835:(for the same reason, they're very powerful). The basic principle is this. In cases where there are unique considerations and/or some of the generic considerations are not applicable (or less so), people have to take into account the considerations when deciding the grade of a given article. Now, assuming some effort goes into this, you may as well do it once then save having to do it every time thereafter. However, becuase the exemplars may have a strong impact on the assessments, ideally the first time a decision is made, an exemplar should be selected that is considered as close to the generic one as possible. Another thing worth considering.
1357:
at the bottom because I was trying to avoid people thinking "GA is better than A" or vice versa; it's not better, it's just different. (And it's obvious that an FA is better than a Stub) If we could put a border between the two sections, it'd be even better. My preference is to have the WikiProject-based assessments at the top, simply because that's what the page is mainly about; we're not really trying to define what a
Featured Article is. If the consensus is for FA etc at the top, I don't mind switching them, though. Adding List-Class is definitely a good idea, I should have included that, my mistake. Very useful comments, thanks!
866:
when desired, provided they've been carefully selected and calibrated. Incidentally, this also answers the question in FAQ about more or less grades. The thing people are generally thinking when they ask this is: I think there should be more precision (or less, though I wouldn't recommend less here). So this is one way to get the best of both worlds -- simplicity plus precision when needed. Anyhow, hope this background and explanation is useful but fire away with questions if not. Cheers
463:) We should simplify the basic definitions of each class. The descriptions are quite detailed, but that may mean simply that people don't bother to read them properly. We could simply do a copyedit and chop out a lot of wording; that would make them easier to follow, but we may lose some of the rigour if actual examples or nuances of meaning are lost. Hence my proposal for a "summary style" approach; this will allow us to have very clear, simple definitions for routine use.
322:... perhaps a link to those pages would be better than trying to sum up what's needed in a table ... and I didn't know what to say about A-class. I should add that I and others are putting major energy into the GA process. I know how A-class is defined, but I'm kind of wondering what the function of A-class is ... there might have been a feeling that the GA process should be avoided for a variety of reasons. This would be a good time for people to post a message at
1124:
355:
to specific points of procedure. I personally think that GA-Class is the one that doesn't belong in the scheme, but not because I don't like GA (I'm a big fan!). It's because it's not a project-based assessment. However, we need to work with the system that the consensus likes to use, and that will (for the foreseeable future) include both GA and A. I'll try to get things started this week from my side. Thanks again,
1538:
780:
less strictly/harshly or leniently, and with different assumed interpretation of the various elements. Don't get me wrong, I think it's very important to describe, to orient to what features people need to look at, but then at the end of the day someone can always ask: so what does that actually look like? Just as a picture tells a thousand words, so does an example of an article!
1482:
time since the conference getting these details done; fortunately, the group of us active here over the last couple of days were unanimous in our opinions about changes (because we'd agreed on the substance of these earlier). The alternative - letting things drift along for a few more days - was much worse than last-minute wording changes. Sorry that we didn't things clearer.
971:
you how consistent you were overall and tell you which articles were anomalous, if any. Include at least two or three of the articles in the scheme so you will be able to see how the rest scale in between. If you can organize more than one judge to make comparisons, even better, and I can give you feedback on each judge's consistency and the agreement between them.
542:
standard for Start-Class). We may also be able to consider how we handle the different aspects of assessment (article length, quality, technical aspects, aesthetics, etc). We have one very knowledgable contributor offering to help, and I think we should use this opportunity to make the scheme more rigorous. Any thoughts?
1694:
to find a way of showing how the various requirements change at different rates from one level to the next, and to provide a checklist for quick reference. Naturally, we would hope that the raters would also read the detailed descriptions, which would help in understanding qualitatively what "75%" means.Ā :) --
288:, and it would make sense to do everything at once. If you're up for working on this, I'll try and recruit a few others for their input. Bearing in mind that this scheme is used by over 1000 projects, we need to make sure that any rewrite represents a consensus of several interested people. Thanks!
