Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Assessment

Down to it for ratings

After completing our initial ratings of our ScoutingWikiProject articles, Wim van Dorst and Rlevse see the need to reasses how we parcel out the importance ratings. (see Wim's talk page under "Gold Award" for background). Three things were obvious:

1. not enough were Top importance (and some that were shouldn't have been)
2. not enough were Low importance
3. putting ALL association articles put too many into High importance, even associations for countries that had little or no Scouting were put there as were ones for countries like tiny island nations with few Scouts. The idea was to not show favoritism, but this seems to not have worked. 2/3 of the articles ended up as High initially, which is not realistic.

With an average of roughly 900 articles, the approximate target range we are shooting for is:

1. Top = 5% (~63 articles)
2. High = 35% ~445 articles)
3. Mid = 40% ~(360 articles) 50% ~(636 articles)
4. Low = 20% (~180 articles) 10% ~(127 articles)

Steps (see Assessment project page too):

1. Move articles into Top and Low until the target number is about right
2. Association articles: Each association article (could be more than one, like BSA/GSUSA in USA) in the 15 countries with the most Scouting will stay in High. These countries are: Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States. However, a small branch of one of those, like Antigua and Barbuda Branch of The Scout Association gets a Mid. Association articles on other countries will move into Mid. The same is true of the highest Boy Scout rank (Eagle Scout, Queen Scout, etc) for the 15 countries and other countries. The highest award in things like Cubs, Exploring, and Venturing, go into Mid for ALL countries.
3. When the above two steps are achieved, we will take a reassessment and see where we're at.Rlevse 01:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Can't we move the regional articles (like Scouting in Greater London South West, Scouting in Alabama) to medium importance? For me they are not of general interest - something for specialists on local history.
  • OK with me, I didn't make that clear. As those aren't national associations, but regional level (like Tidewater Council, I think they should be mid too.Rlevse 11:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• ANd I'd like to change Top 15 to Top 20 - according to the new table in Scouting. --11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (jergen)
  • That table is how we got the 15, so now that it's 20, OK with me, but I feel we should not increase it above 20. I'll update the list from 15 to 20 right away. Rlevse 11:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• So now national associations outside of the "Top 20" are Mid along with many regional levels so Scouting in Greater London South West("something for specialists on local history", as was said) for example has the same status a National Scout and Guide Associations?? This seems very strange to me Stevecull 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, Scouting Greater London South West has some 10,000 members, same as National Scouting of Burkina Fasso. There'll be a grey area of course, but that can't be avoided. Remember, this is just an indication for editors: which articles to work on first. And the Top importance articles have been chosen with care (which can also always be challenged of course). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC).
    • It's impossible to please everyone on this. What about national associations that are smaller than Greater London? So we'd put the association for Kiribati above Greater London because it's national and London isn't? I say we leave it the way it is and let the chips fall where they may. Being the one who's gone through these twice now, the way it is is better than the first round.Rlevse 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Time to reconsider? I realize that the decision two years ago to assess importance of association articles as "High" was carefully considered at the time, but it seems to me that very large and/or historically significant associations really should be "Top" importance, e.g., BSA and UK Scouts. Particularly now that William Hillcourt is of "Top" importance, it would be logical that the association he was associated with would likewise be of "Top" importance. Also, in view of Hillcourt, isn't it inconsistent that James E. West (Scouting) is "High" importance? JGHowes ^talk - 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Open for discussion. Not many watch this page. Put a note at WT:SCOUT and ask users to come here if they are interested. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

That peer review link at the bottom goes to the military history project. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, changed a way more suitable for us, IMHO. Rlevse 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed update of Importance ratings

When the comprehensive ratings of Scouting Project articles were last done in mid-2006, it was decided that articles about Associations in the 15 countries with the most Scouting would be assessed as "High" Importance, with others as Mid or Low, based on the Project's overall article target range of:

1. Top = 5% (~63 articles)
2. High = 35% ~445 articles)
3. Mid = 50% ~(636 articles)
4. Low = 10% ~(127 articles)

It was also decided that a further reassessment would eventually take place to look at the results (see above 2006 discussion, Down to it for ratings). Now that we're two years down the road, we find that:

(1) according to Scouting Project stats, presently 57 of 1689 Scouting-related articles are rated as "Top" importance, i.e., 3.4% vs. the 5% target.

(2) by our article importance grading scheme, "Top" articles are those which "are a key topic for Scouting, or generally notable to people other than students of Scouting"

(3) certain anomolies now exist in the Importance grading

One way to address this is to upgrade certain articles to "Top" Importance, specifically those of very large and/or historically significant associations, and biographical articles about founding leaders of those associations:

• Boy Scouts of America
• James E. West (Scouting)
• The Scout Association
• E. Urner Goodman

While we all want to avoid making the project USA-centric, the topic Boy Scouts of America currently has considerable notability outside of Scouting circles because of 3G litigation and extensive media coverage, thus meeting "Top" Importance criteria. Particularly now that William Hillcourt is of "Top" importance, it would be logical that the association he was associated with would likewise be of "Top" importance. Also, in view of the "Top" Importance given to the Hillcourt article, it could be argued that there's an inconsistency in rating James E. West (Scouting) and E. Urner Goodman as "High" importance. JGHowes ^talk - 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a good case but Hillcourt had more international influence than West or Goodman, who are mainly of note in America. I'm moving BSA and TSA to Top. Still open on others. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Keeping % the same, we should today have:

1. Top = 5% (~85 articles)
2. High = 35% (~592 articles)
3. Mid = 50% (~423 articles)
4. Low = 10% (~169 articles)

What we actually have per the last bot run is:

1. Top = 5% (57 articles)
2. High = 35% (367 articles)
3. Mid = 50% (1007 articles)
4. Low = 10% (259 articles)

As more less-important topics have been creatd in the last two years, I don't mind adjusting the Low % to ~ %20, but we should look at the Top/High/Mid numbers and %. I'll post a note at WT:SCOUT. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk on this topic generally occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting

Talk on this topic generally occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)