is a wake-up call. By the way, the article I'm the 2006:}} is always an encouragement, to the same degree a {{ 3060:, though - that is where GAs are actually voted on. 1911:

the Computer and Video Games Essential Articles List

1660:

At last, someone with some insight into this issue!

920:

I think "a table of contents" is what was intended.

3847:Am I the only one who doesn't like the new colors? 3110:product that will actually appear at some point.) 4898:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot 1974:actually do it; the real question doesn't change: 1206:, not a glass half empty. Some detailed comments: 730:has been assessed, but I have been unable to find 326:I'd like to suggest adding a level for designated 1377:To take the previous matter further, I note that 340:That is an excellent idea. Any chances of making 1872:, and obviously importance lies at the heart of 1687:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics 1373:The example chosen of the ideal FA-class article 1082:surely "other may not" would be a better phrase. 120:. As for discussing the grading scheme itself, 4902:Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index 3656:distinct and there needs to be a middle level. 2369:relate to quality? If it's not useful, it's a 2022:}}. Does that hurt my feelings? Absolutely not. 1714:Where can I find the debate in which the terms 873: 408:template and then gets nothing in its place? — 284:Another take on color coding of classification 5046:, you should bring it up in their talk page. 2476:Knowledge is not an experiment in rule making 8: 4952:for B-class. 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 3699:) to pages that have already been assessed? 1929:specialised or crufty articles, while their 1752:] about creation of the core topics subpage. 4990:Category:Non-article military history pages 3825:Talk:Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace 2752:The info is somewhat unreliable, but it is 2603:I'm happy to accept Kirill's explanation.-- 929:Aha! Yes, you may be on to something there. 4922:Alternately, just follow the instructions 4242: 2510:You've painted yourself into a box there. 96:Where is discussion on these classes done? 5062:Article progression from GA to A to FA??? 3690:Articles covered by multiple WikiProjects 2029:That is certainly what is happening now. 1919:expressed a desire for the bot to read it 1215:In place of "Not useless" (reminds me of 2349:But I'm happy to address your concerns. 874:Editor's experience of featured articles 3429:Knowledge:WikiProject Space exploration 2192:Another term that would be quite OK is 4699:you're likely to ruffle feathers with 4659:I vote in favor of the "new colors." 3387:Knowledge talk:Good article candidates 3370:; please discuss the issue with them. 3366:It seems to be a custom class used by 3091:their backlog of unassessed articles. 2380:have explicit guidelines for quality: 1796:How about more explantion on the tags? 1568:you will see how it is done. And here 854:That is the way it is at the moment. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4962:Category:Template-Class film articles 3695:when tagging my WikiProjects banner ( 3505:marked as GAs A-Class status or not. 1313:I note the descriptors for FA class: 7: 4685:working on it for three minutes! :) 2851:given a criterion of y is nonsense. 1680:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team 537:By most means, a stub, as sorted by 133:, and that's how it came to be used. 2709:and the other link name changed to 2010:}} article that is assessed as a {{ 1926:coming from the projects themselves 1775:seems to be the larger part of it. 1607:Next question. Who chose the terms 1353:, as it is more appropriate there.. 4670:Images on classification templates 3381:Criteria changes for Good articles 2198:, a term that is already used. -- 24: 5028:I've spent some time cleaning up 138:I read some of the comments over 18:Knowledge talk:Content assessment 5042:Since it's under the purview of 4979:Articles - this is pretty simple 4793: 4779: 4755: 4597: 4578: 4533: 4514: 4472: 4453: 4411: 4392: 4350: 4331: 4289: 4270: 4169: 4150: 4105: 4086: 4022: 4003: 3961: 3942: 3821:Knowledge:Mini Talkpage Template 1236:What do you think, Kevin et al? 29: 3385:There quite a heated debate at 3351:Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles 695:of the two is similar, but the 183:to get it to A and then FA. — 4939:request for change to criteria 3805:21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3775:21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3741:19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3727:14:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3714:13:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3704:10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3625:19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3606:15:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3591:08:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3568:05:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3510:04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3480:04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3451:04:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3436:04:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 3414:19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 3403:19:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 3375:18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 