User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST

A-Class Medal Eligibility Tracking edit

Notice! All information was moved to the new Milhist official A-Class Medal Eligibility Tracking page.

Content Review Medal Tracking edit

Fourth Quarter 2008 edit

Joe N (renamed from Borg Sphere): 31 reviews
JonCatalan: 25 reviews
Skinny87: 16 reviews
The_ed17: 14 reviews
YellowMonkey: 13 reviews
Abraham, B.S.: 12 reviews
Cam: 11 reviews
Woody: 11 reviews
Roger Davies: 10 reviews
Redmarkviolinist: 8 reviews
Jim Sweeney: 8 reviews
Nick-D: 8 reviews
Brad101: 6 reviews
Hawkeye7: 6 reviews
Lazulilasher: 5 reviews
Cla68: 5 reviews
Jackyd101: 4 reviews
Parsecboy: 4 reviews
TomStar81: 4 reviews
Ian Rose: 4 reviews
Eurocopter: 3 reviews
Dhatfield: 3 review
MBK004: 3 reviews
Bellhalla: 2 reviews
Saberwyn: 2 reviews
Nudve: 2 reviews
Kirill Lokshin: 2 reviews
Shimgray: 2 review
David Fuchs: 2 reviews
Banime: 1 review
Gnangarra: 1 review
One last pharoh: 1 review
Geoff Plourde: 1 review
Wandalstouring: 1 review
Hohum: 1 review
MisterBee1966: 1 review
The Land: 1 review
Ed!: 1 review
Kevin Myers: 1 review
AGK: 1 review
djwilms: 1 review
LordAmeth: 1 review
Pohick2: 1 review
PalestineRemembered: 1 review
Narson: 1 review
Guyinblack25: 1 review
Kresock: 1 review
Bedford: 1 review
Dziban303: 1 review
Maralia: 1 review
Benea: 1 review
Nigel Ish: 1 review
Ryan4314: 1 review

First Quarter 2009 edit

Joe N: 55 reviews
The_ed17: 49 reviews
Cla68: 38 reviews
TomStar81: 37 reviews
Nick-D: 34 reviews
Abraham, B.S.: 24 reviews
Wandalstouring: 23 reviews
YellowMonkey: 17 reviews
Cam: 13 reviews
Ian Rose: 13 reviews
Woody: 13 reviews
JonCatalán: 10 reviews
Skinny87: 9 reviews
Bellhalla: 8 reviews
Jim Sweeney: 7 reviews
Jackyd101: 6 reviews
Patar knight: 6 reviews
Hawkeye7: 6 reviews
EyeSerene: 4 reviews
Harlsbottom: 4 reviews
MBK004: 4 reviews
Piotrus: 3 reviews
The Land: 4 reviews
Binksternet: 3 reviews
GraemeLeggett: 3 reviews
IceUnshattered: 3 reviews
Lazulilasher: 3 reviews
Parsecboy: 3 reviews
Eurocopter: 2 reviews
Hal Jespersen: 2 reviews
Lawrencema: 2 reviews
MisterBee1966: 2 reviews
Nudve: 2 reviews
Patton123: 2 reviews
Tpbradbury: 2 reviews
AdjustShift: 1 review
Amore Mio: 1 review
AshLin: 1 review
Bachcell: 1 review
Buckshot06: 1 review
Ceedjee: 1 review
Cool3: 1 review
Dapi89: 1 review
EnigmaMcmxc: 1 review
Fnlayson: 1 review
Giordaano: 1 review
John Smith's: 1 review
Kevin Myers: 1 review
Kyriakos: 1 review
LinguistAtLarge: 1 review
Maralia: 1 review
Mjroots: 1 review
Nigel Ish: 1 review
NuclearWarfare: 1 review
Perseus71: 1 review
Piotr Mikołajski: 1 review
Randomran: 1 review
Redmarkviolinist: 1 review
Saberwyn: 1 review
Stepshep: 1 review
Shimgray: 1 review
Sniperz11: 1 review
Tartarus: 1 review
Una Smith: 1 review

