Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue which may affect this project. Thank you. :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I cannot find it. Please use the |thread= parameter of the {{subst:AN-notice}} template to link the specific discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It's as visible as a Deltic on the Down at Derby. Currently loading a rake of five plus loco. All aboard! ——SerialNumber54129 20:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Don't take me for a fool. I searched for both "Content assessment" and "B-Class criteria" and got nothing. Then I searched for "content", "assessment", "B-class" and "criteria" and found nothing relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Judging by the OP's edits around that time (and this), they have found a particularly foolish way of referring to the fuss about citation templates. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq. There doesn't seem to be much (if anything) in that thread which concerns B-Class criteria. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Modernized grading scheme

I've boldly made a few changes to the grading scheme template, inspired by WP:MILHIST/ASSESS.

• The criteria for the lower grades (Start, C) are now far more objective, which should help improve rating consistency across articles
• The old wording was outdated and outright bizarre ("Start" implied to be immune from speedy deletion, "Stubs" implied to not need to comply with WP:BLP, C-class articles being allowed to "contain policy violations", certain grades being explicitly allowed to not cite reliable sources when that's not something we should encourage, references to the now-defunct "featured sounds"; what a neglected mess)
• As our most active WikiProject by far, MILHIST's assessment criteria are our most battle-tested; we should take advantage of their refinements.

I am not making substantive changes to the criteria themselves by removing B6 (absent from MILHIST), or adopting MILHIST's B5 requirement of an infobox. Those should be discussed later. I also plan to expand this page to add more detailed instructions on how to improve articles, since newbies are often overwhelmed and lost on that.

Note: while I added my name to the MILHIST member list a few months ago, I've never been active there. This bold change doesn't reflect the opinions of MILHIST members in any way; I just happen to love their criteria, and find them far more understandable for newbies. DFlhb (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Most of your changes seem to be uncontroversial improvements. Thanks for looking at this. A couple of things:

• There is no point in saying that the criteria for Start-class is "The article meets the Start-Class criteria." This is a circular argument. This is the page which is supposed to define what the criteria are.
• The change to C class to "meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 probably needs further discussion, as this seems a substantive change.

It is a great idea to get inspiration from active WikiProjects, but let's propose and discuss each change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I will partially revert those two changes (just saw you did it; thanks). The C-class criteria seemed like the most sensible, but indeed need to be discussed further. DFlhb (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I have partially reverted, while trying to leave some of the less controversial aspects in place. I could see an argument for saying it is C-class if it meets 4 out of 6 B class criteria. There was even a project banner that automatically did that, based on the B-class checklist. (Can't remember which one now.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That would most likely be MILHIST. See this coversation User talk:Evad37/rater.js#What went wrong here? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's my longer reasoning: grades provide "gamification" that incentivize article expansion, so the more precise they are, the more effective the incentive is. The distinction between Start and C-class is unclear, making it too subjective. I think MILHIST addressed it well, by positioning C-class more clearly mid-way between B-class and Start-class, and giving far clearer objectives for expansion. Wouldn't it be nice if people would take a mere few minutes to address B3, B4, B5 before rating an article C-class? I don't think that would be too onerous. DFlhb (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There is considerable evidence to support the conjecture that quality grading incentivizes article expansion and promotes a culture in which article quality is considered important. For example User talk:MilHistBot#Petrus Johannes Liebenberg: an editor puts in the effort to get an article lifted from Start to C class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a month late, but IMO having objective criteria does make it easier to focus on what to do, to bring up the quality of an article. It also means that you can have a bot assess article quality (a la MilHist) which makes the system that much more objective (I do this-> article quality goes up; but as a reaction to the change, not something you do yourself). Which is, itself, a bit more game-like.

Perhaps once the project-independent quality assessment is implemented, a bot could be made to auto-assess articles against the standard criteria for the global quality. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"YC". "YStart" in ratings under user name

Over the past week or so, I have come across several instances of an article's rating being preceded by a Y in the Xtools assessment listing under a user name. The most recent example is for FunnyMath where under Xtools the rating of Melissa Cohen Biden is given as YStart despite an article rating of Start. Any explanations?--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Did I miss the memo?. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Article assessments, including FA and GA, gone missing on WMFlabs tools — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

MSGJ: I see from from your replies on Village pump that you hope to fix the Y problem soon but there is now an even more bothersome problem with Xtool assessments. A considerable number of talk pages of articles which have been redirected over the years are now listed as unassessed. For example nearly all the items listed on Women's History unassessed result from this problem. It is therefore difficult to find the ones which really need to be assessed. I hope you can look into this.--Ipigott (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. It was fixed on April 1, but due to caching you might have to wait for those lists to update — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Centralise discussion

I noticed that we have separate talk pages like Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/B-Class criteria and Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/A-Class criteria. These pages receive low traffic. In order to keep discussion centralised, shall we merge them into this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No comments, so this has now been done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Have these talk pages' contents been moved to one of the archives here? DFlhb (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes most of the really old threads were were archived by the bot — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Meaning of "Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia"?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/B-Class criteria

In Criterion 6, the text "Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia" is linked to Wikipedia:Five pillars, I cannot see an explanation of the phrase at that location. In particular, what does "general encyclopedia" mean? (could examples be given?); and in what sense and to what degree is Wikipedia "more than" this? and what is the relevance to Class B in particular?

I originally asked this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling, but then noticed that the phrase seems to have originated here, so I thought it best to ask here. FrankSier (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No one seems to know - perhaps this phrase should be removed. Does anyone have an opinion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@FrankSier Per Five Pillars, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Therefore, it is not just a general encyclopedia and sometimes it contains technical language. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think the phrase is warranted and you can write it more clearly, feel free to add it back — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I just commented as a reply to the inquiry. I'm fine with your edit if you are fine with it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

I don't think an invite was sent here, so just plopping for the record, the proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 198#Project-independent quality assessments passed and will have significant impact on content assessment once implemented. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove A-class?

I am proposing to remove A-class from the global assessment scale. The problem is that there is no Wikipedia-wide process for assessing articles as A-class, such as the GA and FA processes. However there is also an historical precedent that a lone editor cannot/should not assess articles as A-class. Therefore it is effectively impossible for most articles to ever be assessed as A-class.

A very small number of WikiProjects (e.g. MILHIST have an active A-class review process, but this will only apply to articles within their scope. There are quite a few projects which claim to assess A-class articles, but have not done so for many years. Most projects have never assessed A-class articles.

My proposal is to drop this from the global assessment scale, and allow projects such as MilHist to continue assessing articles within their scope. There is no real need for a quality class between GA and FA anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, A-class should be reformed if not removed entirely. It serves very little purpose in the global assessment scale except to confuse the process. This might get more responses if the Village Pump is notified, assuming it hasn't already been. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll let Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments be resolved first I think, but perhaps later it would be a good proposal — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I concur that without a global system and only 1 (?) active WikiProject system, putting A-Class in with the rest of the grades is confusing, and it should probably be moved down to the non-standard grades section. I understand the desire for a middleground between GA (being decent, meeting all the standards) and FA (being exemplar), however, without major reform (a global system or at the very least more WikiProject adoption), the only thing this does is confuse people who might think this just another individual assessment (like B and C). ^Clyde!_Franklin! 04:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no Wikipedia-wide process for assessing articles as A-class, such as the GA and FA processes Would it be worth it to create one? The nice thing about A-class is that it's less intimidating than FA-class, while being pretty darn close (with only writing & style improvements left to do), so it helps reduce the "gap" between GA and FA. On the other hand, FA-class being "intimidating" may not be a real problem, in practice.

