Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This non-article page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Imagic Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Proposal 2 Category class 3 Length of time 4 Class criteria 5 Anyone out there? 6 Start class vs. B-Class lists. 7 Assessment: M 8 Update on unassessed articles and a suggestion 9 Assessment: Comments 10 Assessment Archive 11 A-class 12 Assessment Request Rating 13 A-class proposal 14 Werdnabot

[edit] Proposal

This page is based mainly on the military history page since I felt that we needed to have something like this. Feedback would be much appreciated. I won't go ahead with implementing the A-Class nomination system yet until it's clear that there is consensus among the members here that this is a good idea. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-6 06:34

I am all in favor of setting up an assesment page, where people con come and get someone else to rate their articles. And I mean all in favor in that "actually participate" kind of way. --PresN

[edit] Category class

It seems to me that we could do with also including a "Category" (Cat) class as part of assessing pages, seeing as the CVG talk page box already has this implemented and the ratings are used by several other WikiProjects, including WikiProject Film. Also, categories fall outside of article space and standard ratings (i.e. Start, B) don't really apply here. Green451 03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "NA" class works fine for that, not much besides categories and Wikiproject pages are covered in that. --PresN 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of time

How long should an article stay in the assessment section before it is moved to the archives? Is there a minimum time, or should it be moved as soon as an editor has looked at/commented on the article? --PresN 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that as soon as someone has reviewed the article it can be moved to the archive. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-13 08:18

[edit] Class criteria

It's probably a good idea to formalise the criteria for the different classes, see for example the milhist criteria for B-Class articles. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-16 18:07

[edit] Anyone out there?

I know that there's not a lot of articles being nominated, but this place is more like "CVG:PresN gives his opinions on the state of your article". Not that I don't think that's pretty cool and all, but... I think I'll spam the main talk page and remind people of this again. --PresN 05:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Nifboy 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've managed to take out the A, B, and C's thus far. This is a very slow process though.--Kung Fu Man 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start class vs. B-Class lists.

I have a question / comment on such rankings. First off, thanks to Mitaphane, Nifboy, and PresN for dropping by the Suikoden III characters list, as well as doing the thankless ranking job in general. I'd like to emphasize that this is not whining about the ranking of a specific article; this is more a general "ranking philosophy" issue.

Mitaphane: "The article is through; however there was one thing that prevented me from assessing it to B class, reference sources."
Nifboy: "I have difficulty B-classing anything without any refs."
PresN: "Pop some out-of-universe info in these characters, ref it up, and it's a B."

Obviously a good idea in general, of course; however, I'm not sure if that's a good distinction between Start and B-Class articles and lists (especially lists). I'm going from Template:Grading scheme, which says that Start-class means "Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded." (emphasis mine) "most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed."

B-class means "Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the 'Wikipedia 0.5' or 'usable' standard." The article may need "cleanup" and "correcting significant policy errors."

In other words, an immaculately sourced article with no OR and NPOV that's still only half an article would be Start-class, as it needs expansion. A horrible and bloated article that needs major cleanup, however, would be B-class, assuming that it contained somewhere within it the information that "should" be there. Stub to B-class is focused on content; B-class to FA/FL is focused on adherence to policy, references, writing style, etc. Most of Wikipedia is probably B-class, and this includes a lot of awful articles.

Anyway, I think this goes double for lists. While it can be hard to tell when an article on a game is getting close to "complete," it should be comparatively easy to tell for lists. There are only so many locations, characters, racetracks, etc. in a game, and the list should eventually hit the point where any more information will probably not be encyclopedic. I just don't want to give editors the idea from seeing "Start" class that the list has only barely begun, and that they should go add some more trivia right now.

