Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hagiography?

"Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of hagiography." It looks like the importance scale and examples were taken from something to do with Christian saints, and cut/pasted here without modification. Clearly it needs to be tailored to something more appropriate. --MCB 20:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-member ratings

Hi project, Several tagged pages popped up on my watchlist, and I rated them.

I am not a member of the project, but I am well acquainted with the articles. I hope this is OK, if you don't want me to continue rating, drop me a line on my talk page. jugander (t) 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I also left the following message on User:Jugander's talk page:
Although most of the information that I've read on article assessment suggests that it is the WikiProject members that are supposed to do the assessments, here is my (very unofficial) opinion: There are millions of articles in the English-language Wikipedia that need assessments. If just the WikiProject members do the assessments IT WILL NEVER GET DONE! Anyone doing good faith assessments should be applauded for helping.
<sound of clapping>
Thank you for helping out. BlankVerse 11:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance scale

Will all endangered plants in California be given at least a "High" on the importance scale? Why? KP Botany 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for them to all be "High". To be clear, are you suggesting that they should be "High", or not? (it looks like "not") I've noticed a few California assessments of "High" or "Top" simply because something is "endangered" and downgraded them to "Mid" because they didn't seem that significant to California as a subject. Mike Dillon
User:Anlace has been creating them, all as "High". I've been wondering about it too... see Talk:Acanthomintha duttonii, Talk:Lasthenia conjugens, Talk:Cirsium fontinale, Talk:Adenostoma fasciculatum (not anlace-created, but -rated), Talk:Quercus chrysolepis... (personally, Puma doesn't sound like it is "is notable in a significant and important way within the field of California, but not necessarily outside it." either... It's definitely more of a low-importance to me.). I tend to see a lot of over representation of high-importance article: is Ahwahnee Hotel really that relevant? Circeus 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a lot of this stems from assessments given without any comments. I myself am guilty of this as well. It may be that WP:California needs to adopt a convention for where assessment comments should be placed and remove assessment that have not been explained. Other projects use a "/Assessments" or "/Comments" subpage of the talk page for this purpose; User:BlankVerse and I have discussed this recently at User talk:Mike Dillon/WikiProject banner#Template:WikiProject California.
I hope that the discussion taking place here can be a solid first step toward creating some consistency for the California WikiProject assessments. Mike Dillon 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe being clearer on assessment would help. I still don't think rare and endangered plants that happens to be found only in California should be given the High rating if they are not somewhat politically or economically iconic.Circeus 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the reason I am questioning it, is that I was looking at the list of Flora of California plants and noticing that among those which are rare and/or endangered which have articles and are rated, some of these species are of significantly greater interest than others. I would like to have some methodology, a list of hundreds of high importance California edaphic endemics, for example, what purpose does this serve for the Wikipedia Project California? Yes, I would like to create some consistency. Is every endangered California endemic a High Importance California article? Many are, if they are in the news, Baker's Larkspur, in lawsuits, recently redisocevered. But, imo, it should be more than just "listed." Pumas aren't even called pumas, generally, in California, but they are a high news value endangered species, so probably should be Top Importance for inside and outside of California. KP Botany 03:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, I've invited User:Anlace, User:Scoutersig, and User:hike395 to this discussion and left a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California to try to get the broadest input possible without canvassing uninterested editors. Like I said, I'd love to see this discussion develop into a workable strategy for dealing with WP:CAL assessments. Mike Dillon 06:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is a more fundamental question to be asked: what is a reasonable outcome of high priority wiki california articles. Presently they are running about 15 percent of the total. If that percentage is unreasonably elevated, then we should be harsher on all articles receiving the "high" category. Now as to plants, there is certainly more to achieving a "high" rating than merely being endangered. Here are some of the other criteria i have considered (and i am adding these to article review notes):
  • Does the plant have an extremely narrow range?
  • Does the plant have known controversy with land development? eg in the media or actually being assessed in determining the outcome of development proposals
  • Does the plant have a pronounced rate of population decline in the 20th century making it a candidate for extinction within the next ten to 20 yrs?
  • Is the plant commonly discussed by entities such as CNPS and/or used in development approval criteria by public agencies?
  • Is the plant the subject of recent intense restoration efforts or genetic studies? Anlace 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the importance scale really has two purposes. One is to help those involved in a particular WikiProject to see which articles need the most attention. If an article is rated as Top or High importance, but is still a Stub or Start class article, it is an article that should be given more attention, and possibly should be a WikiProject Collaboration to help improve it.

The other purpose is to help identify those articles that should be considered for the various WP 0.5, WP 0.7 and eventually WP 1.0 CD release versions.