1806:, before an assessment scheme had been organized. This was relevant when we wrote the assessment scheme in 2006, but I doubt if many people remember this system now! Please take a look at the version that has been uploaded, and let us know if there's anything else you see that doesn't fit. Thanks,
1693:
In this table, each number is a "semi-quantitative" percent progress towards achieving the goal for that column. Of course, the numbers are a bit fuzzy and subjective, and I just made them up, so they are certainly open to discussion. I'm just presenting this table as a proof of concept; the point is
1502:
I agree with the discussion above that there should be a simplified version of the assessment scheme, even if just as a summary or supplement of the more complete and nuanced version. How about taking it to the extreme? A simple checklist could help give an overview at a glance without having to read
1356:
Thanks! I think I agree with some of these. For the second point, we're disagreeing about the meaning of "peer review". I meant an internal peer review WITHIN THE WIKIPROJECT. I should probably find a better way of saying that. I love that Atom example, that's a must for this page. I put FA etc
978:
This can be extended across projects. This would simply require choosing a number of articles in your project as well as some from another project also doing a calibration exercise. All articles can be scaled jointly and tests conducted to see how successful the exercise was. It's preferable that the
384:
The person interested in tightening up the assessment scheme looks to be quite busy elsewhere (he had warned me), so maybe we should make a start here anyway. However, I have an idea - I wonder if we should consider having a simple form, but if people want to know more detail they can click for more
1709:
Yes, I like this! As an organic chemist, I'm happy to use numbers in a fuzzy, subjective way to convey concepts, but I'm sure the physical chemists (and some others!) might say, "How do you define these percentages!" I wonder if we could put these numbers into a graphic format, which might put the
1057:
I'm not sure I followed that either, but the general thrust seems to be adding examples, or proceeding to describe the problem by comparing examples, and I'm all for that. My intention in simplifying the table was only to take out some words that I couldn't follow, to make the table easier to read,
946:
I understand but my standard response is that the payoffs outway the up-front time, often by a large factor, and of course anything worth doing takes some effort and coordination. The only reason most of us can buy a thermometer and easily, yet precisely, measure temperature at will is that a lot of
834:
However, it may be very useful to have specific examples for more unusual kinds of article. In these cases, for the sake of comparability, I would advise people in the relevant projects to very carefully select examples that are as close to the same quality as those in the generic scheme as possible
541:
for the original proposal. We have a good scheme that works well, but there are variations in standards. It should be possible to sharpen the boundaries of the scheme by including additional examples to indicate specific detail about the levels (the lowest standard for Start-Class, vs. the highest
354:
Good! A-Class predates GA, and GA was added into the scheme later. It still fulfils a useful role for some projects, and there are some projects (such as WP:MILHIST) that have had a wariness concerning the GA process - I don't think that would change at this point, since they don't relate any more
1481:
that we would go live on Friday. I was at a conference until the early hours of
Thursday morning, with limited internet access, so I could only do a certain amount. Some things got missed - such as a cross-post here - there are all sorts of details to be handled. I've used nearly all of my spare
995:
provideing a set of examples (behind the scenes) that includes examples in the scheme, and can be used when the call between one grade and the next is getting difficult, avoiding debate the number of classifications (there is more precision if you want it and editors would know more clearly when an
861:
The scheme gives broad classifications, which is fine for many purposes. If people are interested in adding, I would recommend selecting candidate articles and experienced assessors quickly doing pairwise comparisons between the candidates and existing exemplars. Given relatively little data, I can
826:
I'd strongly advise against using different examples/exemplars in different versions of the generic scheme (not that anyone has suggested it) because I have seen empirical cases in which exemplars are changed in a scheme that otherwise remains the same, and there is a severe impact on ratings (e.g.
139:
A good article that is still weak in many areas. Has at least a particularly useful picture or graphic, or multiple links that help explain or give examples of the topic, or a subheading that covers one topic more deeply, or multiple subheadings that suggest material that could be added to complete
970:
Send me a set of article labels, preferably 15 or more, and I'll send back a spreadsheet with a set of pairwise comparisons to be done: each to be compared with each other and a judgment made about which is better. Do these and send me back the results. I will scale it, put them in order, and tell
779:
From experience, the examples tend to be the most powerful part of the process, and as I've said elsewhere I think it is excellent you have examples. The description of an article (like the description of most complex things) can be interpreted in different ways, and most importantly here, more or
439:
There have been two proposals recently relating to assessment, and both seem to be reasonable (IMHO). They would both involve some rewriting and recalibrating, and therefore I think we should consider both proposals at the same time. I'm adding a third proposal, which is in effect how I think the
389:
for proof), it would be perfectly reasonable to set up subpages as needed for this - especially if we add a range of examples, as planned. That's one thing I like about the wiki framework - you can keep it simple on the main page, but have more detail for those who want to go deeper. I think I'd
1461:
This went live yesterday? It seems from the revision history that changes were still being made until late yesterday, and no-one mentioned here that it was considered complete. I don't think there are any big problems, as it doesn't deviate in substance from WPBIO or MILHIST's criteria, but it
1421:
OK, I'm glad you asked that! I think that on Friday I'd like to officially announce that C-Class is going ahead, and these are the new definitions, etc. We will have to leave the GA/A issue for now, though I think we can tighten up on peer review a little bit. I think we can reach consensus on
950:
Good measurement instruments and procedures are a cornerstone of industry and technology -- without common standards, many things are impossible in industry. The same idea applies to
Knowledge as a whole. If editors can quickly, yet precisely, measure against calibrated standards as they work and
885:
After looking through the discussion here, I think it might be instructive to describe an 'ideal' process, and to work back from there to what's doable. Pretty much every issue that has come up here is fairly common in assessment. I hope it will be easier to see why from the ideal. Please keep in
865:
Just as extra increments on a tape measure (or any instrument) provide additional precision in a region of a continuum, so additional exemplars provide additional precision in the region (border between adjacent classifications). So additional exemplars in selected regions allow greater precision
857:
In keeping with the general principle of having a simple scheme with flexibility for cases that require or warrant special attention, I want to add that additional borderline examples could also be listed on a separate page, only to be used when necessary (e.g. if start vs B is a difficult call).