I'd like to hear what the MILHIST people find useful about A-class. User:Hawkeye7, any thoughts? Does it help incentivize article expansion? DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that we do not need a level between GA and FA. A common confusion is that editors do not know the difference between A and GA/FA. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I completly agree with nom, little more to say Starship 24 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose A higher grade than GA is very much needed, because GA is a very low bar; basically B class with a review by a single editor, although most GA articles are of higher quality than the minimum required. GA is just another individual assessment like B and C. MilHist articles are normally run through A class (but not GA) before attempting FA, resulting in a much higher success rate. It definitely incentives both article expansion and the creation of higher quality articles. This has become a hallmark of the MilHist project. The high quality of MilHist articles has been noted outside Wikipedia, as has the presence of robust peer review processes. A class requires review by at least three editors, plus source and image reviews, which eliminates many of the issues with GA. It is not a middle ground between GA and FA; it is almost identical to FA in its requirements, but more structured. Unfortunately, FA is of no real value as an incentive to article improvement because it has highly restrictive nomination rules that prevent most articles from ever even being nominated! If A-class were abolished, our highest classification would be GA. I think that would set both MilHist and Wikipedia back a long way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye, we are talking about the global quality scale here, not the MilHist one. We can't retain a class if there is no process to assess it! If MilHist project were prepared to share their experience and set up a Wikipedia-wide A-class assessment process, then that would be definitely worth consideration. But in the absence of an assessment process, the class will be never be used, so I can't see any benefit in it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A class will be used under a global system ; articles that currently have the rating will retain it. MilHist is not the only project that uses it; WP:WikiProject US Roads is another big user, and there are others. (eg WP:WikiProject Australia) Also several projects that do not have their own A-class assessment process already accept A class ratings issued by other projects. (eg WP:WikiProject Aviation, WP:WikiProject Ships) Under the proposed global classification scheme, all projects opting in will accept an A-class rating issued by one of the projects which does have a process, just as they will accept the lower ratings. Having a classification higher than GA is a sine qua non for MilHist though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

all projects opting in will accept an A-class rating issued by one of the projects It's my understanding that under the proposal, A-class ratings would remain project-specific, so a bot would need to enforce this class inheritance. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

I'll note that I'd strongly support making A-class article-wide, not project-specific, even if we don't start a Wikipedia-wide A-class review process. Those pages went through a review by multiple independent editors, so their rating has some weight. DFlhb (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is basically how I feel we should go about implementing a global A-Class — if it passes one project's A-Class review, then accept that review globally (i.e. on the banner shell once that transition is rolled out). I assume WikiProjects' A-Class criteria are reasonably consistent. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

With Hawkeye's arguments, I'm more solidly in favor of turning A-class into a Wikipedia-wide thing. This might actually help reduce the WP:FAR backlog too. DFlhb (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, we already did this for WP:Peer review. I think it is a good idea in its own right. Like Peer Review, it would require someone to administer it, and Bot and template work would be required to set it up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Just chiming in with my 2¢, I've always kind of seen A-Class as the top class a project can give an article. Whereas FA is a community rating. –Fredddie™ 01:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was the situation in the past. There is now a move to make quality assessments independent of projects (see Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Recap of approved proposal for background). It would be fantastic if A-class reviews could become a community process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively since A-class is always higher than GA. We could pass A-class globally, with the projects that support it categorising it into their own A-class categories; with those that do not support it defaulting it to their GA category. The question is do we want A-class support as the default or the opt-in. As far as I understand, Hawkeye supports the former while Martin & DFlhb support the latter. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I very much support it as the default, i.e. if an article is rated A-class by one project, the article's global class should be A-class, and it should be inherited by all protects that haven't opted out of the standard grades. That already happens sometimes, though it's not universal, and I don't know how common it is. My reasoning is that A-class is both thorough and independent (relying on multiple editors), and that it would not be helpful to categorise articles as GA-class if they met more stringent criteria.

However, I believe User:Red-tailed hawk also previously sided with A-class being "opt-in" at WP:VPR.

I additionally support A-class reviews being formalised outside of WikiProjects, though I don't stake anything else on the outcome of that proposal. A-class being a global class, with A-class reviews remaining (temporarily?) project-specific, is a minor incoherence, but not a major issue. DFlhb (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you could say for certain that every A-class article has passed a Good article nomination. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I can say for certain that not every one has. There are two reasons for submitting an article to GA: (1) so it can become part of a Good Topic or Featured Topic or (2) so it can be run at DYK. The situation CX Zoom describes is the status quo: where an article possesses both ratings, it is graded as A on projects that have A class and GA on the others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose removal - the MILHIST A-Class assessment policy has been a great success for the project. And, like Hawkeye notes, for the value of MILHIST A-Class, compare the pass rates at FAC of articles that have gone through A-Class review vs. those MILHIST ones that haven't. I'm also generally opposed to making this a community-wide assessment. Much of the value of it lies in getting specialist attention to articles, while if it were made a community assessment process, that would largely turn it into peer review with a shiny ribbon at the end or a FAC-lite. Hog Farm _Talk 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that MilHist does A-class very well but most projects do not deal well with it. Options are: build on MilHist's success and experience to make a process which will work for other projects, or remove A-class from the project-wide scale and let these projects go their own way with assessments. To me, the former is preferable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think changing how the process works is going to magically make things work for other projects - the MILHIST example has been around for years, open for emulation. I think there's been a A-Class process for some road task forces and maybe tropical cyclones, but nothing widespread. The larger problem is that the majority of WikiProjects are dead, with many of the still semi-active ones not really doing much organized content work. I just don't see how dicking around with A-Class and possibly breaking things for MILHIST where it actually works is somehow going to motivate moribund projects to do content assessment work that they haven't done in years. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like there to be a recognised process for articles in other topic areas to become A-class. For example, an editor who writes an excellent article about an opera should be able to request an A-class review, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera is moribund, so what can they do? Peer reviews successfully made the transition to be a community process - could we not do something similar for A-class? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO, that is missing the main point of A-class reviews: an A-class review is conducted by a fellow topic editor- which means that, unlike at GAN where reviewers frequently have no prior knowledge/understanding of the topic area, an A-class reviewer has the background knowledge to check and comprehend any fiddly details and notice if something is off.

For instance, I have little to no knowledge of military tactics, weaponry, etc. If I reviewed a MILHIST article at GAN, I wouldn't notice if a paragraph said something that is technically impossible (a wrong pairing of ammunition and gun, for instance), so long as it is grammatically correct and formatted properly. Likewise, I don't believe a MILHIST reviewer would necessarily notice during a GAN if a fossil genus of, say, silesaurid (a group of dinosaurs, essentially) was stated to be a sister-genus to Cotylorhynchus- this is patently impossible, as Cotylorhynchus is not a dinosaur at all! But so long as it is cited, grammatically correct, and formatted properly, if the reviewer doesn't happen to check that exact reference for accuracy, it won't be caught. A fellow paleontologist, however, is going to look at that sentence and ask what the hell you were thinking.

Conversely, that industrious MILHIST editor might not notice during an A-class review that a military article is a tad too technical, and that the common reader needs some things explained in smaller words. I, as someone whose knowledge of military history comes primarily from high school classes and Sabaton lyrics, am going to notice that during a GAN. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Silvertiger, I think you are referring to the second method per Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria, Formal WikiProject review. Martin comment is more regarding the Basic method, where wikiprojects without review criteria simply make the proposal in the article's talk page.

Although I have to point out that according to my understanding there is already a basic criteria, some of it is listed and specifically is Featured Article criteria except the style requirement and minor issues. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I also oppose the removal of A-class, despite being from a nearly inactive wikiproject, because I see the value in both A-class (a specialist peer review) and GA-class (a general policy-compliance & accessibility) reviews. So removing or changing A-class would just be a net loss to Wikipedia. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Difference between A-class and GA?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/A-Class criteria

It's not clear which is a higher designation or what the differences are from this page; I'd suggest addressing that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

They're sort-of parallel. Their criteria are different, but both are a superset of B-Class and both are a subset of FA-Class. A-Class is normally decided by a WikiProject, but GA-class is decided by an individual from WP:GAN. A-Class requires peer review; GA does not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

To put it another way, they both need a hell of a lot of work to become featured articles. ——Serial ^# 10:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is very confusing. I suggested A-class could be removed Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Remove A-class? but there were other ideas in that thread — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest making A-class articles above B-class but below GA. The current position is highly confusing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It would make intutive sense that the ranking system should go C-B-A-GA-FA rather than C-B-GA-A-FA, but to the extent that A-class is currently recognised it is a more stringent process than GA demanding both a higher standard of article and a more thorough review, and I can't see that there's any need or desire for any more fine gradations of article assessment between B and GA classes. Meanwhile there is a fairly major leap in standards from GA to FA, and even though most projects don't do A-class assessment there seems to be a more obvious quality gap there for another assessment process to sit. The other alternative would be to rebrand GA as A-class and vice versa, but that would confuse everyone who is already involved in the system for no real tangible benefit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that A-class reviews are conducted by fellows in the same WikiProject- that is, reviewed by people with preexisting knowledge of the general subject. A-class reviews by MILHIST editors, for instance, are conducted by people who already have extensive knowledge of military topics. So more of a review by fellow "experts", in a sense.

