Talk:Peter, the Lord's cat/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rating

I don't know how to rate this article on the quality scale. Badbilltucker rated it start class, presumably because it's very short. But I also don't know of what else there is to be said. What's one supposed to do with an article which is very short and also close to comprehensive? Or am I wrong about there being nothing else to add?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Importance is certainly Low though, because it essentially documents one piece of trivia. Notable trivia, but still trivia. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Assessment is generally based on how thorough the article is, and how much depth is gone into. The article does cover all of the basic data available and required on the subject, so it isn't a stub. However, I do get the impression that there is probably more data which could be added, like comments from the people at Lord's about the animal which might be written down somewhere, and those would probably be required for it to reach good article or feature article status. That leaves only Start and B. Here, purely subjectively, I thought Start, primarily because the length is closer to most Start articles than B articles. These are however simply subjective judgements, so don't take them too seriously. Also, I know of at least one article, about Pope Soter, which contains literally everything known about him that is still called a stub, because so little is known. I guess we're all just hoping someone finds out something about him soon there. Badbilltucker 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Bill. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)