3361:17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 3339:18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 3323:18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 3304:01:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 3294:22:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 2254:featured article criterion #2b 231:This question was also raised 1: 5085:00:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 5074:00:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 5056:19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 5037:13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 4931:14:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 4914:13:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 4891:11:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 4848:00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 4664:19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 3697:Template:WP Space exploration 3235:00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2841:actually harmful in any way. 2713:with its link still going to 1283:has good suggestions overall. 278:12:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 268:00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 244:16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 226:15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 195:08:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 5016:21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 5000:21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 4970:20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 4869:00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 4833:23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 4818:23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 4722:21:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 3837:10:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 3391:Knowledge talk:Good articles 3277:editing classification table 3263:19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 3253:18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 3244:08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 2823:Knowledge:Article assessment 2772:Knowledge:Article assessment 2619:Talk:Half-Life_2:_Lost_Coast 2400:who is alone on this issue. 1685:Then, for example, there is 743:Several answers needed here! 570:. It is usually very short, 565:From this page's companion: 484:Knowledge talk:Good articles 361:I'm not sure what you mean. 174:22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 111:19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 4708:03:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4690:14:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 4679:13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 4651:12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 4637:09:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 4622:00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 4234:22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 4209:21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 4199:20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 4189:20:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 4055:19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 4043:19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 3905:19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 3891:19:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 3882:19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 3857:19:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 3819:One solution to this is at 3684:21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 3673:20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 3210:22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 3180:00:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 3171:00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 3139:23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 3115:16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 3096:20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 3081:20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 3048:, but if you want to learn 2626:Stub This article has been 1564:if you look at the article 425:It shouldn't be losing the 152:original scheme for WP:Chem 5101: 3668:. How does this all seem? 3637:, because to my eyes, the 2725:14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2132:Scales that use the words 1957:within the related project 1094: 1065: 765:this table for Meteorology 728:Category:Tropical_cyclones 473:19:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 453:19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 420:18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 4956:"Template-Class articles" 3974: 3759:Talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss 3664:always be brought up for 3065:04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 3031:10:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 3003:07:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2969:04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2935:04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2888:16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2866:15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2856:15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2846:14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2806:15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2792:14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2740:14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2705:with