Whereas GA reviews are conducted by a stranger, someone with possibly no preexisting knowledge of the subject. I've half-noticed that many GA reviews tend to focus more on general requirements (sourcing, formatting, grammar, images) and accessibility. Whereas A-class reviews tend to be much more topic-focused and technical.

My conclusion, therefore, is that both A-class and GA-class reviews are good and needful. A-class for checking whether all the details are technically correct, GA for checking whether it is still accessible and comprehensible to the average reader. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think that A-class reviews need to remain, and remain as a higher standard than GA, breaching the massive gap between a GA-quality article and an FA-quality article. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As brainstorming, what about changing the name from A-class to CHA (Choice Article) or something less prone to confusion? As it is, its rating seems to also be less formal than GA. Therefore, such rating needs more formality as well, as I find the GA system more formal and established, even though supposedly it is a rung below. From the Category:A-Class articles I am having a hard time finding the icon  A in the pages, unlike the ubiquitous GA icon in relevant pages. In fact, many have the GA icon and others no icon at all. What a mess. Thinker78 (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(half-joking) What about renaming it to Exceptional Article? Then it'd go C-B-GA-EA-FA, which is even more intuitive! SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Exceptional Article would be above Featured Article though. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12 maybe you are right. I support moving A-class to below GA and the current criteria for A-class being changed to Exceptional Article, above GA and below FA. I do think that the intuitive order should be C, B, A, GA and not as currently C, B, GA, A. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I went with Exceptional Article because then it would go GA-EA-FA, which is also alphabetical, since so many people here are saying that the current order of C-B-GA-A-FA is un-intuitive. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

GA-EA-FA is not alphabetical. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about A-class being a "mess"; there's no A-class topicon simply because it's a WikiProject specific process, and thus treated as a project-class, not as an article-class, unlike GA or FA. You are in essence proposing we rename A-class to "Exceptional", and that we create a new criteria between B and GA that takes the "A-class" name; I don't see a benefit in either change. DFlhb (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Interim solution

There's a preliminary proposal to generalize A-class to a Wikipedia-wide process. But here's a more practical interim proposal: clarify on this page that if an article has been reviewed as A-class by one project, A-class should be used in the WPBannerShell as the article class.

This is a minor change (in fact, this is current practice on a significant portion of A-class articles, though not all). Almost all projects should support this, since A-class is one of the default classes in Template:Class mask (i.e., non-FQS). DFlhb (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb If it's going to be a wider process, I think it should be moved to below GA, as per my 18:18, 24 April reply to SilverTiger12. My main point is for A-class to be more intuitive and cause less confusion. It did cause me some confusion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have always seen A as parallel to GA, neither above it nor below it. The respective reviews consider different aspects, some overlapping. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've replied in the subsection above — DFlhb (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Retain or remove A-class?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Trying to move this forward ... I feel we have a basic choice to make: retain A-class on the standard scale and turn it into a community process rather than a specific WikiProject process, or remove it from the standard scale and projects that wish to continue using it can opt-out. I will try and summarise the ramifications of each below.

• Retain A-class on the standard scale.
  • An A-class rating from any WikiProject will be extended to all projects and used as the project-independent quality rating.
  • Develop some kind of light-weight community process for an article of any topic to get an A-class review. This will complement (not replace) any existing processes used by WikiProjects. Consider some kind of quid pro quo system where an editor who wants an A-class review is encouraged/required to help with another A-class review.
  • Improve wording to clarify where A-class fits within other grades on the grading scheme.
• Remove A-class from the standard scale.
  • WikiProjects currently using A-class will continue doing so.
  • These projects will opt out of the project-independent quality rating system.
  • The project-independent assessment of articles currently rated as A-class will be listed as GA-class (if they are good articles) or B-class (if they are not).

I feel that consensus is headed towards the former option, but it would be helpful if editors could confirm their opinion below. Once this question has been resolved, we can make better progress on the next steps — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather keep A-class on the standard scale and in the hands of the WikiProjects. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I just can't see how that will work. There are only a few projects that do A-class reviews and it is not acceptable to have a grade on the standard scale that will be inaccessible to most articles. And of course we just had a proposal that was unanimously supported by the community for quality assessments which are independent of WikiProjects — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• I support the former. I think if an article passes the A-class criteria, all WPs should show it as A, and a community process should be added. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I support retaining A-class on the standard scale but either renaming it to keep its criteria as almost Featured Article, or modifying its criteria to be above B-class but below Good Article, in order to have an intuitive scale of C, B, A, Good Article, Featured Article, as opposed to C, B, Good Article, A, Featured Article. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I like A. To me, we're already almost there, since the global A-class page already outlines a way to get any page to A-class regardless of WikiProject. If we keep A-class global, we need global criteria (we have none currently), so I suggest just adopting MILHIST's A-class criteria & FAQ. We'll need a centralised place to put A-class reviews (complement, not replacement as you say). And we'd need to incorporate support for basic A-class features into Meta and the Shell (because most projects don't use the A-class hook; but the shell and individual project templates still need to automatically generate the review link if |A-class=current is passed in, process cats, etc.) DFlhb (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where should A-class fit with other assessments?

Numerous editors have suggested that the current scale is confusing, as it is not clear how A-class fits with other assessments. It seems that people want a linear scale so A-class should be strictly between GA and FA (option 1) or between B and GA (option 2). Some notes and ramifications on each below:

1. C-B-GA-A-FA
   • The current criteria mainly supports this order (it is for an article which is very close to being a featured article).
   • It would be logical that GA is a pre-requirement for an article to be considered for A-class. If an article loses its A-class status, then it should be regraded as GA-class.
   • Current A-class articles which are not good articles, will need reviewing/reassessing.
   • Similarly, it would be logical that A-class is a pre-requirement for an article to be considered for FA-class. If an article loses its FA-class status then it should be regraded as A-class.
   • A top-icon for A-class should be considered.
2. C-B-A-GA-FA
   • Proposed by several editors above, but would be a significant change in the current description.
   • A-class articles which are also Good Articles should be regraded as GA-class.
   • It would be logical that A-class is a pre-requirement for an article to be considered for GA-class. If an article loses its GA-class status, then it should be regraded as A-class.

Opinions sought on the options above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

A-class icon question

Is the A-class icon supposed to be in A-class articles (reportedly one notch above GA) main pages, like the GA icon? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think we currently have a top-icon for A-class. The other ones are in Category:Top icon content award templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I have always found it weird that we have a GA-icone but not a A-icon. BabbaQ (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Can Anyone help Review my page?

I created a page for the incumbent member representing badagry of lagos, i will love anyone of you to go through the page and check. Please do tell me what you feel. PS. I am just getting accustomed to the Wikipedia UI However, I will need you to help me review the page, in other for the owner to occupy digital presence. Thanks in anticipation! Amalgoni (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amalgoni, I think that you might find this UI approach to be more accessible: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Oluwaseun_Sesi_Whingan&veaction=edit

When editors complain about promotional language, they mean that sentences like "Whingan has dedicated himself to making a positive impact on society through his charitable endeavors" or "Whingan is a dedicated humanitarian known for his efforts to improve society" are not culturally appropriate (in their cultures). Instead, they want you to write more things like "He worked for <name of organization> from 2014 to 2019" or "The foundation gave ₦10,000,000 to orphans in 2022."

If you aren't in touch with other Nigerian editors, I recommend finding them. There's a great group of people in Nigeria, and they hold editing events and training sessions regularly.