889:
It may also turn out something closer to the ideal is achievable with available skills than I realize. With some ingenuity, Knowledge could be a first for online ratings en mass by developing a top-class process based on solid foundations! OK, not likely, but possible. It's already considerably
974:
This should be quite quick for someone who is reasonably familiar with the set of articles, if the assessor only needs to refer to them when it's hard to say which is better. Most judgments should be quick and only a portion take more time. The payoff -- for your project you get a much clearer
618:
approach: Have one short, succinct description of the scheme, but then have a sub-page (or sub-pages) to give more detail. That way, someone who just wants to "get the general idea" can do so, but the reviewer who is agonising over where something is B or Start can look for some more detailed
830:
On that note, I'd also be careful changing the examples over time if you want consistent grading over time. Having said that, there are ways to link new to old if this is a must and I can advise and help. It takes some time and effort to make sure changing examples doesn't change the relative
590:
And something that has arisen with a few
Biography articles where even everything known about a notable, obscure subject still isn't much: maybe some sort of "bastard" A/Start grade for articles that are as complete as reasonably possible, but still so very short that many stubs are longer.
827:
becomes much harder to be deemed in a category). The relevant research was thorough and very controlled. I can't say exactly to what extent it applies to this scheme, but in general it's better to keep things consistent as much as possible (provided of course they're sound and working!).
265:), says, in its entirety: "Keep policy, guideline and procedure pages short, or else people won't read them, more people will leave the project, and less people will join the project." That's my experience too ... the shorter the instructions, the more likely they are to get read. - Dan
1314:
I am not sure about the comment about considering a peer review at "A Class" level, as it is done at high-B class for most articles in preparation for GAC. (This may be the reason why Peer review is flooded with articlesābut unless Peer review change their policies to review articles
1824:, as it sets a sort of "quality floor" that was once not very well defined. Originally, articles that were A's and GA's were accepted, with some B's and some Starts either accepted or not accepted in the release versions. This now sets some sort of "hard" requirement.
613:
This was my suggestion for dealing with the first two proposals, which at first glance would appear to be irreconcilable. How can we make the scheme even more nuanced and rigorous, yet make it simpler to understand? I think we can accomplish this through use of the
771:
Hi all. On Dank55's suggested simplication. I would certainly keep the current version with a more detailed description. However, for those who have become accustomed to it, I doubt they will refer to it in detail often, and an abbreviated version could be used to
982:
Obviously, this requires coordination if it crosses editors and particularly projects. However, the result could be a nice list across projects of articles from the worst to higher quality that everyone can refer to pluse the benefits to the project mentioned.
53:
For the assessment table, I'm wondering if we couldn't say more or less the same thing using fewer words, here's a suggestion. I've included a description of a "list", which was commented out of the table; feel free to delete it if it's not relevant.
805:
I've just noticed my comments are similar to the summary style idea above. If many are familiar with the existing scheme though, I'd still argue that keeping it and adding a short version would be easiest, but either way the principle is the same
404:
Sounds great. Or, if you'd like to put more information in the chart, based on the questions people ask, that's fine too. What didn't look right to me about it was the low meaning-to-words ratio, or maybe I just didn't get the meaning. - Dan
283:
Sorry I didn't see this, I've been very busy offline; this proposal is well worth looking at. I'm a great supporter of KISS, but the wiki approach tends to mean that often people simply add rather than rewriting. There has also been a
1710:
numbers into a nice visual - and also it might be more apparent that this is a fuzzy approximation. (A pie chart would be easiest, but someone artistic could probably come up with something better and prettier. Thanks a lot, Itub!
957:
However, it's like everything, it does take time and coordination. Hopefully though, this helps in explaining various issues and how they all fit together in the bigger picture even if nobody actually ends up participating.
862:
analyse and report back scaled locations in order so a decision can be made about borderline below/above articles. If there is enough data, I can also advise which were most consistently judged, which are better to use.