Let me emphasize that a fair response is "Hey, the Grading Scheme rules are weird on this one, so let's require refs before moving to B-class for CVG." I'm fine if the consensus is that yes, we need refs before we rank things B-class. It's just that the Grading Scheme Template seems to currently say to me that the difference between Start and B-class is in comprehensiveness, not references and adherence to WP policy. SnowFire 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hey, the Grading Scheme rules are weird on this one, so let's require refs before moving to B-class for CVG." Heehee. Anyways... I feel like unless an article is very, very well written, it needs refs to be a B. I.E., almost or at GA quality, just missing refs. --PresN 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, both of the first two quotes are Nifboy, Mitaphane never commented, though he did originally rate it as a start, over a week ago. --PresN 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like I said, it's no skin off my nose if that standard is used, though you might want to suggest that the template be rewritten slightly to mention that. Mitaphane mentioned that comment on his talk page. SnowFire 07:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This kind of problem is exactly what I was talking about when I said above that it might be a good idea to formalize the criteria for B-class articles, like the Military History project has done. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-11 20:49

Why bother changing our own when we can change the 1.0 criteria? Nifboy 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I like to take the perspective, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy on this one. The whole point of assessment is to a get a better perspective on the all the articles the project covers: what's good, what's bad, what we should be working on, what isn't that important, etc. I probably already spend way too much time assessing articles that could be spent improving important ones. There's so many articles to be rated, most of them stubs, beginning articles, or articles on non-notable fictional things, that I make just a slightly above-superficial-look at article before I make an assessment that goes like:

• Stub: Article is just a paragraph or so that explain what the topic is.
• Start: Article starts to branch into subtopics (like plot, gameplay, development) and has started to add standard template VG article stuff (infoboxes, pics, categories, etc)
• B: Article has pretty much all the standard VG article stuff in place; it has pretty much fleshed out all the big subtopics out there. It doesn't violate policy or guidelines (this usually stops a lot of articles about fiction that are rife with WP:OR or WP:WAF problems). And, there's at least a some references made so that there's something out to show that it's not going to have a problem with WP:V.
• A: Article has pretty much covered every possible subtopic in detail. It's well written. Has all the standard VG template stuff in place. Every section has been fact checked with references so that its comprehensive and is a good reflection of what knowledge is known of the topic outside WP. Its basically a FA without having gone through the bureaucratic process of FA.
• FA: It's gone through the final phase where a number of editors have reviewed it over to make sure nothing is wrong and it meets FAC. It is especially important that editors, not associated with WP:CVG, have looked at it from a perspective outside the world of gaming so its known the article is easily readable from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the topic or video gaming in general.

Everyone has their own standards of what an ideal article of class X looks like. And they're always going to be vague because everyone's perspective on what some words mean varies. Because of that I'm of the mindset of "just change it if you think it mets your interpretation of this definition" and move on. If someone thinks that's wrong it will be changed anyway. The important thing it has some relative close grade so that people see where its at in the big picture. —Mitaphane _?|! 06:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment: M

I'm currently trying to make myself useful, and I'll try to assess all articles starting with an M in the next week or so. --Krator 12:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update on unassessed articles and a suggestion

So far all the unassessed computer and video game articles beginning with 'F' have been assessed, as have a selection of some of the other unassessed articles. Completion of this work is slow, though, so it would help to have another assesser on the job to keep this particular category down to as few as possible; assessers cannot mark every single article that comes through. Finally, a suggestion for any future assessers; in the edit summary, type the following text as recognition:

Addition of quality and importance ratings for Wikipedia: WikiProject Computer and video games.