Finally, you need to reply to the question at User talk:Amalgoni#Paid editing as soon as possible. The acceptable responses will be honest, clear, direct, and unambiguous, like one of these:

• "Yes, editing Wikipedia is part of my job. Please let me know what the rules are around that" (we have rules for everything, so of course we have rules about paid editing), or
• "No, absolutely nobody is paying me at all, in any form, to edit Wikipedia. Nobody has asked me to create any pages, to add any information, or to build a digital presence on Wikipedia for anyone. I am writing this purely in my own time and at my own expense, as a volunteer".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, i gladly find it more relevant and helpful. I will reference to the links attached and learn more. People like you makes the community vibrant. Thanks! Amalgoni (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Guideline template

This has the editing guideline template -meant for article editing- though it isn't exactly a guideline for editing articles per se. The article grading criteria can act as guidelines for editing, but does that justify the usage of the template? N7fty (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter

Wikipedia:Content assessment#Non-standard grades currently allows WikiProjects to use "Current-class" and "Future-class" ratings. Nothing stops an article about 2024 Summer Olympics from C-class and Future-class simultaneously, yet under the current system only one could be assigned. (WP Olympics or any other WP on its talk page do not use Future-class, so all of them classify it as C-class, but you get the point.) "class" ratings are typically based on the quality of article (or the type of page in case of non-articles). These two classes also break this very uniform format of assigning class ratings, and presents a difficulty to enact the consensus to make quality assessments global. Hence, it is my proposal to split these two classes into a new parameter |time=, where WPs can now set |time=Current and |time=Future, while simultaneously being able to set quality-based classes. This will be a gradual change. First, the code will be written out, then a bot will reassign |class=Current to |time=Current, and |class=Future to |time=Future. No manual labour will be required to implement this change, and interested projects will retain the time-based categorisations. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey (Current & Future-Classes)

• Support as proposer. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment—WP:USRD/et al. use Future-Class for highways not yet open to the public. The projects use a content-based system in assessing articles in addition to looking at other measures of quality. Some of that content is hard to write/source until a highway has been opened, so it doesn't make sense for us to assess articles on unopened highways the same way. The projects have opted out of the common assessments, so as long as this proposal wouldn't prohibit the continuing us of Future-Class, we wouldn't care what the result is. Imzadi 1979 → 22:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. We (WP:ESC) use "future class" for events that have not yet happened. It feels weird to assign them a class when they are still experiencing major edits and expansions, sometimes weekly. Any rating like stub or start can quickly become out of date. Having future class is a reminder to go back and check when the event is over and provide the "final" class assessment. This has worked well for us for probably a decade now. Now I understand that |time= could also serve that purpose to some extent, but my take is that these articles are changing too rapidly to be able to ensure accurate or up to date class assessments. Grk1011 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  As you said, "Future" categorisation will be retained, just split away from class parameter, so it should not break the workflow of your project. Also, does prohibiting class assignment based on "Future" status work? If an article is assigned "Future-time", it will not be categorised under any class. Some projects use a similar approach for B-class assignment, where simply setting B=yes doesn't work, but each of 6 B-class criteria have to be set to yes. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would be interested in having a future label as long as it doesn't allow for a class rating to be set. Maybe that could be WikiProject-specific, but I don't speak for all of the WikiProject. As I described above, I feel uncomfortable assigning a "grade" to something that changes frequently and would prefer to wait until the article is no longer about a "future" event to assign a final class rating. Grk1011 (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Grk1011, would it ever be useful to you to see that most of the "future" articles are stub-length, or that most of them are moderately well-developed? If that would be useful, then you'd want the system to accept both |class=stub and |time=future. Otherwise, I think it's pretty straightforward to make |time=future make the |class= parameter be ignored (exactly like all unknown/fake parameters automatically get ignored). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• An interesting idea and thanks to CX Zoom for bringing this up. To clarify my understanding, you are proposing to add a |time= parameter to certain WikiProject banner templates (e.g. Template:WikiProject Eurovision) which would then allow them to opt-in to the standard quality assessment scale while still tracking the future/current/past status of their articles? This sounds promising. In general I support separating status-type assessments from quality-type assessments. Could we at some point also rename the categories so they are not of the XXX-Class format? Please see also my parallel proposal to rename the non-article classification categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support – I agree that there is no reason that an article shouldn't be able to be, say "C-class", and also "Future-class", at the same time. As to Imzadi 1979's point, I don't see it as a big deal if an article were both "Stub-class" and also "Future-class" (indeed, that would likely be the case most of the time). But I also agree that "Future-class" without C/Start/Stub(/etc.)-class should be an allowed option for some WP's – so long as the system is implemented that way, it's fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Separating status assessments from quality assessments is a cool idea, but the devil is in the details. Assessment tables (aka "WP1.0 tables") are central to many WikiProject workflows, but those tables have only two dimensions: quality and importance. If we add more dimensions, like "time", or "type" (e.g. List which was raised a few months ago), assessment info can no longer be shown in one table. At best, we would need multiple tables (quality by importance, type by importance, time by importance). I don't think that's worth it unless we figure out a better way. DFlhb (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about this change. The point of both fields, when in use, is presumably to mark an article whose quality (especially with regards to coverage and depth) is liable to significantly change due to expected real-world events. If being used for that, I don't see why you'd want it to for example say B-class at the same time, as that preserves the potentially outdated assessment the current/future classification is trying to avoid. CMD (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• This is definitely an intriguing proposal, but with that said I would also have some concerns about this change. I concur with a lot of what Grk1011 and Chipmunkdavis has said; within WikiProject Eurovision having a future-class within the class structure is very useful for keeping an eye on which articles are going through rapid expansion and change, and given the nature of how the articles under our remit come about there is sometimes a long gestation period followed by a lot of change within a short space of time (e.g. Luxembourg in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 has already begun development and will not reach "completion" for another 10 months, with a lot more development expected in 2024). Separating the class from the time-period in this case would be an issue as a stub could very quickly turn into a C-class or B-class article in this scenario. I am willing however to hear more about how this proposed change would work in practice (e.g. DFlhb's point around how assessment tables would work with this additional field). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle, though there may be devil in the detail. Particularly keen if it is needed to facilitate global quality assessments. My leading project interest is WikiProject New Zealand – see New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment for my thoughts on the proposal, with application to that project. Nurg (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  From what I understand in your comment in the referenced discussion, I think you don't see a need for the New Zealand WikiProject to use the Future class (which of course it doesn't have to)? Also, it doesn't seem like the project needs a time parameter? isaacl (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, personally I would do without the Future class at WP:NZ, and I'm not aware of any need for a time parameter. But I have never discussed it with others, or seen any discussion, about it. I've just assumed that because one or more editors use the Future class, they perhaps would like to keep it. Nurg (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just trying to clarify if you have specific cases in mind where a new time parameter could be used. Thanks for the info. isaacl (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Partial support I'd support having it an extra optional parameter so the class rating can be set as well (not sure if "time" is the best word, but can't think of something better myself, maybe "status"), but would also be good for projects that make use of it as a class rating to be able to continue to do that, as above, so I don't really support a bot doing a mass change at the moment. That of course opens the issue of having for instance class=future and time=current being set on the same article on the same project, which isn't ideal... -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Current & Future-Classes)

• I will notify each of the WikiProjects which use Current and/or Future-Classes to participate in this discussion. Will let you know, when that is done. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• This also opens up the issue of what happens regarding the past. Should there be parameter values for other time periods? Noah^Talk 21:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Currently, it does not exist, but if we get the |time= parameter and a WikiProject wants to opt-in for past because it may help in their organisation, they should be able to. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  What I was thinking was different parameters for various past periods. Noah^Talk 21:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'd assume this is possible, although I'd defer to @MSGJ on that matter because he's the one doing all sorts of technical implementations now. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be up to each separate wikiproject on what they wish to track. I don't necessarily think it should be within the scope of this page, which is primarily about the quality assessments of articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• If adding "future" and "current" options, then I do think "past" should also be implemented for tours that have concluded as it would otherwise feel like an incomplete idea, but am not sure about breaking it down into different time periods in the way Hurricane Noah mentions. Having three different options feels like a simpler thing to work with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• I feel we should be cautious about introducing a new field if there is no demand by any WikiProject for its use, independent of flagging that an article is unsuitable for a content assessment rating due to its subject being too far into the future for a stable assessment. I think it may be an ineffective use of time for editors to flag all articles as future, current, and other values when nothing is planned to be done with this information. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  While sending mass messages to WikiProjects through lists of Current & Future-Class categories, I have realised that most are inactive, with no discussion at talk pages for over a year or two, their empty or outdated categories also reflect this. But some WPs, mainly the roads & climate related ones are very active with their use of Future & Current classes. So, there needs to be some arrangement for them. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but since they're not the ones proposing this change, their current needs are met by the current setup. I'm not clear who is going to use an independent time parameter. I appreciate the theoretical desire to have an independent field, but from a practical standpoint, if no one's going to use it independently from the class assessment, I think editor effort may be better spent elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that for the project's I'm involved in, our needs are already met with the current setup. I understand that there could be a slight benefit, but the need for this is lacking from this discussion. As a reminder, there are also banners that can be used to indicate time concerns: Category:Temporal templates. Grk1011 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  If we end up doing this, I think it should only be enabled for groups that request it, which inherently excludes groups that are too inactive to make a request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It being "opt-in" sounds sensible to me. Maybe in a few years after that could revisit. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Adjustment for New Zealand project

At User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/New Zealand, drafts show as class "Other", and the label "Other" does not link to Category:Draft-Class New Zealand articles, though the cat exists. Is there a way to change "Other" to "Draft" and make a link? Also, https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/New_Zealand/articles?quality=NotA-Class&importance=NA-Class has quality "---" and "Draft" is not on the pull-down list - can it be added? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment for an example of Drafts being so labelled. Nurg (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Audiodude: can you help with this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the solution is to add "extra" categories into the ReleaseVersionParameters hidden template on the New Zealand articles by quality page. See Canada's page.