369:
Well, one great thing about A-class is that it's not work for meĀ :) To the extent that it's useful, absolutely, keep it. I look forward to learning more about the individual review processes of the wikiprojects. - Dan
1422:
some changes to B and stub. I'm away at a conference at the moment, but I should be able to work on it on
Tuesday night. I should get back on WP properly again soon. Feel free to tweak the write-up in the meantime.
886:
mind that the work put into what I outline to follow overlaps with normal work on articles anyway, and in the long run would likely make that work far easier by helping to identify what needs to be done and when.
1032:
1427:
As for making the announcement, should we use AWB to spam all the WikiProject pages? Should we divide up the work between us? Is there a better way? I'll cross post this on the main assessment page.
966:
I can offer to anyone who wishes to do a small scale test in their own project. I don't think I have yet encountered a case in assessment where people have not found the process informative and useful.
538:
285:
943:
A common reaction to this is that it's too time consuming because most are used to easy, but poor, rating processes (e.g. pluck a number from 1 to 10 out of the air or a grade based on best guess).
1039:. It might work for the purposes you're suggesting. I expect there to be a lot of deviation there, though, because many of the assessments seem to have been copies of preexisting assessments.
1217:
Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Considerable editing is needed to reach
Featured list status. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work.
1211:, which are articles consisting of a lead section followed by a list. Articles with lists embedded within a small section of an article are prosaic articles and are not considered lists.
1378:
Still not with you on the A Class and peer review/project review: The project has to review the article for it to become A class, yet only then is it a candidate for a project review!?
1799:
1335:
1264:
919:
When the scheme is refined, it can be refined not only based on what 'should' distinguish better from worse, but what is seen to in a carefully calibrated and ordered set of examples.
664:
I think it's about time we wrote a simple FAQ to deal with these questions; for every one person who posts on one of these, there are probably ten who are simply baffled and leave.
340:
P.S. I'd be happy to drop "Lists" if it's not needed, and it seems to me the "Editor's experience" column could be dropped, since it logically follows from everything else. - Dan
1289:
460:
31:
27:
1036:
1477:
I announced last Monday/Tuesday that I wanted to do this on Friday, and that we would be implementing the results of the discussions held during late June. on
Wednesday
1244:
Sounds like B class combined with Start class to me. However it might be quickest for assessors (and editors) just to define it as 'not a
Featured List'. --
1013:
Don't hesitate to criticize -- believe me it's unlikely you'll raise anything I haven't heard many times, and if you do, I'll be grateful for the challenge.
975:
picture of the way articles progress from worse to better quality, and you have a far more precise basis for judging when an article should move up a grade.
673:
1214:
Useful to many, but not all, readers. The reader doing in-depth research may find insufficient information or excessive information only useful to fans.
748:
Our scheme has grown from around 2000 articles when the scheme was automated two years ago, to around 1.1 million today - that's more than the growth of
979:
assessors have some knowledge of the other articles, but I doubt it would be necessary for them to be experts on the content to get worthwhile results.
947:
work lies behind its development and construction. Like anything else, including articles on
Knowledge themselves, quality products require some work.
1259:
For the most part, "list class" would refer to articles that can never be more than a mere list or indexes (as opposed to a categories), for instance
776:(not replace) the more detailed version -- i.e. a kind of quick reference version that people can go to if they prefer. An option to consider anyhow.
17:
1001:
giving a clear summary picture of what it takes to progress articles for editors, which would probably also reveal things not anticipated up front.
1189:
951:
assess articles, there are similar payoffs. There is a lot more clarity on standards and how to know where you are and what it takes to progress.
924:
The set of examples can sit in the background and be used whenever anyone wishes to, for greater precision (you can always go from cm to meters).
1471:
1415:
1161:
No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.
440:
first two would best be implemented together. There's also a fourth, which came up in discussions, and which I'll throw in for good measure.
1129:
1058:
at least for "stub" and "start". It's perfectly okay with me to add detail to the table, as long as the table is easy to read and understand.
787:
examples could be useful for those assessing a lot of stuff, or even those who assess just a few things after becoming familiar with scheme.
752:
in 1776 to the Boston of today. The scheme is holding up remarkably well, IMHO, but I think we need to revamp the "architecture" a bit.
1331:
1208:
911:
List in order from worst to best (by links). This provides an ordered set analogous to a ruler with many points of possible distinction.
708:
Happy to help address "I think we should have one more/fewer levels in the scheme", and there may be other things I can help with also.
933:
an ordered set of examples provides a clear picture for editors of what it takes for an article to progress toward the highest standard
390:
like to write up an FAQ, because we do have some standard questions that keep getting asked. Does this sounds like a reasonable idea?
1010:
I know there's a lot, but I hope it gives a clear picture of the ideal, and it might spark ideas even if nobody elects to do a trial.