If an assesser has enough assessed articles to their name the CVG Star may be awarded, as well as the Working Man's Barnstar. Totalinarian 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha... [1]. Mainly the middle 1000 or so. Of that page, anyway, there are a lot more later on. Since there are a few new people working on the list, let me explain. It all started here. As you can see, at the time, the unrated list was 6445 deep. Over the next few months, we knocked it down to about 400. Then, at the beginning of January, Jacoplane started going through the other cvg categories, and putting the template on the talk pages that were missing one. Even then, by the end of January, we had knocked it down to 300 or so. Soon after, Jacoplane added 1800+ articles, and we've been whittling it down since then. We're at 1300ish now, so a few more weeks to a month, I think, unless someone finds a lot more that are untagged. --PresN 07:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've been holding off from adding more articles. When we finish this bunch I'll see if I can find more that need to be done. I think most large categories have been covered now though. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-23 23:32

[edit] Assessment: Comments

I've been continuing with my assessments today, and I wonder how many of the other assessers write comments/suggestions on every article they assess. Personally I try to comment on every Mid importance+ article, or every article with a recent (new comments this week) talk page. --User:Krator (t c) 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I was just looking at it... [2]. 8300 edits, 4300 of which are talk pages. Of those, probably 3000ish are assessing articles. I don't bother adding comments, which is why I try to make extensive comments on article requests here. It's also why, even though I keep track of it, I find edit counts to be generally worthless. --PresN 07:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment Archive

Could we use Werdnabot for the archiving? --User:Krator (t c) 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could, though I don't know how, but I don't think that it matters very much, at our current rate of assessments. Especially the way I set it up, where every time you assess an article you archive the oldest assessment. --PresN 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to monthly archiving just now. I think it's not a good idea to have to edit two articles each time something is assessed. --User:Krator (t c) 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-class

I think we should use the A-class system to its fullest potential. According to the guidelines, it only takes three endorses, and the review process is not as involving as FAC, so it won't be extremely difficult to gather a core group. It is important to use A-class to its greatest potential, because Wikipedia:Featured topics is getting fairly strict about limiting GAs across the topics. A-class provides a place for those articles that can be improved beyond GA, but will be difficult to (or cannot be) elevated to FA status. It also seems that A-class is more reliable than the GA system. I can understand a potental lack of personnel, but I know I'd be interested in helping out, and I know Krator, Jacoplane, and PresN are active on this page as well. It should not be too difficult to ignite as least minor interest.

For the time being, I assume it's being handled more informally? — Deckiller 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My own ideas on the A-class are that the current procedure as outlined on this page is too much effort. If someone's willing to go through all the hassle of creating a subpage and doing all the template stuff, with an article that already meets a large portion of the FA criteria, just submitting for FA is a much more logical step.

That's why A-class has to be much more like the other assessment things - basically, someone asks for it, an editor says yes or no, and that's it. The difference between A-class and the others should be, that A-class requires two assessments agreeing on the rating, instead of just one.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. The articles I was/am considering are Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy XII. Both are fairly close to FA status, although it might take another several weeks. — Deckiller 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment Request Rating

Is the rating/importance listed for each item supposed to be it's current rating, or the requested rating? Kolano 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• New Requests: current rating. (add new requests in this section)
• Archived requests: what it was rated as. (don't edit this section unless you assessed something yourself)

Don't request a rating, the editor who will assess your article will decide upon that.

--User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-class proposal

I'm not sure how many people are watching this, so I hope this doesn't go without any response.

My idea is to scrap the difficult inactive A-class thing with templates and subpages etc.- maybe a single template function would be handy, but not needed. The idea is just like the current assessment procedure, except that it requires two assessments, instead of one. To achieve this, a section for "A-class Second Assessments" should be made on this page, where the editor who made the first assessment puts the article after assessing an article as A-class. Any other editor can assess the article from that list again, just like it is currently done, and the article is promoted if both agree.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Donations?

--User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werdnabot

Werdnabot is currently disabled, and as such is not archiving the completed assessments for the month of March. I can manually move this list into the Archive, but am unsure if it will cause any problems. Digiwrld1 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There never was a bot - Werdnabot has never been told to archive this page - for the simple reason that Assessment has only been really active for a month or two. Archived. --User:Krator (t c) 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I had assumed (from the earlier discussion on this talk page) that a bot had been implemented. I'll keep that in mind form now on, my apologies.Digiwrld1 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)