Then, I think the Draft category will be added the next time the bot runs, and since you have pages in the "Category:Draft-Class New Zealand articles], they should start showing up there.

Intuitive, right? audiodude (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Perfectly intuitive – why didn't I think of that? Thank you, I'm giving it a try. Nurg (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems to have worked as hoped. Thanks very much. Nurg (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell § Moving ahead with project-independent quality ratings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell § Moving ahead with project-independent quality ratings. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The quality assessments are mainly performed by Wikipedia editors?

I don't understand "mainly". This implies that there is an alternative, but none are listed. What are the alternatives and can we list them? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, for a start, there are bots - see this doc for the |auto= parameter:

• auto – This parameter is for the use of bots and indicates that the article has been automatically rated:
  • |auto=length – based on the length of the article
  • |auto=inherit – because one or more other projects use this class
  • |auto=yes (or |auto=stub), in conjunction with |class=stub – as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Now how can we find out more about such bots? Or is this the information, that is the 'rating' consists of a word count or check if a human editor has set (or never unset) stub? If there is a bot that does more than count words we should use it more. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you follow the second link in my post? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

As noted on User talk:Kj cheetham#Ref for bots can rate pages?, MilHistBot is I believe an example of a bot that can do assessments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that these claims of bots that can do assessments should be substantiated with more than rumors. If such bots exist then surely someone on Wikipedia knows about them in sufficient detail to give direct and definitive directions on their use. Why can't we have WP:RELIABLE sources of this information? I'm honestly puzzled as to why we are not more skeptical about this claim. We would not accept this level of reference in an article would we?

If the answer is yes, but the bot only counts words, that's a fine answer, all we need is a reference on how to apply such a bot. Let's put that in this article. But "mainly" is very unclear. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

John, I think the editors above have given you the links so you can research this yourself. Start with WP:AUTOASSESS and look through the category of bots that can do this. Each bot's userpage should have a description of the job it does. If you can collate this information it would be helpful! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. That gets me a little closer.

The list of all bots that do "autoassessment" is supposed to be here: Category:Autoassessment_bots

I have read the documentation on each of these and again I find the idea that these bots "do assessment" to be extremely generous. Only a few of these 8 entries even claim to do any thing with the class tag. Those that do claim to set it either do so based on a value given by an editor in setting up the bot (batch process, or set the value based on another template value in the Talk page that was previous set by an editor (a kind of consistency fix).

Some of the bots do automatically set the class for special pages like redirects, disambiguation, and so on. Again a kind of consistency fix.

MilHistBot is not in the category. Again it sets the assessment tag only following human actions on another tag. ("The bot is triggered by a MilHist coordinator changing the A-class=current to A-class=pass or A-class=fail on the article's talk page.")

None of these settings remotely resemble "a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is" as the lede of this article claims. Therefore I maintain that "content assessment" as defined in this article is always -- not mainly -- done by Wikipedia editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think User:BattyBot might do tasks related to this too. @GoingBatty? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I recently added a WikiProject to a set of articles. If the other WikiProjects had a class, then my bot added the same class to the new WikiProject along with |auto=inherit. A human editor committed to review and update the new WikiProject's parameter after that. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ so this follows the pattern of the other Category:Autoassessment_bots, setting class for consistency. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like User:BattyBot sets class=dab when processing disambiguation pages. I added that bot to the Category:Autoassessment_bots. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

For MilHistBot, you need to look at the talk page and what it actually is doing, not just the possibly out-dated description on it's user page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Add FM-class to the standard extended assessment scale

FM-class has existed since 2011 and is quite widely used by WikiProjects, but it has never been added to the standard assessment scale. I propose to do this, which will allow projects to use the class without creating their own custom class masks. As with the adoption of Redirect-class, the class will not be used unless a project member creates the relevant category. Therefore it can be introduced without having to create a bunch of new categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ, could you say a bit more about what FM-class is and how it's used? Does it include images or just sounds/videos? How does it avoid overlapping the scope of WP:Featured pictures (which also includes videos)?

I ask since adding it to the standard extended assessment scale may encourage wider use, so I want to confirm that it makes sense for it to exist. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

FM is to media what FA is to articles. Media includes images, and indeed, that's why the whole selection process is still known as Featured pictures. Any image that has passed a WP:FPC is entitled to have |class=fm in its wikiproject banners. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so FM-class is to the featured pictures process as FA-class is to the featured articles process. That sounds fine. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

We used to have Wikipedia:Featured sounds as well, hence the word "media" but I think it's just pictures nowadays — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it'd be really nice to revive featured sounds. — Frostly (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Need to Update The Article Grade Examples

Crescent Falls is no longer a stub-rated-article(currently start class)

Ring-tailed cardinalfish is no longer start-class(currently C-class)

Human is no longer a B-class article(currently a GA-class)

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@PaulGamerBoy360: We don't need new examples. All of the examples are given by means of permalinks, so that you can see the article as it was at the time that it was assessed as the given class. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

when i clicked the link it went to the newest revision, but that might be something in my preferences. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the links on Template:Grading scheme, I'm not sure what preference would make clicking on those links take you to the latest revision (would be interested to know though). -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@PaulGamerBoy360: When you follow the Human link at Wikipedia:Content assessment#Grades, you should see a box like this: The words "old revision" will not appear if viewing the latest version; and clicking one of the last three links will demonstrate that you were not viewing the current revision. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I realized that it was because the following gadget was overlaying on top of the page from info from the pages current talk page: "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation)" PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That gadget (MediaWiki:Gadget-metadata.js) gets the assessment from the talk page as it presently stands; it has no means for looking back through the talk page history to match up an old page revision with an old talk page revision. It's a gadget that is disabled by default, so anybody not logged in, also a significant number of logged-in users, are not shown the assessment. So it's really only a problem for logged-in users who have enabled the gadget. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're involved with a WikiProject, and you have the buy-in/clout to make an update to its Assessment page/area, you can supply examples from your project in the {{Grading scheme}} template. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

A-class review follow-up

I've noticed there was no follow-up to this recent discussion on project-independent A-class reviews. While there was consensus to retain A-class on the standard scale, there were several proposals that were not addressed in that conversation, including: (1) formalizing the A-class criteria; (2) creating some sort of process for A-class reviews; and (3) placing A-class between B and GA.

I think that (1) is very much needed; almost being ready to be submitted to FAC is quite a vague standard. I'm indifferent to (2) and (3), but I think that if someone wants to start an A class review on an article talk page (as A? currently suggests), there should be a place to notify other editors that the review has begun, perhaps through a template/bot system.

