Forum:Person article assessment

Forums: Index > Watercooler > Person article assessment

---

Previous comments

Wikipedia has an article assessment system in which articles are assessed based on the chart. These articles are categorized by such, and the actual assessment is given on the page's talkpage. The statistics is gathered by a bot and placed in a table, a log, and a chart. Perhaps this may be a good idea to use for articles here, especially since there are many people out there and an assessment would be great to have in order to improve articles and show which articles have a lot of information. We could even make our own assessment process, rather than just using FA, A, GA, B, Start, and Stub, perhaps even more detailed assessment. Any thoughts? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions}) 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start this. We may not have a bot (yet), but we have categories. I will create a template that can be place on the talk pages of articles of people. The categories will categorize them (Featured, Good, A, B, C, Start, Stub) and we could come up with the criteria for each rating. As the ratings reach A and B, they could be come Good or even be featured on the Main Page. However, before we go and start the featured article section on the main page, we would at least need a list of articles to start as featured. We can start the featured article thign once thsi system takes off. -AMK152^{(talk • contribs}) 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (from Forum:Home page- Featured articles)

---

Assessment scale criteria

I have started a page here: Genealogy:Person article assessment. We need to create an assessment, as in, criteria for the grades of stub, start, C, B, A, GA, and FA articles. Of course, FA is will be voted upon and be featured on the main page. Wikipedia's assessment is here: article assessment system We could use Wikipedia's or even make our own. I have already created the template, we just need the criteria. -AMK152^{(talk • contribs}) 23:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

We can keep it simple for now.

• FA - articles that were featured on the main page.
• GA - articles that are considered for the main page.
• A - Small or large article that meets all the requirements and is of great quality.
• B - Small article that meets all the article requirements
• C - Small article that meets some requirements
• Start - a small article that lacks the article requirements
• Stub - Extremely short article (perhaps one line of text), lacks a lot of article requirements

-AMK152^{(talk • contribs}) 15:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of using those same codes as Wikipedia. Our only big difference should be the "requirements". Need to sort out "GA", where I think there is value in sticking to the WP structural system, which I haven't fully explored. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 23:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

May 2009: New proposals for better criteria

We have had the FA system for 5 months, and there has been growth in interest in it, especially in how articles are assessed. The current criteria is listed here; it is clear that there is a new need to add details to the requirements. This is where you can list you proposals, for each article level. We can discuss each other's proposals, combine them, change them, etc. until we agree on a better criteria and mvoe on from there. You can copy and paste the following template and list your proposals for each assessment level:

===USERNAME's proposals===
*FA - 
*GA - 
*A - 
*B - 
*C - 
*Start - 
*Stub - 

-AMK152^{(talk • contribs}) 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AMK152's proposals

• FA -

• Article contains a lot of information, vitals and a large multi-section biography.
• Vital statistics are organized into an infobox.
• Article has no spelling/grammer mistakes.
• Article has many references/sources with pictures of the documents.
• Article was featured on the main page.

• GA -

• Article contains a lot of information, vitals and a large multi-section biography.
• Vital statistics are organized into an infobox.
• Article has no spelling/grammer mistakes.
• Article has many references/sources with pictures of the documents.
• Article is almost good enough to go on the main page.

• A -

• Article contains a lot of information, vitals and a multi-section biography.
• Vital statistics are organized into an infobox.
• Article has no spelling/grammer mistakes.
• Article has many references/sources with pictures of the documents.

• B -

• Article contains a lot of information, vitals and a small biography.
• Vital statistics are organized into an infobox.
• Article has very little amount of spelling/grammer mistakes.
• Article has a few references/sources with pictures of the documents.

• C -

• Article contains some vital statistics
• Article contains at least a small biography, even if it only contains vital statistics in sentences.
• Article needs some spelling/grammer fixed.
• Article has some references/sources/pictures.

• Start -

• Article contains some vital statistics
• Article contains at least a small biography, even if it only contains vital statistics in sentences.
• Article is somewhat organized, but still needs major organization.
• Article needs spelling/grammer fixed.
• Article has some references/sources/pictures.

• Stub -

• Article exists and has very little information.
• Article is in need of expansion.
• Article needs to be linked to other articles.
• Article needs organization.
• Article needs spelling/grammer fixed.
• Article needs references/sources/pictures.

There's my proposals. -AMK152^{(talk • contribs}) 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Counterproposal

Maybe we should score on two dimensions: genealogy and other.

• Genealogy:
  • A -- all vitals given, all relations have their own page
  • B -- all vitals, all relations given
  • C -- some vitals, some relations given

• Other
  • A -- bio, pics, links
  • B -- some bio, pics, links
  • C -- no bio, pics, links

The score would then be AA, AB, AC, BA, BB, BC, CA, CB, CC rtol 09:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)