link still going to 2696:04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 2686:04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 2669:02:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 2645:02:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 2608:01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 2596:18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 2581:17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 2567:15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 2556:14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 2540:15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 2522:15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 2504:15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2494:14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2483:15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2470:13:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2460:15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2450:13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2435:13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2418:13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2405:13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2360:13:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 2337:15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2323:15:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2305:21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2289:15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2278:15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2261:15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2243:15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2217:14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2203:15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2169:has suggested terms like 2123:07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2102:11:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 2039:05:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 1964:02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 1943:On Importance vs Priority 1938:02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 1915:talk about using this bot 1854:02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 1837:19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1823:16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1804:15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1780:15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1760:15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1742:15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1731:14:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1706:14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1668:14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1654:14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1624:14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1601:12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1590:15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 1559:14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 1538:03:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 1507:11:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 1491:04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 1477:02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 1453:02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 1441:22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 1431:16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 1367:18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 1309:Request for clarification 1295:15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 1259:18:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 1241:17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 1185:12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 1176:15:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1153:15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1136:12:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 951:20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 941:18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 925:18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 913:16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 893:12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 864:10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 850:08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 393:07:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 380:04:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 366:03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 335:02:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 311:04:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 4792: 4778: 4754: 4596: 4589: 4577: 4570: 4563: 4556: 4471: 4464: 4452: 4445: 4438: 4431: 4410: 4403: 4391: 4384: 4377: 4370: 4288: 4281: 4269: 4262: 4255: 4248: 4168: 4161: 4149: 4142: 4135: 4128: 4104: 4097: 4085: 4078: 4071: 4064: 3960: 3953: 3941: 3934: 3927: 3920: 2730:Article progress grading 2376:(Not to mention that we 1889:(from October 2005) and 1874:the Core topics proposal 1533:article as our example. 