Wikipedia talk:Content assessment

"No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available"

FA class says under "Editing suggestions" for FA articles: No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.

When has this ever been true?? The example article Cleopatra has had many content additions since it was first featured in 2018. How much more information has become available about Jesus Christ in the last decade since Jesus was featured? Apparently 94 kilobytes worth, or almost double the length from when it was first featured.

Depending on how much free time you have and how granular you want to get, you can always add more to an article.

This goes against WP:FA?, which only says it must neglect "no major facts or details", is a "thorough and representative survey", and "its content does not change significantly from day to day". Recommend removing this line. Schierbecker (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Interpretations may hinge around the word "necessary". To become an FA an article theoretically "neglects no major facts or details" and "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If these points are true, then no further additions may be necessary in order for an article to be "a definitive source for encyclopedic information", although they may as mentioned be possible with granular/minor information/details. CMD (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if my experience is representative, but that's not the way I interpreted that wording when I was a newb in 2009. I distinctly remember holding off on some needed changes to featured articles because I thought featured=complete. In any case, that language is wrong no matter which way it was intended to be interpreted. Content additions are necessary for an article to keep its featured article status (And of course here I'm not just talking about new information becoming available). A featured article when I started would be a B class today. Schierbecker (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that this needs to be re-written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC about FA completeness

This RFC proposes the removal and replacement of the statement in the Featured Article editing suggestions that reads, "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible." Schierbecker (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Should be removed for the reasons listed above. But replaced with what? Schierbecker (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, "Continuous improvement, including both minor and major revisions, is encouraged to ensure articles remain current and comprehensive. While major content additions may focus on significant updates or the emergence of new information, contributors are urged to engage in ongoing refinement to enhance both content and presentation, recognizing that the nature of featured articles implies a commitment to continual relevance." (LLM-assisted content). Schierbecker (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to have anything? If we decide that we can't just leave it blank, then maybe the FA and FL could both say something like "May need to be updated with more recent information". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Simply deleting the Editing suggestions column is an option your thought prompted. What does it add that is not in Criteria and Reader's experience? CMD (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Schierbecker (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment When has this ever been true?? The example article Cleopatra has had many content additions since it was first featured in 2018. How much more information has become available about Jesus Christ in the last decade since Jesus was featured? Apparently 94 kilobytes worth, or almost double the length from when it was first featured.

  ... and were the additions necessary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: As a FAC coordinator and having successfully nominated several articles at FAC the current wording looks like nonsense to me. WP:FAOWN, which is policy, includes "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." Perhaps a version of this could be used? Eg 'Significant changes to featured articles should be made with care and should usually be discussed on the article's talk page first'? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Would support a change to the effect of what Gog has sketched here. I think there's a kernel of a good idea in the current wording, but as phrase it isn't correct and is potentially quite unhelpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think this should be removed or replaced (like Gog the Mild's suggestion). Even FA's comprehensiveness requirement is not a statement that no content additions could improve the article. Indeed the FA process doesn't often ensure this (though many nominators do), as comprehensiveness is rarely checked thoroughly; conversely, uncontroversial prose improvements aren't often possible as this is one of the most heavily scrutinised parts of the FA process. An example of the bike-shed effect. — Bilorv (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• I would support Gog's proposed change, but not outright removal. Last year a large number of readers and editors descended on Robert Oppenheimer. Readers outnumber writers by a thousand to one. No substantial changes were made. (I disagree about comprehensiveness not being checked thoroughly, but you have to be a subject expert to do so. Military History articles usually get this at A class.) There were a lot of changes that I characterised as barely rising to minor edit status, such as deleting white space and reordering parameters within templates, or adding or removing unused ones. There was a fruitful debate about the subject's name, however, which resulted in some small but satisfying changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gog the Mild's proposed change. The current wording could easily scare a new editor away from making constructive changes to an FA. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Gog the Mild's version is good. Others already said why.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• I also support something along the lines of what Gog is proposing. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Reference correction to Fogarty, Robert, American Utopianism

I'm requesting/suggesting 2 changes to the current Reference.

Fogarty, Robert. (1972). American Utopianism. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.[self-published source?]

No, it is not a self-published source. Also, its an edited work. Some citations indicate he was the editor, some the author. Its a compilation of primary source materials from the history pre 1919 of intentional communities in the US. It was one in a series published by F.E. Peacock, a an established academic press specializing in the social and behaviorial sciences. It was bought out in 2002 by a national corporation, Wadsworth Thompson, that is still operating.

See: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2002/10/07/daily4.html "Belmont-based Wadsworth, affiliated with software and information provider The Thomson Corp. (NYSE: TOC), purchased F.E. Peacock Publisher Inc. for an undisclosed sum."

and: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/

thanks! I will get an account shortly. Betsy Morris, Berkeley, CA 135.180.123.159 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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)