217:
1375:
threw me off (I meant "Editor's experience"āwhere we say that PR may help, but most articles go through PR before GA/late B class).
632:
The scheme is now well into its third year, and some of the standard questions and proposals keep coming up over and over again:
1831:
1815:
1792:
1756:
1734:
1719:
1703:
1491:
1455:
1437:
1390:
1366:
1349:
1325:
1309:
1298:
1276:
1253:
1091:
1048:
1025:
875:
847:
815:
799:
761:
737:
717:
702:
683:
600:
575:
551:
526:
513:
498:
472:
449:
414:
399:
379:
364:
349:
335:
297:
274:
247:
43:
1288:
We should use a single article to show progression through each of the classes; in a similar way that was done with atom at
990:
refining the scheme by seeing what actual progression looks like, according to consistent judgments by a methodical process.
1633:
311:
121:
386:
1663:
194:
158:
1006:
founding refinements on the information to make the criteria more accurate, so more efficient to use and more credible.
262:
1260:
1820:
I just came back from a trip, and I haven't really seen if this still remains, but generally, this is useful for
1603:
1573:
1543:
1069:
I noticed something about possibly including List class into the table, so here's something I dug up deep within
85:
1148:
1450:
1123:
615:
1788:
1342:
It should also be specified that "article lists" should follow the normal scheme (except for FL status??).
584:
Clearly defining the standards for Start and B, specifically regarding need for referencing, if any, for B
1410:
1372:
1267:
in this regard; I would rather that lists which are seen as articles follow the normal schema (Stub: -->
1218:
1044:
596:
509:
326:
if they have been dissatisfied with the goals or output of the GA review, we're very much on it. - Dan
310:
Sure, I'll follow your lead, Martin. Note that there's a new way to notify wikiprojects if you like,
1467:
1249:
130:
1537:
385:
information? Bearing in mind the fact that thousands of
Wikipedians need to consult this page (see
1198:
203:
167:
28:
Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Overhaul_and_rewrite_of_the_assessment_scheme
1811:
1752:
1715:
1487:
1447:
1433:
1362:
1085:
1075:
928:
The last point is key when articles are near a threshold for going from one "grade" to the next.
757:
547:
468:
445:
395:
360:
323:
293:
39:
103:
Anything that's definitely better than the "Start" category, but doesn't meet higher standards.
790:
The more detailed version is also likely to be important in cases where there is some dispute.
1784:
1771:
With the new B-class criteria (and overall upgrade of standards for B), should we not change "
1747:
I'm going to try doing a graphical version of this in Excel, if I succeed I'll post tomorrow.
1138:
723:
657:
Our project uses its own descriptor, "Foo-Class": Can this be added into the statistics table?
1330:
We may consider adding list class to the table, and specify that this is only to be used for
890:
better than the crude methods normally used, such as ratings of 1-10 plucked out of the air.
1404:
1403:
So... how, if at all, is this going to progress? What do we have to work with, and work on?
1040:
698:
592:
571:
505:
494:
410:
375:
345:
331:
270:
243:
94:
1292:. We could use multiple articles for this purpose to have a comprehensive set of examples.
176:
Either a very short article or a rough collection of information that needs a lot of work.
1821:
1303:
Either FA/FL/GA has to be integrated into the list at the top, or split into a new table.
1152:
1021:
871:
843:
811:
795:
713:
143:
Useful to some, provides more than a little information, but many readers will need more.
1463:
1290:
Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Evolution of an article - an example
1245:
1699:
1443:
1070:
520:
254:
223:
There is no one way to make a list, but it should be logical and useful to the reader.
1807:
1748:
1711:
1483:
1429:
1358:
1158:
Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information.
1080:
753:
543:
464:
441:
391:
356:
319:
315:
289:
213:
35:
1446:
ready by then, even if I have to skimp on a couple of new features to get it out. ā
1031:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by all of the above. Having said that, the new
1773:
A well written B-class may correspond to the "Knowledge 0.5" or "usable" standard
881:
What would it take to establish a first-class foundation for Knowledge standards?
1825:
694:
677:
567:
490:
406:
371:
341:
327:
266:
239:
1730:
1386:
1345:
1321:
1305:
1294:
1272:
1017:
867:
839:
807:
791:
709:
1695:
654:
Can our project use an extra level or categories in its assessment scheme?
539:
Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Work_via_Wikiprojects#Assessment
1462:
would have been nice to know that it was considered ready for launch. --
258:
722:
Me too. We have a FAQ (or two) at Milhist we can probably draw from. --
749:
651:
I think we should have one more/fewer level in the assessment scheme!
106:
It gives the impression that a typical reader would learn something.
1033:
Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group
115:(as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more.