1052:20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1037:01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1018:20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1000:20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 991:03:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 972:01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 841:01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 830:23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 815:21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 789:19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 704:18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 663:16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 625:02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 594:01:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 585:01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 561:01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 551:01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 532:00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 509:15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 491:10:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 3425:this related discussion 2148:have to re-classified. 1550:Let me ask one question 699:of them is different. 140:on WP Tropical cyclones 4772:Proposed possibilites: 3635:WikiProject Filmmaking 3020: 2659:IMPORTANCE or PRIORITY 2088:bot(s) could generate? 1814:an early version from 216:featured list criteria 4735:New GA Green proposal 3763:Template:maths rating 2656:QUALITY or ASSESSMENT 2630:as Stub-Class on the 2002:}} article that is {{ 1978:would be replaced by 1632:should in my view be 42:of past discussions. 4874:setting up templates 3314:Please vote for bug 3151:Should it replace {{ 1913:. When we began to 1058:Tone and consistancy 936:see as a criterion. 737:User:Runningonbrains 344:a formal guideline? 144:your assessment page 4866:Girolamo Savonarola 3670:Girolamo Savonarola 3469:Grading scheme page 3250:Girolamo Savonarola 3058:on the GA talk page 3021:Depth and 'Quality' 2613:A possible solution 2018:is classified as {{ 1570:Talk:Medal of Honor 1095:Editor's experience 1066:Reader's experience 122:this talk page here 3912:For the record... 3349:The talk page for 2765:Angel (Buffyverse) 4806: 4805: 4768: 4767: 4610: 4609: 4546: 4545: 4182: 4181: 4118: 4117: 4035: 4034: 3287:Featured Articles 3219:original proposal 3169: 3161:Steven Fruitsmaak 3137: 3129:Steven Fruitsmaak 3052:you have to take 3042:Featured Articles 1870:Jimbo's proposals 1470:Potsdam, New York 1217:"mostly harmless" 418: 356: 193: 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5092: 5053: 4830: 4797: 4783: 4776: 4775: 4759: 4752: 4751: 4719: 4631: 4601: 4582: 4551: 4550: 4537: 4518: 4476: 4457: 4415: 4396: 4354: 4335: 4293: 4274: 4243: 4173: 4154: 4123: 4122: 4109: 4090: 4059: 4058: 4026: 4007: 3965: 3946: 3915: 3914: 3902: 3870: 3854: 3738: 3646: 3640: 3622: 3448: 3336: 3163: 3131: 2703:Assessment scale 2632:assessment scale 2593: 2302: 2240: 2229: 2146:low-significance 2076: 2072:low-significance 2070: 2066: 2060: 2056: 2050: 2036: 1907:got very excited 1834: 1651: 1640: 1587: 1576: 1488: 1416: 1411: 1406: 1397: 1392: 1364: 1256: 1173: 1162: 1133: 1122: 1049: 1015: 988: 827: 582: 548: 447: 442: 434: 428: 412: 407: 401: 348: 296: 187: 92:Some questions. 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5100: 5099: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5064: 5051: 5026: 4958: 4941: 4876: 4858: 4828: 4737: 4717: 4672: 4629: 4222:happened before 3900: 3868: 3852: 3845: 3736: 3692: 3644: 3638: 3620: 3615:, for example. 3446: 3383: 3358:Robotech_Master 3347: 3334: 3312: 3301:Runningonbrains 3279: 3190: 3125: 3123:Little question 3073: 3023: 2732: 2615: 2591: 2300: 2239: 2236: 2227: 2112: 2074: 2068: 2064: 2058: 2054: 2048: 2034: 1832: 1726:were chosen? -- 1650: 1647: 1638: 1586: 1583: 1574: 1552: 1486: 1414: 1409: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1385: 1375: 1362: 1311: 1254: 1204:glass half full 1172: 1169: 1160: 1146: 1132: 1129: 1120: 1097: 1068: 1060: 1047: 1030: 1013: 986: 965: 900: 876: 825: 797: 724: 580: 546: 521: 445: 440: 432: 426: 405: 399: 324: 294: 286: 252: 208: 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5098: 5096: 5088: 5087: 5082:Kirill Lokshin 5063: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5025: 5024:Re-assessment? 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5018: 4997:Kirill Lokshin 4993: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4980: 4957: 4954: 4940: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4928:Kirill Lokshin 4917: 4916: 4875: 4872: 4862:the discussion 4857: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4804: 4803: 4791: 4789: 4770: 4766: 4765: 4736: 4733: 4731: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4693: 4692: 4671: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4640: 4639: 4608: 4607: 4595: 4588: 4576: 4569: 4562: 4555: 4544: 4543: 4531: 4524: 4512: 4505: 4498: 4491: 4487: 4486: 4483: 4482: 4470: 4463: 4451: 4444: 4437: 4430: 4426: 4425: 4422: 4421: 4409: 4402: 4390: 4383: 4376: 4369: 4365: 4364: 4361: 4360: 4348: 4341: 4329: 4322: 4315: 4308: 4304: 4303: 4300: 4299: 4287: 4280: 4268: 4261: 4254: 4247: 4241: 4240: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4186:Kirill Lokshin 4180: 4179: 4167: 4160: 4148: 4141: 4134: 4127: 4116: 4115: 4103: 4096: 4084: 4077: 4070: 4063: 4048: 4047: 4033: 4032: 4020: 4013: 4001: 3994: 3987: 3980: 3976: 3975: 3972: 3971: 3959: 3952: 3940: 3933: 3926: 3919: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3888:Kirill Lokshin 3884: 