Pinging participants in the previous discussion: Thebiguglyalien, MSGJ, ClydeFranklin, Hawkeye7, DFlhb, Pythoncoder, CX Zoom, Hog Farm, SilverTiger12, Thinker78, Harrias, and Redrose64. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Notified VPP of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of logical order, I still think we should move towards placing A-class between B and GA and give it more formality as Voorts indicates. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I support 1, 2, and 3. — Frostly (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A class is between GA and FA. For (1) and (2) we have criteria for A-class on MilHist which could be adopted. A nominations page would need to be created and coordinators elected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep as is - A-class works perfectly well for the projects that use it (MILHIST especially, but I believe also other projects like the hurricanes and roads use it as well). If it's working perfectly well for those projects that use it as an opt-in, then why should be break its functionality for those projects for no real planned benefit beyond "why doesn't A come right after B class?". As it is designed, A-class is a more informal project assessment, generally for pre-FAC status. And the three changes proposed here would take away all of those benefits that come with the current A-Class setup for essentially no gain. It's been asked before with FAC why MILHIST seems to have more success than other topics at FA promotion, and I think a good portion of the reason for this being that MILHIST actually has a functioning pre-FAC review process, in a world in which WP:Peer review is mostly dead. These repeated efforts to re-define A-class when there doesn't seem to be any consensus to do so based on the prior discussions reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

RE proposal #1: The consensus from the previous discussion was to keep A-class as a project-independent class on the standard scale. Currently, A-class outside of projects that use it (and I'm not sure which projects use it other than MILHIST) has no clear criteria and vague instructions that two editors should evaluate an article on its talk page. Nobody is suggesting we override MILHIST or any other project that uses A-class. The proposal is not to rewrite project-specific criteria, but to have general criteria. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Either we have standards for A-class in the standard scale, or we remove it and make it project-specific. We can't have a standardless article class on the non-project-based scale, especially a class that we think is almost good enough to be at FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The goal shouldn't be (imnsho) to make the assessment system logically consistent, but to make it useful. What do we want to use the content assessment system for, and how can we make sure the assessment system is fit for that purpose? —Kusma (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The goal shouldn't be (imnsho) to make the assessment system logically consistent, but to make it useful.

For the sake of keeping the discussion together, @Mike Christie: There's no problem with the current system with A/B/C/Start evaluations project-based and FA/GA evaluations global.

I get both of your points, but we are in fact moving forward with consistent non-project based ratings based on community consensus to do so.

Without criteria outside of the one WikiProject that uses A-class, we get things like this, where an article is delisted from GA and then months later a random person comes by and tags it A class.

I would be happy to have a note that the non-project-based A-class criteria should not override local WikiProject criteria/processes. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify what my proposal is, I've started a draft here: User:Voorts/Draft:A-class criteria. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I see. Given the typical length of the GA backlog, I sincerely hope your proposal will not gain any traction. We need more reviewers, not more review processes. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The A-class criteria as written suggests the same review process:

For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page. To be granted, the proposal should be supported by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the project's discussion page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok good. Then your proposal is harmless. As the process has been barely used in the last 15 years, let's keep it unused. Changing the wording of the criteria is a complete waste of time, but I won't oppose it. —Kusma (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, in my view anything A-Class must have gone through a formal review. We could just never display A-Class unless it is in a banner from a project that actually has an A-Class process. I was involved with assessment and related things for WikiProject Germany for years, and we have never had a process for A-Class, so any article tagged as A-Class was either mistagged or about military history. Asa far as I can see, there is a general consensus (evidenced by the number of articles tagged as A-Class and the number of existing A-Class processes) to not use A-Class for anything outside of three or four projects. —Kusma (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, in my view anything A-Class must have gone through a formal review. That's not happening though. In addition to the example I provided above:

• Antibody was delisted from GA and then 7 days later assessed A-class without discussion.
• After years of being at C-class, Circadian rhythm was randomly promoted to A-class.

voorts (talk/contributions) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

These articles are not A-Class, just mistakenly tagged as A-Class, just like articles can be incorrectly tagged as FAs or incorrectly tagged as stubs. These mis-taggings should be corrected. Changing the criteria probably has zero effect on the mistagging rate, unless we change to "Articles are A-Class if they are tagged as A-Class". —Kusma (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

We could rename it to something like PF or G+ to keep confusion away. No idea why being A is not after B and instead is wedged between GA and FA. I did plenty of thinking about what was going on with A-class, what was it about. No need. It should be as straightforward logically as the rest of classes. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A-Class exists for historical reasons, and comes from a time when we had hundreds of active Wikiprojects. The question is not why A-Class is there, but why GA and FA are "classes" instead of separate badges having nothing to do with the main content assessment system. —Kusma (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

G+ reminds me of the G+ vinyl record grade, which is far down the scale. I'd make it "GA+" if you're going this direction. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep as is, A-Class is used effectively within MilHist (and possibly elsewhere), and the A-Class that exists is between GA and FA. At the same time, there is zero evidence that Wikipedians outside of MilHist have the interest or the time to support another review system. Ignoring the existence of A-Class unless you interact with it works perfectly fine. —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as is. There's no problem with the current system with A/B/C/Start evaluations project-based and FA/GA evaluations global. Having both kinds of evaluation is a good thing, not a problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Since February 2023, all quality assessments are global apart from a few Wikiprojects who have decided to opt-out. Therefore it is important that we clarify how A-class fits within the other classes on this scheme. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Fix the problem of no default criteria. I agree with adapting the MILHIST criteria (as melded with any others that can be idenfied as in actual use at other wikiprojects) into a generalized "subject-agnostic" version. Without doing this, the A-class designator is basically meaningless, confusing, maybe even WP:GAMING-abusable, in any subject that doesn't have a MILHIST-style criteria list. There needs to be a default one, like there is for B-class. I agree with keeping A-class between GA and FA, since there's not a compelling reason to move it, and for a project like MILHIST that actually uses A class, it would be disruptive, since their A-class criteria exceed the GA criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• The MilHist's A-class criteria are a good start. It seems to be based on their B-class criteria with each one tightened up. We have generally used a 6th B-class criterion (the extra being related to accessibility), which I personally think is important, so it might be worth incorporating that aspect too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've started a draft here. Please feel free to edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as is or make it an optional class. A-Class = Pre-FA-Class, and Bplus-Class (which has been deleted) = Pre-GA-Class. I know the most of WikiProjects have no willing/ability to do the 'Pre-FA-Class' review. But if one WikiProject intends to do so; let them do. --Lopullinen 16:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Having a global assessment mostly for one wikiproject seems not great to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In actu (talk • contribs) 11:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Some projects may wish to retain A-class but we do not need another level of global review bureaucracy between GA and FA. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think you are right. I have found plenty of wikiprojects who are even inactive or defunct so we don't need a global A-class category between GA and FA. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support first 2, strong oppose #3. GA and FA have pretty different criteria, so a middleground is good. I, however, don't think it's pertinent to not follow the path of least resistance and change around GA and A. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 17:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support #1 and #2 as long as we're talking about default criteria and processes (i.e. don't intrude on projects that have set their own). Oppose #3 as that's just too much of a shake-up IMHO. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is great in theory, absolutely terrible in practice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is, the current system would not be improved by the changes. GA is an individual review, A-class is a group-specific review among those at least vaguely familiar with the topic (where such groups exist), and FA is a broader assessment. 1) Formalizing A-class criteria seems pointless, 2) the process exists where it has the basis to exist, 3) does not matter much either way. CMD (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Clarification needed. It seems that several editors commenting above may not be fully aware of the significant changes made to the assessment scheme earlier this year, i.e. WP:PIQA, the result of unanimous community assent. The status quo is that A-class is on the standard scale and is available to assess any article by any editor, regardless and independent of any WikiProject. Therefore there is a real need to clarify the A-class criteria and assessment process, and I personally thank voorts for bringing this up. The alternative is that many editors will be confused, and inevitably some editors will misuse the rating and assess non-deserving articles A-class. So for all those voting "Keep as is", can you please confirm what you actually mean? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  My "keep as is" means "let MILHIST do their thing and continue to ignore A-Class for all other projects". This is functionally the same as deprecate outside of projects who specifically opt in. A-Class is dead outside of MILHIST. If anybody wishes to do A-Class reviews for articles outside MILHIST, they can do so, but I hope they do not. I am opposed to spending any time on starting further A-Class review processes without clear evidence that there sufficiently many reviewers available. We can discuss starting A-Class reviews when GAN has gone a few years without needing a backlog drive. —Kusma (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. That is not a "keep as is" vote, but matches my own proposal in February to remove A-class from the standard scale. Unfortunately that did not attract much support, but if we can build some consensus here, then I am still supportive. If anyone else feels similiar it would help if you clarify that you mean deprecate A-class. Of course Wikiprojects can opt-out if they still want to use it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  My "keep as is" is essentially "I didn't see the unanimous discussion you mention but would have opposed it if I had". Can you provide a link? I assume it was appropriately advertised -- e.g. notices left at FA, GA, and major Wikiproject talk pages? If so it's my own fault for missing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Similar to this, my keep as is is keeping A-class to its existing functionality. I fail to see why WP:PIQA would have resulted in a change to the A-class, it couldn't be individually be assigned before, like the others above B-class (GA and FA), so no reason it should be now. Edit ratings are misused all the time, GA and FA tags get added here and there, I don't see how that's relevant. CMD (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, it's PIQA that is being referred to; MSGJ, I see you linked to it above but I didn't realize that's what you were talking about. I agree with CMD; I see no reason why that requires us to create A-class assessment criteria or a separate quality process. I didn't see that discussion, but would have read it as a harmonization of the way talk page banners work, not a change to the underlying quality processes themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  My interpretation of PIQA is that it is merely a unification of ratings and banners. It grandfathers A-class assessments into those banners so that MILHIST can still use them, but should not be interpreted as a mandate for a broad expansion of the use of A-class to the rest of Wikipedia where it has been long defunct. If an article is part of MILHIST and is assessed as A-class for MILHIST, that assessment will spread to all its banners now (because assessment is now per-article rather than per-project) but otherwise there should be little change. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  My "keep as is" is well explained by CMD, Mike, and David above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Depends. If MILHIST joins PIQA, then I favor David's "keep as is" (when MILHIST rates A-class, use that as article-class, otherwise don't use A-class). If MILHIST stays opted out, I support Kusmas's "keep as is" (deprecate globally, let MILHIST keep using it). Oppose (1) and (2) because while in theory it would be beneficial, we can't have a global A-class process if no one's willing to volunteer the time to run it. Oppose (3) because it would make A-class pointless. DFlhb (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't actually have a strong opinion whether A-Class inherited from MILHIST should be displayed for other projects or not. I am happy with either, especially if that moves us towards consensus. I do oppose all of (1)-(3) for more or less the reasons you give. —Kusma (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Starting an RfC