1503:(almost) anything! For example, something like the table below:
1777:
B-class corresponds to the "Knowledge 0.5" or "usable" standard
1340:
Reader's experience = Helps to navigate across related topics.
954:
I believe around a million have been assessed, is that right?
906:
Compare (pairwise) a set or sets of exemplars and scale them.
253:
Hm, no response. Let me add that one of my favorite essays,
179:
Possibly useful. It might be just a dictionary definition.
996:
article is getting close to progressing to the next grade).
1798:
That phrasing was in the draft, but got omitted from the
109:
Improve the article by trying to meet higher standards.
1803:
1802:
we used. This description (0.5=usable) dates from the
1478:
1381:
1336:
Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigational templates
1265:
Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigational templates
1228:
1173:
1168:
587:
Deciding what if anything to do with the GA/A conundrum
229:
185:
149:
112:
226:
Lists can be anything from a stub to a Featured List.
898:
Given the nature of articles, the following process
648:
How do I request use of the bot for our WikiProject?
32:
Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment
1147:
Reserved exclusively for lists that have received "
693:Happy to help with style and language issues - Dan
619:guidance. Is this a good approach to the problem?
566:Happy to help with style and language issues - Dan
182:Any editing or additional material can be helpful.
1037:Category:Christianity in China work group articles
1319:when they are at A-class, this will not change.)
146:Major editing is needed, not a complete article.
986:So to reiterate, this process is beneficial for
286:proposal for tightening up the assessment scheme
676:, which we can always expand for this purpose.
435:Overhaul and rewrite of the assessment scheme
8:
1442:Friday could work. I should be able to have
1334:and lists which act as navigational aid per
1035:has about 400 pages total tagged to date in
674:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ
581:Good idea. A few ideas that come to mind:
212:An article that meets the definition of a
639:Why is A-Class (or GA-Class) even needed?
18:Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
1505:
1095:
562:I want to help with the refining process
56:
1535:
1479:I closed the discussions and announced
1229:List of voice actors in the GTA series
931:Probably more important than all else
689:I'm willing to help write the FAQ page
609:Converting the scheme to summary style
1121:
831:difficulties of the 'grades' though.
645:How are articles promoted to A-Class?
7:
902:is what I would (and do) recommend.
1332:Knowledge:Lists (stand-alone lists)
1174:List of Metal Gear Solid characters
1153:current criteria for featured lists
642:Are citations required for B-Class?
24:
668:Comments and suggestions for FAQs
1804:beginnings of the WP:1.0 project
1536:
1221:would be helpful at this stage.
1122:
1398:
1169:List of songs in Guitar Hero II
483:I want to help with the rewrite
59:Article progress grading scheme
783:So a quick reference with the
636:Why is A-Class above GA-Class?
533:Refining the assessment scheme
1:
504:I can do what I can, anyway.
26:Material was moved here from
1098:List progress grading scheme
455:Simplifying the descriptions
1779:"? Or at the very least, "
1728:This is an excellent idea!
30:and related discussions on
1848:
1261:List of symphonies by name
915:This achieves two things:
876:11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
848:09:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
816:11:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
800:09:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
762:18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
718:10:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
703:02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
601:15:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
576:02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
552:18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
514:15:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
499:02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
473:18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
461:Described right above here
450:18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
415:20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
400:14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
216:. It should contain many
1416:18:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
1391:17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1367:14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1350:05:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1326:05:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1310:05:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1299:05:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1283:Comment regarding rewrite
1277:05:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1254:23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1207:Reserved exclusively for
1092:21:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
738:09:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
380:12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
365:05:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
350:12:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
336:11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
298:07:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
275:19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
248:19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
1832:05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
1816:21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1793:20:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1757:07:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1735:05:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
1720:02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
1704:16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
1492:17:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
1472:11:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
1456:04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
1438:03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
1049:20:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1026:10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
684:20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
44:17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1151:" status, and meet the
527:03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
489:Be happy to help - Dan
1399:What's happening then?
853:On borderline examples
152:(as of November 2006)
1775:" to something like "
1498:Less than fewer words
314:. I can't speak for
220:, with descriptions.