3844: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3802:Kirill Lokshin 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3717: 3716: 3711:Kirill Lokshin 3691: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3681:Kirill Lokshin 3642:grading scheme 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3507:Kirill Lokshin 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3417: 3416: 3411:Kirill Lokshin 3382: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3372:Kirill Lokshin 3346: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3311: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3278: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3189: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3177:Kirill Lokshin 3149: 3124: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3099: 3098: 3093:Kirill Lokshin 3086:Well, they're 3072: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3022: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2966:Kirill Lokshin 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2863:Kirill Lokshin 2843:Kirill Lokshin 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2795: 2794: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2778: 2775: 2768: 2757: 2731: 2728: 2711:Priority scale 2700: 2690: 2674: 2672: 2671: 2661: 2660: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2614: 2611: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2583: 2570: 2569: 2564:Kirill Lokshin 2545: 2543: 2542: 2537:Kirill Lokshin 2528: 2513:Ok. Lets take 2509: 2507: 2506: 2501:Kirill Lokshin 2486: 2485: 2480:Kirill Lokshin 2463: 2462: 2457:Kirill Lokshin 2444: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2432:Kirill Lokshin 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2408: 2407: 2402:Kirill Lokshin 2394:not one person 2389: 2374: 2342: 2340: 2339: 2334:Kirill Lokshin 2329:Knowledge:Stub 2308: 2307: 2292: 2291: 2286:Kirill Lokshin 2266: 2264: 2263: 2258:Kirill Lokshin 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2237: 2220: 2219: 2214:Kirill Lokshin 2207: 2127: 2111: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2062:low-importance 2042: 2041: 2023: 1945: 1944: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1807: 1806: 1797: 1794: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1777:Kirill Lokshin 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1753: 1745: 1744: 1739:Kirill Lokshin 1713: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1683: 1672: 1659: 1657: 1656: 1648: 1606: 1604: 1603: 1598:Kirill Lokshin 1593: 1592: 1584: 1566:Medal of Honor 1551: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1479: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1383: 1379:Medal of Honor 1374: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1354: 1327: 1326: 1319: 1318: 1310: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1288: 1284: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1220: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1170: 1145: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1130: 1113: 1112: 1105: 1104: 1096: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1084: 1083: 1076: 1075: 1070:Not useless. 1067: 1064: 1059: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1042:Where's that? 1034:132.205.45.148 1029: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 969:132.205.45.148 964: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 930: 905: 904: 899: 896: 875: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 833: 832: 796: 793: 792: 791: 782: 775: 768: 757: 750: 745: 744: 723: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 520: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 496: 495: 494: 493: 488:Worldtraveller 476: 475: 456: 455: 396: 395: 385: 384: 383: 382: 369: 368: 358: 357: 323: 320: 319: 318: 285: 282: 281: 280: 251: 248: 247: 246: 212:Featured lists 207: 204: 200: 199: 198: 197: 177: 176: 165: 164: 161: 157: 156: 135: 134: 105: 104: 97: 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5097: 5086: 5083: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5072: 5070: 5061: 5057: 5054: 5049: 5045: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5035: 5031: 5023: 5017: 5014: 5009: 5003: 5002: 5001: 4998: 4994: 4991: 4986: 4981: 4978: 4977: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4968: 4963: 4955: 4953: 4951: 4947: 4938: 4932: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4889: 4885: 4881: 4873: 4871: 4870: 4867: 4863: 4855: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4831: 4826: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4802: 4801: 4796: 4790: 4788: 4787: 4782: 4777: 4774: 4773: 4764: 4763: 4758: 4753: 4750: 4749: 4745: 4743: 4734: 4732: 4723: 4720: 4715: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4706: 4702: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4691: 4688: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4677: 4669: 4665: 4662: 4658: 4657: 4652: 4649: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4638: 4635: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4606: 4605: 4600: 4594: 4593: 4587: 4586: 4581: 4575: 4574: 4568: 4567: 4561: 4560: 4553: 4552: 4549: 4542: 4541: 4536: 4532: 4530: 4529: 4525: 4523: 4522: 4517: 4513: 4511: 4510: 4506: 4504: 4503: 4499: 4497: 4496: 4492: 4489: 4488: 4485: 4484: 4481: 4480: 4475: 4469: 4468: 4462: 4461: 4456: 4450: 4449: 4443: 4442: 4436: 4435: 4428: 4427: 4424: 4423: 4420: 4419: 4414: 4408: 4407: 4401: 4400: 4395: 4389: 4388: 4382: 4381: 4375: 4374: 4367: 4366: 4363: 4362: 