This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
Class Assessment
The past few days I have been going through every article in
Category: Unassessed-Class Christian music articles, and have assessed every article which was unassessed. I did not add an importance tag to every article, as on some articles I really had no idea of their importance. However, there are currently no articles which belong in the unassessed category. Unfortunately, because of some odd issues with the banner (see
Template talk:Christianmusic), articles which are classed as NA are still showing up in the category. --
PEPSI2786talk00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Standard for article assessments
Develop a standard for article assessments within the WikiProject (i.e. what makes a "GA-Class" article? what makes a "B-Class" article?).
Well, other than the examples we already have on the Assessment page; (i.e.
Coffee table book is an example of a stub,
Real analysis is an example of a Start, etc), my basic way of checking the class of an article is pretty simple. If it's really short, and really rough, it's a stub. If some effort has been put into it, but it doesn't at all resemble a good article yet, it's a start. If it looks pretty good, and I'd maybe consider putting it up for a GA Nomination, it's B class.
I don't think we should make any article better than B class without going through a formal review process. I'd hate to see us inflating our articles ratings because of pride. --
PEPSI2786talk18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree that we should have people outside the project review any article up for classification above B. My problem is that as I was tagging the former Gospel music and Southern Gospel Wikiproject articles I found various stages of development. If they were more than a few lines of text I marked them as start. But some had more detail (discography, awards, history, etc), but not enough in my opinion to be a B. But it was only my opinion. I didn't really have anything else to evaluate them on. I'd like to have something I could point another editor to to justify why I gave a certain rating. I know a "template format" may lead to heated discussions and/or edit wars on articles, but I think we should have some basic measurement standard that people can follow. I'll look at the other music related WikiProjects over the weekend and bring back some suggestions for the Project members to review.
Absolon S. Kent (
talk)
18:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)reply