It seems that there is a consensus that the PIQA change did not transform A-class into a non-project-based rating, and that many editors would like to deprecate A-class for anything outside of MILHIST. I only submitted this proposal because I read the PIQA in the same way as MSGJ, but if there's a consensus that that's not what PIQA means, I propose we start an RfC with the following options:

1. Remove A-class from the standard scale and deprecate its use outside of MILHIST.
2. Keep A-class on the standard scale and adopt the MILHIST A-class criteria.
   • If adopted, create an A-class review process.
3. Maintain the A-class criteria and process as stated at WP:A? and continue to allow non-project-based A-class assessments. See new proposal below. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as there is virtually no support for proposal (3) (to place A-class between B and GA), I have not included that. Pinging participants: Kusma, DFlhb, David Eppstein, Mike Christie, Chipmunkdavis, SMcCandlish, Lopullinen, In actu, ClydeFranklin, Thinker78, AirshipJungleman29, MSGJ, Hog Farm, Hawkeye7, and Frostly. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• I favor Option 2 as more constructive, but don't favor option 1 if option 2 fails. That is, there's a missing Option 3: Don't change anything, which is actually the most-supported option in the discussion above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Forgot to add option 3. Will do that now. It seems like a lot of people thought that A-class already had been deprecated outside of MILHIST though, based on the comments above. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also, to clarify, I am asking if we should start an RfC along these lines, not that we vote right now. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Unless we have reason to believe there's majority support for changing something I don't think an RfC is a good use of time. I don't see why another WikiProject with enough participants should not be able to create their own A-class assessment. If that ended up in conflict with another WikiProject's assessment we would figure out what to do with it then, but at the moment it's only a potential problem, isn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Since MILHIST seems to be the fulcrum here, let's wait. MILHIST is likely to join PIQA but it'll take time to work out the details, and there's several moving parts to it. Option 1 would be inapplicable if MILHIST opts-in, and option 2 would be pointless if MILHIST stays opted-out. I also don't know if we should vote on creating a process for which no one has volunteered; an RfC won't recruit them. So I agree with SMC that the best thing to do for now is nothing. DFlhb (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would option 1 be inapplicable if MILHIST opts in? The MILHIST A-class criteria wouldn't automatically override WP:A? and become the criteria. And if MILHIST opts out, then we're stuck with the extremely vague A-class criteria that we currently have. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not an accurate description of what we currently have. What we currently have is an A class that has become disused and forgotten by all but MILHIST. Almost all of the Category:A-Class articles subcategories are empty. What its criteria state and how vague they are is irrelevant because those criteria are not used. Demanding that it become used is not the correct solution to the problem, because as far as the rest of Wikipedia article assessment is concerned, there is no problem, just a defunct class. The solution is to recognize that it has become a wart in the categorization system and to rationalize the MILHIST assessments with the rest of the encyclopedia. But doing so requires generating the will and consensus to do so among the MILHIST participants who still use it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

So long as the criteria exist, people can still use it per these instructions from A?: For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page. To be granted, the proposal should be supported by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the project's discussion page.

I agree with you that A-class is "defunct", which is why I am in favor of deprecation. I included Option 2 because other editors have supported it, and I would support it if we continue to keep A-class on the standard scale. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 would be inapplicable because if A-class is deprecated globally, and MILHIST joins PIQA, then A-class is deprecated for MILHIST too, which they don't want (meaning they won't join PIQA; I don't think A-class should be a blocker for that, since it might end up being the only blocker). DFlhb (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 carves out MILHIST: Remove A-class from the standard scale and deprecate its use outside of MILHIST. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 could also be rewritten as: Remove A-class from the standard scale and deprecate its use EXCEPT for any WikiProject with a formal A-class process and criteria. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

But then MILHIST can't join PIQA, since PIQA is based on the standard scale - DFlhb (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

So then I guess my issue is just that the A-class criteria should either be specified for WikiProjects that might want to adopt it in the future, or that it should be made clear that A-class can only be granted in the context of a project-based assessment. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Given DFlhb's replies above, I think my main issue is that currently, anyone who is part of any WikiProject can begin an A-class assessment on the article-talk page per WP:A?. So, instead of removing it from the standard scale (which DFlhb points out would preclude MILHIST from joining PIQA), I propose the following RfC instead:
  1. Clarify WP:A? to require that any A-class assessment be produced through a defined process at a WikiProject and delete: For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page. To be granted, the proposal should be supported by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the project's discussion page.
  2. Adopt the MILHIST A-class criteria for the standard scale.
     • If adopted, create a project-independent A-class review process.
  3. Maintain the status quo.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to boldly do that removal in option 1 and see if anyone reverts; for the rest I think we've spending too much time on this. If people want to commit to running a global A-class review they can propose it at any time DFlhb (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. We'll see what happens I suppose. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Global assessments regarding Milhist joining WP:PIQA, which I hope it will. I note that A-class has been there from the very beginning. It is my contention that quality requires review and assessment, and that requires A-class. I have volunteered to run a global A-class assessment. There is precedent for this; Peer Review used to be project based and became global. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have volunteered to run a global A-class assessment Ah, hadn't seen that. In that case, I support creating a global A-class. My bad voorts - DFlhb (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  No worries. I will revert my edit to the A-class criteria and I think we should perhaps pause this discussion so that @Hawkeye7 can come up with a plan for what global A-class review would like like. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just redefine GA as being A-class. We don't need three different levels of formal peer review for assessments that nobody but insiders cares about. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  GA is just B class with a review. It falls a long way short of A-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7's offer to run A-class assessment is very welcome, but to be sustainable would need a large team of editors to support it. I would very much like to see the plan for this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, in your view, what is the point of a global A-Class in the new era where GAN is a lot less superficial than it used to be? When I currently want feedback on one of my well-developed articles, I can submit them to WP:GAN, WP:PR or WP:FAC depending on how good the article is and what type of feedback I want. Most of the times I choose GAN first, and then sometimes I put in the extra effort for FAC. GAN can be rewarded by a Main Page appearance at DYK, and FAC can be rewarded by a Main Page appearance at TFA. I think the position that A-Class reviews used to have a long long time ago (back when GA reviews were a single paragraph long at most) is for most people now filled by GAN. —Kusma (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  FAC has a noxious one-at-a-time rule and other restrictions, so many articles are ineligible. It does not provide the necessary class above B-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I only use GA if I want to run an article at DYK, or need it for a Featured Topic. The criteria are a longb way short of A-class, and you are at the mercy of a single editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep A-Class in the standard scale, but make A-Class a default disabled grade for WikiProjects. (So we can delete nearly all of A-Class categories.) If one WikiProject establishes a rating team and rates an article A-Class, then the global rating of the article is A-Class. And for WikiProjects do not enable A-Class , the Project rating is GA or B.-Lopullinen 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I can't follow much of what you have written! If it is "default disabled" then that is very much not on the standard scale. If we have a global rating of A-class, then that implies that every project on that page has to use A-class, and so by extension, every WikiProject on the whole website needs to support it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• The options in the RfC are struck out with a "new proposal below", but I don't see what that is. In any case, the way I see it, right now PIQA includes A-class solely because one project (MILHIST) uses it, even though that project doesn't actually currently use PIQA. At least two projects, in the meantime (WPVG and the much smaller WPSE) opt out of PIQA wholly or mostly to explicitly exclude having A-class. As a result, there seems to be only 2 real paths forward here: 1) MILHIST joins PIQA, A-class remains as a "standard" assessment type which only they actually use, and any project that doesn't want A-class can't be in PIQA. 2) MILHIST continues to not be in PIQA, and A-class is dropped from PIQA as unused. I would prefer #2, but maybe I'm missing something about what the proposal is here. --PresN 15:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  (WPVG and the much smaller WPSE) opt out of PIQA wholly or mostly to explicitly exclude having A-class I didn't understand why and still don't - DFlhb (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  You've hit the nail on the head there PresN. But I do see a possible third way we could move forward, which is (3) dropping A-class from the standard scale with MilHist finding an alternative way to track what they currently call A-class articles. This could mean that an article is rated GA-class for all projects, but MilHist has some extra categorisation which indicates that it is slightly better than just GA-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  A-class is a long way ahead of GA, which is just B-class with a review. Maybe we should abolish it. A-class criteria are similar to those of FAC, and require three editor reviews. The biggest difference is that any article can be nominated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  (1) is acceptable. (2) is unacceptable; MilHist articles will no longer be eligible for GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain why you think "MilHist articles will no longer be eligible for GA"? Can you comment on my suggestion (3)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• In my view, the questions are:
  1. Should there be A-Class reviews for articles not covered by MILHIST / some other projects who specifically demand it?
  2. If not, what should happen with articles rated A-Class by MILHIST?
     1. The rating should be displayed as A-Class in the shell template
     2. The rating should be displayed as B-Class or GA-Class in the shell template depending on whether the article has passed GA, and there should be an additional "rated A by MILHIST" very visible on the talk page.