4359: 4358: 4353: 4349: 4347: 4346: 4342: 4340: 4339: 4334: 4330: 4328: 4327: 4323: 4321: 4320: 4316: 4314: 4313: 4309: 4306: 4305: 4302: 4301: 4298: 4297: 4292: 4286: 4285: 4279: 4278: 4273: 4267: 4266: 4260: 4259: 4253: 4252: 4245: 4244: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4210: 4207: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4197: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4187: 4178: 4177: 4172: 4166: 4165: 4159: 4158: 4153: 4147: 4146: 4140: 4139: 4133: 4132: 4125: 4124: 4121: 4114: 4113: 4108: 4102: 4101: 4095: 4094: 4089: 4083: 4082: 4076: 4075: 4069: 4068: 4061: 4060: 4057: 4056: 4053: 4045: 4044: 4041: 4031: 4030: 4025: 4021: 4019: 4018: 4014: 4012: 4011: 4006: 4002: 4000: 3999: 3995: 3993: 3992: 3988: 3986: 3985: 3981: 3978: 3977: 3973: 3970: 3969: 3964: 3958: 3957: 3951: 3950: 3945: 3939: 3938: 3932: 3931: 3925: 3924: 3917: 3916: 3913: 3906: 3903: 3898: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3889: 3885: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3874: 3871: 3866: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3855: 3850: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3817: 3806: 3803: 3799: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3742: 3739: 3734: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3725: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3715: 3712: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3702: 3698: 3689: 3685: 3682: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3671: 3667: 3662: 3657: 3655: 3649: 3643: 3636: 3626: 3623: 3618: 3614: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3604: 3600: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3589: 3569: 3566: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3511: 3508: 3504: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3481: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3452: 3449: 3444: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3415: 3412: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3359: 3354: 3352: 3344: 3340: 3337: 3332: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3309: 3305: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3283:Good Articles 3276: 3264: 3261: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3251: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3233: 3229: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3187: 3181: 3178: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3167: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3147: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3135: 3130: 3122: 3116: 3113: 3108: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3097: 3094: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3079: 3070: 3066: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3038:Good Articles 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3029: 3028:Gordon Vigurs 3004: 3001: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2970: 2967: 2962: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2936: 2933: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2908: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2889: 2886: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2867: 2864: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2854: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2827: 2826: 2824: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2807: 2804: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2793: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2779: 2776: 2773: 2769: 2766: 2762: 2761:psychometrics 2758: 2755: 2751: 2750: 2748: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2738: 2729: 2727: 2726: 2723: 2718: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2698: 2697: 2694: 2688: 2687: 2684: 2679: 2676: 2670: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2655: 2654: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2643: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2629: 2624: 2621: 2620: 2612: 2610: 2609: 2606: 2597: 2594: 2589: 2584: 2582: 2579: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2568: 2565: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2554: 2550: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2529: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2520: 2516: 2511: 2505: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2461: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2448: 2436: 2433: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2419: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2358: 2353: 2350: 2347: 2344: 2338: 2335: 2330: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2321: 2316: 2313: 2306: 2303: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2290: 2287: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2276: 2271: 2268: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2250: 2249: 2244: 2241: 2233: 2230: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2218: 2215: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2190: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2162: 2158: 2157:half-finished 2154: 2149: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2130: 2125: 2124: 2121: 2117: 2109: 2103: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2073: 2063: 2053: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2040: 2037: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2016:most proud of 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1962: 1958: 1952: 