Wikipedia talk:Content assessment: Difference between revisions

This page is for discussing the Content assessment page. Reviews of pages should be in the relevant WikiProject, the article talk page, or in the assessment page

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:ASSESS

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Council This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil articles Article quality research (inactive) This page is within the scope of the article quality research project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Article quality researchWikipedia:WikiProject Article quality researchTemplate:Quality assessmentArticle quality research articles

I wrote the article Great Fires of 1871 and it was originally rated as start class, I have now fixed all the Citation needed and Better source needed requests, can it get a better rating because of this? Bradinator33 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Normally you make a request to one of the relevant projects. In the case of WikiProject Military history this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. I have re-rated the article as B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that, in practice, this rating system is biased towards simply measuring the length of an article and making an assessment based on that. Some subjects can be dealt with quite concisely – which is surely what we are trying to achieve with an encyclopaedia article. Quite simply, there may be nothing more that really needs to be added, but we have a complete article that is assessed as "C" or "stub" because it is not very long.

Articles that appear to me to have been mis-rated based on their length include Alfred Holt, Ariel (clipper), Far Eastern Freight Conference, Windermere Jetty: Museum of Boats, Steam and Stories, etc. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point and thanks for bringing it up. While the official guidelines do not contain any requirements on length, it is likely that some editors (and even some automated tools) may be using length as a metric to measure quality. Please feel free to update the assessment on any article that you think is mis-classified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this as well, so I will second the thank you for bringing it up Monkeywire (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the languages that use the same Wikipedia Content assessment system as English? There is no definitive list that I can find in the page here or online. Kingstonacuk (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should a page such as Dimethyl sulfoxide (data page) be assessed? It was previously |class=NA but if it's not an article then I don't think it should be in mainspace. Would |class=List be more accurate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that list class would be more appropriate for these. There are 154 of these: list, some are already tagged as list class. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]