1113:Editor's experience
1110:Reader's experience
263:WP:Instruction creep
76:Editor's experience
73:Reader's experience
1781:usually corresponds
1100:
63:
1380:āN/A after seeing
1096:
232:(as of June 2007)
188:(as of July 2005)
57:
1691:
1690:
1242:
1241:
1236:
1233:
1209:stand-alone lists
1204:
1181:
1178:
1144:
733:
729:
236:
235:
209:
186:Coffee table book
173:
136:
113:Jammu_and_Kashmir
100:
1839:
1829:
1733:
1541:
1540:
1506:
1389:
1348:
1324:
1308:
1297:
1275:
1238:
1235:
1225:
1203:
1197:
1194:
1183:
1180:
1165:
1143:
1137:
1134:
1127:
1126:
1101:
1088:
1083:
1078:
962:Small-scale test
744:General comments
735:
731:
727:
681:
523:
230:List of aikidoka
214:Stand-alone List
208:
202:
199:
172:
166:
163:
135:
129:
126:
99:
93:
90:
64:
1847:
1846:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1827:
1769:
1729:
1500:
1466:(or Hrothulf) (
1401:
1385:
1344:
1320:
1304:
1293:
1285:
1271:
1248:(or Hrothulf) (
1224:
1201:
1195:
1164:
1141:
1135:
1086:
1081:
1076:
1067:
964:
941:
939:Common reaction
896:
883:
855:
824:
769:
746:
724:
679:
630:
611:
535:
521:
457:
437:
206:
200:
170:
164:
133:
127:
97:
91:
51:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1845:
1843:
1835:
1834:
1818:
1768:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1723:
1722:
1689:
1688:
1685:
1682:
1679:
1676:
1673:
1670:
1667:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1652:
1649:
1646:
1643:
1640:
1637:
1629:
1628:
1625:
1622:
1619:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1607:
1599:
1598:
1595:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1577:
1569:
1568:
1565:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1550:
1547:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1522:
1521:Figures/tables
1519:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1499:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1459:
1458:
1440:
1424:
1423:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1376:
1353:
1352:
1343:
1341:
1339:
1328:
1312:
1301:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1240:
1239:
1232:
1231:
1222:
1215:
1212:
1205:
1193:
1185:
1184:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1145:
1133:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1052:
1051:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1002:
998:
997:
992:
991:
963:
960:
940:
937:
926:
925:
921:
920:
913:
912:
908:
907:
895:
892:
882:
879:
854:
851:
823:
820:
819:
818:
768:
767:On Simplifying
765:
745:
742:
741:
740:
720:
691:
690:
670:
669:
662:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
629:
626:
625:
624:
610:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
588:
585:
564:
563:
559:
558:
534:
531:
530:
529:
516:
487:
486:
484:
480:
479:
456:
453:
436:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
303:
302:
301:
300:
278:
277:
261:, linked from
234:
233:
227:
224:
221:
210:
198:
190:
189:
183:
180:
177:
174:
162:
154:
153:
147:
144:
141:
137:
125:
117:
116:
110:
107:
104:
101:
89:
81:
80:
77:
74:
71:
68:
50:
47:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1844:
1833:
1830:
1823:
1819:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1800:final version
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1766:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1736:
1732:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1686:
1683:
1680:
1677:
1674:
1671:
1668:
1666:
1665:
1661:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1650:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1636:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1623:
1620:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1608:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1593:
1590:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1578:
1576:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1563:
1560:
1557:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1546:
1545:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1504:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1457:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1426:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1408:
1407:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1379:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1347:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1302:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1237:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1223:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1200:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1175:
1172:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1149:Featured list
1146:
1140:
1132:
1131:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1089:
1084:
1079:
1072:
1064:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1016:Cheeers all.
1014:
1011:
1005:
1004:
1000:
999:
994:
993:
989:
988:
987:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
961:
959:
955:
952:
948:
944:
938:
936:
934:
929:
923:
922:
918:
917:
916:
910:
909:
905:
904:
903:
901:
893:
891:
887:
880:
878:
877:
873:
869:
863:
859:
852:
850:
849:
845:
841:
836:
832:
828:
821:
817:
813:
809:
804:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
788:
786:
781:
777:
775:
766:
764:
763:
759:
755:
751:
743:
739:
736:
734:
721:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
688:
687:
686:
685:
682:
675:
667:
666:
665:
659:
656:
653:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
635:
634:
633:
627:
622:
621:
620:
617:
616:summary style
608:
602:
598:
594:
589:
586:
583:
582:
580:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
561:
560:
556:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
540:
532:
528:
525:
524:
517:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
485:
482:
481:
477:
476:
475:
474:
470:
466:
462:
454:
452:
451:
447:
443:
434:
416:
412:
408:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
388:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
281:
280:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:(linked from
256:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
205:
197:
196:
192:
191:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
169:
161:
160:
156:
155:
151:
150:Real analysis
148:
145:
142:
140:the article.