1950: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1936: 1932: 1927: 1922: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1863: 1862: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1838: 1835: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1707: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1661: 1655: 1652: 1644: 1641: 1635: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1602: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1588: 1580: 1577: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1557: 1549: 1539: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1412: 1407: 1404: 1398: 1393: 1388: 1382: 1380: 1372: 1368: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1308: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1260: 1257: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1226: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1205: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1166: 1163: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1143: 1137: 1134: 1126: 1123: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1063: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1027: 1019: 1016: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 998: 997:132.205.95.25 994: 993: 992: 989: 984: 980: 976: 975: 974: 973: 970: 962: 952: 949: 944: 943: 942: 939: 935: 931: 928: 927: 926: 923: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 911: 902: 901: 897: 895: 894: 891: 886: 882: 865: 861: 857: 853: 852: 851: 848: 844: 843: 842: 839: 835: 834: 831: 828: 823: 819: 818: 817: 816: 813: 809: 805: 801: 794: 790: 787: 783: 780: 776: 773: 769: 766: 762: 758: 755: 751: 747: 746: 742: 741: 740: 738: 733: 729: 721: 705: 702: 698: 694: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 664: 661: 657: 653: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 626: 623: 618: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 595: 592: 588: 587: 586: 583: 578: 574: 573: 568: 564: 563: 562: 559: 554: 553: 552: 549: 544: 540: 536: 535: 534: 533: 530: 526: 518: 510: 507: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 492: 489: 485: 480: 479: 478: 477: 474: 471: 468:to see this. 467: 462: 458: 457: 454: 451: 448: 443: 438: 431: 424: 423: 422: 421: 416: 411: 404: 394: 391: 387: 386: 381: 378: 373: 372: 371: 370: 367: 364: 360: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 338: 337: 336: 333: 329: 328:good articles 321: 315: 314: 313: 312: 309: 305: 301: 297: 291: 283: 279: 276: 272: 271: 270: 269: 265: 261: 257: 249: 245: 242: 238: 234: 230: 229: 228: 227: 224: 221: 217: 213: 205: 203: 196: 191: 186: 181: 180: 179: 178: 175: 172: 167: 166: 162: 159: 158: 153: 149: 148:User:Maurreen 145: 141: 137: 136: 132: 127: 123: 119: 115: 114: 113: 112: 109: 102: 98: 95: 94: 93: 87: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5065: 5027: 5007: 5006:-Class Blah 4959: 4949: 4948:be eligible 4945: 4942: 4877: 4860:Please join 4859: 4807: 4798: 4784: 4771: 4769: 4760: 4747: 4746: 4738: 4730: 4700: 4673: 4611: 4602: 4590: 4583: 4571: 4564: 4557: 4547: 4538: 4526: 4519: 4507: 4500: 4493: 4477: 4465: 4458: 4446: 4439: 4432: 4416: 4404: 4397: 4385: 4378: 4371: 4368:Less "neon" 4355: 4343: 4336: 4324: 4317: 4310: 4307:New colours 4294: 4282: 4275: 4263: 4256: 4249: 4246:Old colours 4217: 4215: 4183: 4174: 4162: 4155: 4143: 4136: 4129: 4119: 4110: 4098: 4091: 4079: 4072: 4065: 4062:Less "neon" 4046: 4036: 4027: 4015: 4008: 3996: 3989: 3982: 3979:New colours 3966: 3954: 3947: 3935: 3928: 3921: 3918:Old colours 3911: 3863: 3846: 3797: 3693: 3658: 3653: 3650: 3631: 3584: 3502: 3384: 3355: 3348: 3313: 3280: 3241:24.148.93.88 3227: 3198: 3194: 3191: 3126: 3106: 3087: 3074: 3049: 3045: 3024: 2960: 2906: 2817: 2753: 2733: 2719: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2699: 2689: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2639: 2636: 2625: 2622: 2616: 2602: 2544: 2532: 2512: 2508: 2487: 2464: 2443: 2397: 2393: 2377: 2370: 2366: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2345: 2341: 2317: 2309: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2212:semantics.) 2206: 2194: 2191: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2165: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2150: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2131: 2126: 2113: 2026: 1988:inclusionism 1979: 1975: 1971: 1956: 1953: 1949:this comment 1946: 1931:key articles 1925: 1923: 1894: 1867: 1864:Some history 1788: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1712: 1671: 1662: 1658: 1633: 1629: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1605: 1553: 1465: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1413: 1408: 1402: 1399: 1394: 1389: 1386: 1376: 1335: 1332: 1328: 1320: 1312: 1147: 1106: 1098: 1085: 1077: 1069: 1061: 1031: 966: 938:82.92.119.11 933: 910:82.92.119.11 906: 884: 883:article can 880: 877: 798: 772:key articles 731: 725: 696: 692: 651: 616: 571: 569: 566: 522: 519:"Stub Class" 460: 397: 325: 287: 253: 209: 201: 121: 106: 100: 91: 60: 43: 37: 4742:WPBiography 4661:38.100.34.2 3207:65.8.35.224 3146:Talk:Cancer 2515:Perfectness 2228:Kevinalewis 2195:Key article 2099:Scott Davis 1994:debates on 1992:deletionism 1639:Kevinalewis 1575:Kevinalewis 1199:User:Titoxd 1161:Kevinalewis 1121:Kevinalewis 808:Let's talk! 466:core topics 36:This is an 5069:Tiger Marc 5030:an article 4906:Salix alba 4614:Salix alba 3829:Salix alba 3767:Salix alba 3503:externally 3395:Salix alba 3157:core topic 3155:}}? And {{ 3107:meaningful 3088:eventually 2715:Importance 2549:WP:DISRUPT 2392:yourself, 2386:WP:PERFECT 2171:Foundation 2138:importance 2012:Stub-Class 1984:notability 1720:importance 1699:Technology 1695:Humanities 1630:Importance 1613:importance 981:, though. 