Talk:Taylor, British Columbia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject British Columbia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to British Columbia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| A | This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
[edit] Good Article Candidate??
This is one of several articles about towns in BC that I have come across which I consider to be models that other articles should aspire to match. Have those doing the work here considered taking this through the Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates process? See also Wikipedia:Good articles KenWalker | Talk 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Good articles is just something made up in school one day. It was forced into the article assessment ranks by its aggressive proponents but has no official standing in Wikipedia and means the same thing as A-class ranking (except "good articles" are kept on a list at WP:GA, while A-class article have no list). Why was this given a B-class rank? What is wrong with it? ·maclean 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, lots of good things have been made up in school . . .:-). You may know more about it than I do, but it seemed to me that moving up the assessment scale to GA was a process that would take a very good article and see if a group of experienced editors have any suggestions for making it even better. Nothing at all wrong with it to my eye as it is. When I look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_British_Columbia/Assessment#Quality_scale, A class articles have been "peer reviewed where appropriate" so I suggested a GA process (which I think it would go through easily) which ought to end up with an A or FA rating. I have referred to this article as a model for others to follow. In fact, relative to the size of the community, it is exceptional. My congrats to those responsible. I would have started the GA process myself, but the proposer is supposed to take responsibility for participating in any efforts suggested in the process. KenWalker | Talk 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- WP:GA has the merit that a neutral (or at least independent) eye looks at the article, and it often is more effective than peer review in improving pages. Other than that, I would rate this article as A (and I'm doing just that). --Qyd 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rating A works for me. Now what about FA? KenWalker | Talk 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the A rating. The FA rating is the same as the A rating except it has community concensus (from some of the most nitpicking editors we have). It would take weeks of copyediting to get it ready for WP:FAC to pass, then weeks of tweaking at FAC, then years of hostage negotiation to keep it from WP:FARC. It demands a lot of time and attention that I'd rather spend writing an article. ·maclean 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rating A works for me. Now what about FA? KenWalker | Talk 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- WP:GA has the merit that a neutral (or at least independent) eye looks at the article, and it often is more effective than peer review in improving pages. Other than that, I would rate this article as A (and I'm doing just that). --Qyd 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