  I think the answer to the first question should be "no" unless there is demonstrated appetite for it by a sizeable number of people outside MILHIST. I don't care very much what the answer to the second question is, but we'll need some sort of default for it. With 2.2 it is slightly easier to avoid accidental A-Class ratings. 2.1 is the current situation, which mostly works. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I like this path forward for further discussion, but I would like to see @Hawkeye7's proposal for global A class and see if anyone has any else has any appetite for it or finds it necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  (1) seems reasonable to me, if they specifically demand it. (2) is not about MILHIST at all. 2.1 is acceptable; 2.2 is unacceptable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Project-wide A-class

The idea here is that it will be run similar to Peer review.

• Nomination will be open to all articles.
• Criteria. User:Voorts/Draft:A-class criteria, with at least two editors providing reviews and supporting A-class status
• Governance. There will be a lead coordinator and assistant coordinators, who will be elected for indefinite terms on the project page
• The project template will permit nomination, in the same manner as MilHist articles are currently.
• Promotion will be by the lead a coordinator assessing that there is consensus, and that the article is worthy.
• A bot will handle promotion of articles and archiving of reviews.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I know you would be willing to serve as lead. Has anyone volunteered for assistant? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this revert I believe it is a sensible prerequisite for an article to be Good Article before nominating for A-class. Why would you consider reviewing for A-class unless it can pass GAN? The criteria for A-class are supposed to be higher than GA, so I didn't think this would be controversial. It is supposed to be a quality scale which implies a linear scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

FA noms don't require the article to be GA either DFlhb (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

While I remain unconvinced we should have a third review process, I agree that we should not ask for articles to pass all three of them sequentially. It would make more sense to allow the higher ranked processes to award lower ratings (as I understand it, in the German Wikipedia, you can nominate an article for FA and the community can decide it is GA instead). —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of allowing FA to award GA class. Are you planning on proposing this at the FA talk page? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with FA is that it is very limited. I can submit as many articles as I like at GAN, but only one at a time at FA, and a withdrawn article attracts a two-week penalty. Of the 44 articles currently at FAC, 32 are GA. Of the rest, two are A-class, four are B-class, two are C-class, two are Start-class, one is unassessed and one is a stub. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not. FA currently tries to be efficient by quickly rejecting underprepared nominations; anything where FAC could give lesser awards would require a lot of changes (and might lead to undesirable effects like people sending all their articles to FAC on the off chance they will pass). Large scale FAC reform would need to be very well thought through. —Kusma (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We (WikiProject Weather) recently deprecated A-class per my proposal because we didn't have the resources ourselves to sustain an A-class review as required by the A-class criteria and the fact that the rating isn't respected by many editors because it doesn't have an official review process. I would be willing to serve as an assistant coordinator if needed in the case that an official process is established. I have written over a dozen featured articles so I am well aware of what is required for an article to be of this quality. Tbh I think the only options here are keep things as is, deprecate A-class entirely, or make it an official process. One thing I take issue with in this proposal is that only the lead coordinator would have the ability to promote. At featured topics, the director and the two delegates all have the ability to determine timing and promotion. This would make more sense to have in case the lead coordinator is away or is otherwise busy. The burden shouldn't be on one individual person to determine every nomination. Additionally, this would be needed in cases where the lead coordinator would need to recuse from their duties (ie their own nominations or ones where they are heavily vested). It wouldn't make sense for the lead coordinator to have the ability to promote their own nominations or ones where they were a reviewer or otherwise involved. Noah, AA^Talk 23:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Any coordinator should be able to promote, as at FAC and MilHist A-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to Hawkeye7 and Hurricane_Noah for volunteering to help start this thing off. It would be good to have representatives from any project which is currently using A-class reviews. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Other names for 'solid-state polymer electrolytes'

I added the other common terms for 'solid-state polymer electrolytes', but somehow the addition was counted as vandalism and reversed. Solid-state polymer electrolytes (as described in this article) are referred to as 'solid polymer electrolytes' or 'solvent-free polymer electrolytes. I think we can look into this and update. TheScientistQ (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, TheScientistQ, the edit was counted as vandalism by an automated program which does occasionally have false positives. It's possible the program detected what appeared to be repeating text. It seems you were able to work around it. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I managed to find a way and add references. Great. TheScientistQ (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place to raise problems like that? -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived talk pages are erroneously included in Assessment categories

Category pages currently include archived talk pages. For example, in Category:Top-importance Philippine-related articles, Talk:José Rizal/Archive 1 and Talk:José Rizal/Archive 2 are erroneously included. Not only on that page, those archived talk pages (containing the assessment) also appear in Category:High-importance_Poetry_articles. I could edit the archived talk pages but it is discouraged to do so. Can someone fix this issue to exclude archived talk pages in assessment categories? Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

For some reason those talkpages transcluded the entire current talkpage, I have removed the transclusions. CMD (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That was a very quick fix. Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:A review toolbox

Template:A review toolbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Assesssment errors

I've been working my way through CAT:UNBIO but as you can see in the "A" section, there are a bunch of dab pages getting indexed as unassessed recently. If you go to the talk pages of these dab pages, the source code says dab as the class but the talk page banner is blank instead of displaying it as a Disambiguation page. Thoughts? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's probably because they are missing {{Disambig}} or a similar template at the bottom. This is what the template uses to classify dab pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for your help. I added a disambig cat here and then saved the talk page as a test but it is still unassessed. Hmm. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It would need to have a disambiguation template in order to be automatically classified as Disambig-class. You can use {{Disambig}} or use a more specific one from Category:Disambiguation message boxes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Martin, but those handling the banner shell should see to this, not me. Or perhaps you can give an example of how it already works in banner shell? As far as I can see, all those classed as disambig are considered to be unassessed. I have come across lots of examples of new unassessments in connection with many different wikiprojects. They have not caused any problems for years - so why now? In any case, I don't agree that these should be classed as List. They are clearly class=Disambig. I won't work on any more of them until things have been sorted out. The unassessed lists will simply continue to grow.--Ipigott (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The more relevant section is #Pages rated as Disambig-class which are not disambiguation pages — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)