800:Antarctica 795:Antarctica 437:Kirill Lok 346:≈ jossi ≈ 256:Antarctica 4226:Nilfanion 3345:FF class? 3203:Son Goten 2961:pro forma 2623:It says: 2533:improving 2315:contain. 2161:completed 2052:low-Class 2020:Low-Class 2008:Top-Class 2000:Top-Class 1947:See also 1901:and then 1878:this list 1525:How does 1497:Sanssouci 1446:Sanssouci 922:User:Angr 890:User:Angr 88:Questions 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 5034:Tbone762 4748:Current: 4705:Walkerma 4554:revised 4490:revised 4206:Walkerma 3565:Walkerma 3477:Walkerma 3433:Walkerma 3368:WP:FILMS 3310:bug 4288 3260:Walkerma 3232:Walkerma 3159:}}?Or -- 3153:0.5 held 3062:Walkerma 3054:A-levels 2932:Walkerma 2885:Walkerma 2789:Walkerma 2722:WikiCats 2693:WikiCats 2683:WikiCats 2666:Walkerma 2642:WikiCats 2605:WikiCats 2578:Walkerma 2553:WikiCats 2519:WikiCats 2491:WikiCats 2467:WikiCats 2447:WikiCats 2415:WikiCats 2382:WP:WIAFA 2357:WikiCats 2320:WikiCats 2275:WikiCats 2200:WikiCats 2187:Specific 2120:WikiCats 2004:FA-Class 1961:Walkerma 1935:Walkerma 1851:Walkerma 1820:Maurreen 1816:Walkerma 1801:Maurreen 1757:Maurreen 1728:WikiCats 1703:Maurreen 1665:WikiCats 1634:Priority 1621:WikiCats 1556:WikiCats 1535:Walkerma 1474:Walkerma 1438:Walkerma 1342:WP:WIAFA 1292:Maurreen 1281:Walkerma 1279:I think 1238:Walkerma 1224:B-Class. 1182:Maurreen 1150:Maurreen 1144:Response 1028:Question 963:Question 838:Walkerma 812:contribs 804:Freiberg 786:Walkerma 779:WP:V0.5N 722:Question 701:Walkerma 622:Walkerma 506:Walkerma 470:Walkerma 390:Maurreen 377:Walkerma 363:Maurreen 332:Maurreen 250:Examples 241:Walkerma 171:Walkerma 101:probably 4880:WP:TREK 4810:Renesis 4630:magenta 4429:Dulled 4218:without 4126:Dulled 3613:WP:TROP 3291:RichMac 3223:WP:Chem 3188:C-Class 3078:Acjelen 3071:Opt out 2747:WP:WVWP 2707:Quality 2179:General 2167:Iorek85 2134:quality 1716:quality 1691:Culture 1609:quality 1527:Sikhism 1466:Support 1247:keister 948:Silence 908:silly. 898:"Start" 847:Stevage 697:purpose 693:meaning 652:purpose 539:WP:WPSS 210:How do 126:WP:Chem 39:archive 5044:WP:CVG 4926:. :-) 4884:Morwen 4744:}}... 3843:Colors 3666:review 3603:plange 3599:WP:DYK 3320:Gbleem 3228:strong 3195:lowest 2238:(Desk) 2183:Detail 2110:Thanks 1996:WP:AFD 1972:should 1895:should 1882:began 1649:(Desk) 1585:(Desk) 1531:WP:FAR 1504:(Talk) 1351:WP:FAR 1171:(Desk) 1131:(Desk) 856:Tintin 410:jdorje 317:views? 260:Tintin 223:(Talk) 185:jdorje 108:Jdorje 5008:pages 4840:Tompw 4687:Mlm42 4676:Tompw 4648:Mlm42 4634:Tompw 4566:Start 4502:Start 4441:Start 4380:Start 4319:Start 4258:Start 4196:Tompw 4138:Start 4074:Start 4052:Tompw 4040:Tompw 3991:Start 3930:Start 3724:Mlm42 3701:Mlm42 3661:WP:GA 3588:Mlm42 3166:Reply 3134:Reply 3000:Holon 2910:(UTC) 2853:Holon 2803:Holon 2737:Holon 2628:rated 2551:. -- 2312:Stubs 2142:class 1818:. -- 1724:class 1617:class 1501:ALoan 1349:, or 1347:WT:FA 1336:Tony 1006:stubs 934:could 342:WP:GA 275:Femto 220:ALoan 206:Lists 16:< 5048:Tito 5013:Alai 4967:Alai 4950:even 4924:here 4910:talk 4904:. -- 4896:See 4888:Talk 4844:talk 4825:Tito 4814:talk 4714:Tito 4618:talk 4559:Stub 4495:Stub 4434:Stub 4373:Stub 4312:Stub 4251:Stub 4230:talk 4131:Stub 4067:Stub 3984:Stub 3923:Stub 3897:Tito 3878:talk 3865:Core 3849:Tito 3833:talk 3827:. -- 3771:talk 3733:Tito 3617:Tito 3473:Mark 3443:Tito 3399:talk 3331:Tito 3316:4288 3285:and 3112:Alai 3046:what 3040:and 2818:less 2588:Tito 2384:and 2297:Tito 2175:High 2153:stub 2144:and 2031:Tito 1903:here 1899:here 1891:this 1887:this 1829:Tito 1812:Here 1773:This 1722:and 1697:and 1619:? -- 1615:and 1483:Tito 1450:Tony 1428:Tony 1359:Tito 1321:and 1251:Tito 1044:Tito 1010:Tito 983:Tito 979:stub 885:ever 860:talk 822:Tito 761:here 754:here 691:The 660:Alai 656:stub 617:both 591:Alai 577:Tito 558:Alai 543:Tito 529:Alai 525:stub 461:note 415:talk 288:see 264:talk 237:here 233:here 190:talk 142:and 131:here 118:here 4946:not 4701:any 3869:des 3798:not 3654:too 3431:. 3221:to 3050:why 2907:lot 2763:vs 2398:you 2371:bad 2367:not 2159:or 2155:or 2067:or 1970:we 1951:. 1572::: 732:one 575:." 486:. 322:GAs 300:Lar 5067:-- 5052:xd 4912:) 4886:- 4846:) 4829:xd 4816:) 4800:GA 4786:GA 4762:GA 4740:{{ 4718:xd 4620:) 4612:-- 4604:FA 4585:GA 4540:FA 4521:GA 4479:FA 4460:GA 4418:FA 4399:GA 4357:FA 4338:GA 4296:FA 4277:GA 4232:) 4176:FA 4157:GA 4112:FA 4093:GA 4029:FA 4010:GA 3968:FA 3949:GA 3901:xd 3880:) 3873:at 3853:xd 3835:) 3773:) 3737:xd 3645:}} 3639:{{ 3621:xd 3447:xd 3401:) 3389:, 3335:xd 3199:is 2754:so 2717:. 2634:. 2592:xd 2489:-- 2478:. 2388:!) 2378:do 2301:xd 2231:: 2189:. 2185:, 2181:, 2177:, 2173:, 2163:. 2140:, 2136:, 2075:}} 2069:{{ 2065:}} 2059:{{ 2055:}} 2049:{{ 2035:xd 1833:xd 1718:, 1693:, 1642:: 1611:, 1578:: 1487:xd 1403:of 1363:xd 1255:xd 1164:: 1124:: 1048:xd 1014:xd 987:xd 881:no 862:) 826:xd 810:, 806:, 739:) 581:xd 547:xd 450:in 433:}} 430:GA 427:{{ 406:}} 403:GA 400:{{ 352:• 330:. 302:: 266:) 76:→ 4908:( 4842:( 4812:( 4616:( 4592:A 4573:B 4528:A 4509:B 4467:A 4448:B 4406:A 4387:B 4345:A 4326:B 4284:A 4265:B 4228:( 4164:A 4145:B 4100:A 4081:B 4017:A 3998:B 3956:A 3937:B 3876:( 3831:( 3769:( 3397:( 3168:) 3164:( 3148:? 3136:) 3132:( 3076:- 2767:) 2234:/ 1990:/ 1986:/ 1645:/ 1581:/ 1167:/ 1127:/ 946:- 858:( 756:. 446:h 441:s 417:) 413:( 354:@ 350:t 308:c 306:/ 304:t 298:+ 295:+ 262:( 192:) 188:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.