Second Quarter 2009 edit

The ed17: 38 reviews
Joe N: 38 reviews
YellowMonkey: 24 reviews
Cla68: 22 reviews
Jim Sweeney: 22 reviews
AustralianRupert: 21 reviews
Nick-D: 19 reviews
TomStar81: 19 reviews
Abraham, B.S.: 15 reviews
Ian Rose: 12 reviews
Patar knight: 9 reviews
Piotrus: 7 reviews
Patton123: 6 reviews
Sturmvogel 66: 6 reviews
Bellhalla: 5 reviews
Skinny87: 5 reviews
Ed!: 4 reviews
Magicpiano: 4 reviews
Maralia: 4 reviews
Wandalstouring: 4 reviews
Cool3: 3 reviews
Hawkeye7: 3 reviews
IceUnshattered: 3 reviews
Jackyd101: 3 reviews
MBK004: 3 reviews
Vantine84: 3 reviews
Brad101: 2 reviews
Dhatfield: 2 reviews
Kirill Lokshin: 2 reviews
Kirk: 2 reviews
Mm40: 2 reviews
Saberwyn: 2 reviews
Admiral Norton: 1 review
Askari Mark: 1 review
Benea: 1 review
Binksternet: 1 review
Brianboulton: 1 review
Btphelps: 1 review
Cam: 1 review
Cuprum17: 1 review
EnigmaMcmxc: 1 review
Guyinblack25: 1 review
Geoff Plourde: 1 review
Hartfelt: 1 review
HLGallon: 1 review
Juliancolton: 1 review
Kyriakos: 1 review
La Pianista: 1 review
Nosedown: 1 review
Ost316: 1 review
Parsecboy: 1 review
Redtigerxyz: 1 review
Rosiestep: 1 review
Ruhrfisch: 1 review
Simon Harley: 1 review
Socrates2008: 1 review
Sumanch: 1 review
TechOutsider: 1 review
Xatsmann: 1 review

Coordinators Election Expanded Answer edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/March_2009#MBK004

Q: Surely it would be better to abolish GA grade, which seems to overlap aspects of A and B, wastes effort in assessing an additional grade without a clear distinction from the others and which does not really help the progression from B to A, and use that effort instead to identify the better 10% of articles currently languishing on 'start'?

Like Jackyd101, I agree that this is a loaded question designed to encourage me to speak out against the GA process. I don't see GA as a useless or wasted effort. Your points about the overlay are spot on because of how the process is structured. Let's examine the article assessment grades from B to FA:
- B - An assessment made by an individual representing a WikiProject
- GA - An assessment made after a review by an individual representing the Community
- A - An assessment made after a review by at least three individuals representing a WikiProject
- FA - An assessment made after a review by at least three individuals representing the Community
  - Also, the standards and criteria for each increase as you go up the ladder from B - GA - A - FA
Seeking to abolish the GA process is a non-starter because it is so entrenched in the community and is also the first community-level of an article's quality (and the only one before FA). Also, just getting rid of GA within MILHIST would in all likelihood drive editors away when they see articles that they have put effort into bringing to GA being demoted to B. That type of alienation is completely avoidable and unacceptable. While GA has been under-utilized within MILHIST in favor of our A-Class system, GA is making a comeback within the project because it does provide an additional review step which can and usually does make the transition from B to A easier just like an A-Class Review can make the transition from GA or B to FA easier and requires less work at FAC (SandyGeorgia, the deputy FAC director has said this herself).
- I can demonstrate this with an article: USS Texas (BB-35) is one of my pet projects along with TomStar81. When I started, Tom had expanded it and referenced it to B-Class. I initiated a GA review because I thought the article met the criteria but wasn't so sure about A-Class yet. We received a phenomenal GA review which we passed after making only a few changes. Then due to real-life events and time constraints, we let the article stay at that quality level without major changes until we initiated an A-Class Review, which also passed with only a need for minor tweaks to the article. I believe that without that GA review, the ACR would have been much more difficult and because of the ACR we have identified some items that we need to address before we attempt an FAC. To me this is the ideal way of how the system should work.
As to using the effort to instead identify the 10% of articles that are better than Start but languish there, if the template-driven C-Class was used, that would be done automatically with only a few minutes of template work by one or two editors.
Finally, I'd like to direct your attention to some statistics that were recently compiled in response to some project-wide discussions about A-Class. I think those statistics do speak for themselves in regards to the usability of the different levels of higher assessments (B, GA, A, FA).
- Thank you for your question, and I apologize for the length, but I feel that such an in-depth answer is necessary. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)