Wikipedia talk:Content assessment

Conflicting quality ratings

I've got a head-scratcher for you.

Talk:Sam Manekshaw is simultaneously an A-class and GA-class article. It is a GA class in the banner shell, but because it is an A-class biography article, it is categorized as an Article with conflicting quality ratings.

Talk:Germanicus is simultaneously an A-class and GA-class article. It is an A class in the banner shell, but is also a GA-class Classical Greece and Rome article.

Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is simultaneously an A-class and B-class article. It is an A class in the banner shell, but is also a B-class Russia article (To be fair, this article is more like C class.)

I found 213 other examples of A-class articles with conflicting quality ratings.

There is little consistency as to whether A class should be inherited by the banner shell. Some do - for instance Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has passed a GA review and is an A class in the banner shell. This one is not categorized as having conflicting quality ratings.

If an article has been assessed as A-class by one project, should the banner shell say likewise? Schierbecker (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:Ping User:Hawkeye7. Schierbecker (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Since WP:PIQA all project banners should be displaying a consistent rating (with a few exceptions of projects who have opted out). Yes, A-class is accepeted by the banner shell so if A-class is correct, then this should ideally be placed in the banner shell. Then the conflict will be resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A-class should be inherited by the banner shell. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

What about {{ArticleHistory}}? It does not support "| currentstatus = A".

I'm wondering if there needs to be a universal process for demoting obviously bad A-class articles. For example WikiProject Biography halted A-class promotions in 2008, but there are still more than a handful of legacy A-Class biography articles. There is no accepted process to demote these articles. I feel these ratings should not be inherited by the banner shell. I have also boldly removed A-class from a few dozen cyclone articles where the only "review" appears to have been some conversations on IRC. This one got a few public comments in 2006, but still remains rated A-class even after failing a GA review in 2011. Schierbecker (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I just picked some pages at random from Category:A-Class biography articles. All of them had a {{WikiProject Military history}} banner; now, it is (fairly) well known that MILHIST have a formal A-Class review process, so it's likely that any A-Class biogs really are A-Class, and are not there either by accident or by legacy. So I would oppose any demotion that does not involve clearing each article individually with MILHIST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a handful of biographical pages that are not under the MILHIST banner. Also more than a handful of A-class articles that don't fall under MILHIST or WP:ROADS. Maybe problematic WP:WPBIO articles that are not under the MILHIST umbrella can be put up for review using the MILHIST ACR process, but I'm not sure how popular this would be with the review team. Schierbecker (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Sugarhill Ddot -2024

Pls can someone help in assessing the article Sugarhill Ddot? Thank You. 2RDD (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Id give it a stub class for now but im not exactly the master of wikipedia 48JcL48 (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Navigation pages

See also: Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9 § Pages rated as Disambig-class which are not disambiguation pages

Just following up on this issue, which is still presenting problems. There was a suggestion by User:Bkonrad that we could treat SIAs (with links but no content) and disambiguation pages as one by considering them as "navigation pages". What do people think about introducing this as an umbrella term and classifying accordingly? The rationale is that these types of pages have a common purpose which is to guide readers to the article they are looking for. Real SIAs (with content and references) will be properly treated as Lists, but pages like Hermann (name) would be classified as a navigation page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The core of the issue is that pages like Hermann (name) are not disambiguation pages, despite some superficial similarities. It is a list of people who share a name, not a list of articles that could be titled as "Hermann".

Also how will Real SIAs (with content and references) be distinguished from other similar pages? Is it a manual assessment? If so, what is being gained? older ≠ wiser 10:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Content assessment frequency

How often are articles graded and do they vary between articles? Theobrad (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

do they vary between genres/topics/categories Theobrad (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Theobrad: Articles ought to be assessed for importance either when the WikiProject banner is added, or soon after. Some get left unassessed for years. Once assessed, it should rarely change unless something significant happens - for example, a politician who had been serving at a purely local level might be elected to a national position, following which their importance for politics might be raised from low/mid to mid/high.

Articles are assessed for quality (class) whenever somebody feels like it, provided that the old and new classes are both within the scale unassessed/stub/start/C/B. But for GA/A/FA, you need to make your case for regrading, one person can't do it alone.

Unless the same person carries out all of the assessments, there will be variation (one person's Stub-Class might be another's Start-Class); but the higher up the quality scale you go, the variation should be lessened - this is particularly so of FA-Class, where several people carry out the assessment together. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Thank you for your response. The reason I ask is that I am a paid Wikipedia editor and I have been working for a while on the 'Smart City' article. My work is nearly done and I am not under any obligation to change the rating of the article. However, from my personal interest in the communication of smart city information to the general public and to see the article be improved, I was wondering when/if an article like this might be reviewed again? Theobrad (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that you should not assess the article yourself, but may request assessment by leaving a request at one or more of: Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Assessment#Requests for assessment; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Note that only the first of these has a formal request procedure - for the others you should start a new thread on the talk page that I linked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you very much! I wasn't considering doing that myself :) Theobrad (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)