User talk:Faeriesoph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Catholicism rankings on England articles

You may be right. However, in almost all cases the articles were clearly (1) either Start or Stub status or (2) already rated independently by someone else. In the latter case, I followed the existing rating from whichever other project was involved (generally Architecture, once in a while someone else, even when I thought they were being too generous, for the sake of consistency). In the former case, any article marked as a stub, and some of these clearly could be nothing but stubs, is often fairly obvious, and it generally doesn't take too much information to prove it one way or another. Start articles tend to be a bit more complete, and generally have sources. The differences are generally kind of obvious, particularly after several thousand assessments, which I have unfortunately actually done. I think Plange used to go even faster with the Biography assessments, and I doubt she ever did as many. Also, I regret to say that the banners themselves contain no parameters for adding comments, at least, the Catholicism one doesn't. The Anglicanism project doesn't even have assessment parameters in the banner. I could say that I have also had a copy of the existing templates available to cut and paste, which I have, so that only the class has to actually be typed. And, I have been able to concentrate rather easily most of my life. However, if you have any concerns, I will be more than happy to provide justifications for any article's assessment at your request. There are times when the difference between a high stub and a low start are harder to determine, and I acknowledge that I may have been occasionally a bit hasty there. However, should you wish any further comments, please feel free to let me know which articles in particular. Thank you. Badbilltucker 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)