138:
132:
124:
123:
119:
118:
114:
111:
108:
105:
102:
96:
88:
87:
83:
82:
78:
75:
72:
69:
66:
65:
62:
60:
55:
48:
46:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
19:
1785:Father Goose
1780:
1776:
1772:
1770:
1692:
1662:
1632:
1602:
1572:
1542:
1512:Completeness
1501:
1460:
1451:
1411:
1405:
1402:
1377:
1316:
1243:
1234:
1188:
1179:
1128:
1097:
1074:
1068:
1015:
1012:
1009:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
956:
953:
949:
945:
942:
932:
930:
927:
914:
900:in the ideal
899:
897:
888:
884:
864:
860:
856:
837:
833:
829:
825:
789:
784:
782:
778:
773:
770:
747:
725:
692:
671:
663:
631:
612:
565:
536:
519:
488:
458:
438:
237:
193:
157:
120:
84:
61:
58:
52:
49:Fewer words?
25:
1524:Readability
1263:; refer to
1219:Peer-review
1041:John Carter
822:On examples
593:John Carter
506:John Carter
387:these stats
131:Start-Class
1518:References
1268:Start: -->
1199:List-Class
774:complement
628:Add an FAQ
204:List-Class
168:Stub-Class
1530:Headings
1448:Clockwork
1384:Regards,
1107:Criteria
218:wikilinks
70:Criteria
1822:WP:WPRVN
1808:Walkerma
1767:B = 0.5?
1749:Walkerma
1712:Walkerma
1484:Walkerma
1430:Walkerma
1359:Walkerma
1139:FL-Class
1116:Example
754:Walkerma
672:We have
623:Comments
557:Comments
544:Walkerma
478:Comments
465:Walkerma
442:Walkerma
392:Walkerma
357:Walkerma
290:Walkerma
259:K.I.S.S.
79:Example
36:Walkerma
1464:HroĆ°ulf
1246:HroĆ°ulf
1071:WP:VG/A
838:Cheers
255:WP:KISS
95:B-Class
1270:B...)
1269:C: -->
1104:Label
750:Boston
695:Dank55
568:Dank55
518:I do.
491:Dank55
407:Dank55
372:Dank55
342:Dank55
328:Dank55
324:WT:WGA
320:WP:FAC
316:WP:GAN
267:Dank55
240:Dank55
238:- Dan
67:Label
1731:G.A.S
1634:Start
1509:Class
1412:melon
1406:Happy
1387:G.A.S
1346:G.A.S
1322:G.A.S
1306:G.A.S
1295:G.A.S
1273:G.A.S
1065:Lists
1018:Holon
894:Ideal
868:Holon
840:Holon
808:Holon
792:Holon
732:AVIES
710:Holon
522:Arman
122:Start
16:<
1826:Tito
1812:talk
1789:talk
1783:"?--
1753:talk
1716:talk
1700:talk
1696:Itub
1664:Stub
1597:100
1567:100
1515:NPOV
1488:talk
1468:Talk
1452:Soul
1444:Igor
1434:talk
1382:diff
1373:link
1371:The
1363:talk
1317:only
1250:Talk
1190:List
1082:Alex
1073:. --
1045:talk
1022:talk
872:talk
844:talk
812:talk
796:talk
785:same
758:talk
728:OGER
714:talk
699:talk
678:Tito
660:etc.
597:talk
572:talk
548:talk
537:See
510:talk
495:talk
469:talk
446:talk
411:talk
396:talk
376:talk
361:talk
346:talk
332:talk
312:here
294:talk
271:talk
244:talk
195:List
159:Stub
40:talk
1657:33
1627:66
1564:100
1561:100
1558:100
1555:100
1552:100
1549:100
1527:MOS
318:or
1828:xd
1814:)
1791:)
1755:)
1718:)
1702:)
1687:0
1681:50
1651:60
1639:25
1624:25
1621:70
1618:20
1615:25
1612:50
1609:50
1594:75
1591:85
1588:50
1585:75
1582:75
1579:75
1490:)
1470:)
1436:)
1365:)
1252:)
1202:}}
1196:{{
1155:.
1142:}}
1136:{{
1130:FL
1087::.
1077:.:
1047:)
1024:)
935:.
874:)
846:)
814:)
798:)
760:)
716:)
701:)
680:xd
599:)
574:)
550:)
512:)
497:)
471:)
448:)
413:)
398:)
378:)
363:)
348:)
334:)
296:)
273:)
246:)
207:}}
201:{{
171:}}
165:{{
134:}}
128:{{
98:}}
92:{{
42:)
34:.
1810:(
1787:(
1751:(
1714:(
1698:(
1684:0
1678:0
1675:0
1672:0
1669:1
1654:5
1648:5
1645:0
1642:0
1604:C
1574:B
1544:A
1486:(
1432:(
1409:ā
1361:(
1338:.
1043:(
1020:(
870:(
842:(
810:(
794:(
756:(
730:D
726:R
712:(
697:(
595:(
570:(
546:(
508:(
493:(
467:(
459:(
444:(
409:(
394:(
374:(
359:(
344:(
330:(
292:(
269:(
242:(
86:B
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.