When we rate the importance of an article, we should keep both of those purposes in mind. That means that for even highly endangered organisms, if they don't have a economic, ecological, or scientific importance, they probably should only be rated at Mid or even Low importance (e.g. Palos Verdes Blue). BlankVerse 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For more info, see:
One starting point: Most of the articles in List of California-related topics should be of at least Mid importance. For other articles, we'll have to use other criteria. The Top 20 largest cities in California probably should be rated High, with every county seat and the 20 largest cities in any major county rated at least Mid. I'd rate only LA, San Francisco, and Sacramento as Top. BlankVerse 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I had not considered this, does it belong in these WikiReleases? Most of these California narrow endemics, no, as they're not of interest outside of California, although some are.
As to Anlace's criteria, are their California endangered plants and endemics that won't meet these criteria? I don't think so. I think most everything on the CNPS top list meet these criteria, so the question, imo, bounces back to, is this enough to include it on released versions of Wikipedia. I don't think so, unless the plant is involved in some sort of research that impacts or interests the restoration ecology or scientific community outside of California. KP Botany 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a few endangered species that have larger importance. For example, the California Gnatcatcher that has held up development and been involved in the national debate over US environmental protection policies (and specifically, the Endangered Species Act). I would say that the article on that species should be rated at least at Mid importance, but I personally wouldn't rate it of High importance.
The other thing is that for some topics, the article might receive a higher rating from one WikiProject than from another. The Sandy Koufax article should probably be rated High for the Baseball WikiProject, and probably low for the Southern California WikiProject. BlankVerse 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
So, there's quite a difference in agreement, because Anlace has rated plants with much less interest thn the California gnatcather, significantly less state, much less national recognition, no national debate, and which have not held up development as "High." So maybe we ought to get some specific guidelines on ratings, as per User Dillon's comment? KP Botany 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with BlankVerse's statement of how the scale should go; I do like (overall) what Anlace said when we were talking on her page:
i havent seen anyone try to quantify the desired outcome distribution,
but i think it should go something like: top-2 percent; high-10 percent;
mid-30 percent; low-remainder. i think this outcome distribution really 
should be the focus of discussion. also i invite others to do more 
rating. it's rather a thankless but important task. cheers.
The majority of actual articles should be "Mid"-leveled because they simply support the project; "Low" articles are either stubs that will forever stay that way or an article on something that only kinda related to California. An example of a "Low" would be Bixby Creek Arch Bridge and a "Mid" would be North Pacific Gyre. The first is a short article, and will probably remain short due to limits on how much you can possibly write about a single bridge; the second deals with California in a loose way. "High" is notable especially to California, but not generally outside it, such as California Current. (Note that my examples for Mid and High are related; the Mid topic is much more broad and deals less with California, and therefore is less important to the project itself.) "Top" articles are those that are significant to California and have high visibility to non-Californians (Like Ronald Regan). Note: I have gone and tagged these articles as such myself (they were blank before); don't assume I must right because the pages agree with me). And you know, after all this effort, I just may join the project. Scoutersig 03:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Anlace's percentages are about what I have been shooting for when I do my assessements. I think, however, that the remained (for low), which is 58%, might be too high. I was thinking more like 45-55% Low, 30-35% Mid, 10-15% Top, and 2-5% High.
I definitely do not think that the majority of articles (over 50%) should be rated Mid importance. When you go through and start assessing articles, you'll see that the Wikipedia is filled with minor articles that are on marginally notable bridges, buildings, elementary schools, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Just look at the cities in Los Angeles County, California. There are 78 cities. LA is world-class, there are about a dozen cities over 100,000, there are a modest amount of Mid-level cities, and plenty of cities like Bradbury and Vernon. There are a few cities with lower population sizes that I would rate of high importance like Beverly Hills, California, and Compton, California, but otherwise, population is as good an indicator of importance as any other metric. BlankVerse 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
looks like we are converging. but dont u mean 10-15 high and 2-5 top?? regards. Anlace 18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoops! That's what I meant. BlankVerse 12:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me try again... You're right; there are many, many articles on practically tiny subjects. My point was that cities like Vernon, California are probably "Low," the majority of articles that could be "Low" would be stubs (and therefore, in my skewered opinion, not really an article) or only marginally related to California. So... Yes, there will be lots (and lots) of articles labeled "Low." Scoutersig 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem that I was afraid of seeing with the article assessments was the assessment equivalent of grade inflation. To get an idea of how things are going, here are the percentages for articles that have been assessed:

SoCal Calif
Top 3% 2%
High 6% 14%
Mid 24% 28%
Low 65% 55%

Although I have seen a few assessments that have been higher than I would have rated an article, it looks like on average that the assessments are not too far off the 'goals' that both I and Anlace suggested. BlankVerse 12:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessments

I looked at the articles in the Top and High importance categories and saw that almost all of the bios listed as of Top importance were about members of the Symbionese Liberation Army. I looked at almost all of the bios (and a few articles that linked to them) and made the following changes:

So, now I'm wondering if I was too conservative. I left Reagan and Father Serra in Top--should Muir and Le Conte and the Governator be there too? It also wouldn't surprise me if the SLA changes get reverted (I'm rating that article Mid)--perhaps Mid would be better for them than low. Any feedback?--Hjal 08:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)