Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|||
| Archives | |||
|
|||
| About archives |
Contents |
[edit] Reassessment
It takes forever to get something reassessed because nobody really checks the reassessment page. Would anybody object to doing away with it? As a replacement we could just remove the old rating when you want it reassessed, so that it shows up with other unassessed articles.—Scott5114↗ 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is now a separate talk page parameter for reassessment. See {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}}. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List-Class and importance
For those who haven't noticed, the assessment bot now counts the number of List-Class articles. This is not an issue - the issue is that the bot (and probably WP:1.0 by extension) assumes that List-Class articles have an importance tacked to them as well. Since (IMO) List-Class was partially implemented to circumvent this issue, that poses a bit of a, well, issue. A couple approaches could be taken: we could (1) ignore it and run with the status quo or (2) implement importance using a system totally distinct from the one for articles. Which one is best? I believe #2 is for the sake of cleanliness on the table; what everyone else thinks, I dunno. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since it appears that no one has an opinion on the issue, I'll enable importance on List-Class. For the scale, we could probably just use the article system "plus one" - lists of state highways would be high-imp., lists of national systems would be top-imp., etc. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] State level assessment
Where is stats for assessment located for individual states? --Son 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:USRD/A/S - note that the table may be out of date at times (depending on how often it's updated by parsing the cats) and that states without their own categories will have no statistics. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Assessing one's own articles?
I have operated under the assumption that assessing (or re-assessing) an article where one has been a contributor would be a Conflict of Interest. Is this correct? or is this considered not a sufficiently formal process to be a concern? Either way the project page should state the policy, IMO. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's discouraged, but we're not going to bite your head off for doing it if you upgrade it properly. Best practice is to have someone else reassess it - you can get it done in minutes if IRC's got people in it by saying the magic words "reassessment bell" there and providing a link to the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue with it since the highest you can rate something on your own is "B-Class," anything higher has to go through a review process. As far as rating something a stub, start or B-class. If it is extremely short, maybe only a paragraph or so, mark it as a stub. If it has a history and route description section (at least a paragraph each) and a complete junction/exit list, mark as a B-class, anything in between should be a start-class. Personally I see rating up to a B-class as being based on completeness more than anything. --Holderca1 talk 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, For the record, I've got about 7 or 8 articles that I've expanded and tagged for re-assessment. The all were stubs, now either start or B. For now I'd prefer someone else rank them, I'm still a newbie to the process. Software conflicts are preventing me from using IRC right now. It's on my get around to it list.Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ohio SR 732
I think that Ohio Route 732 is far more than a stub. It describes the major intersections and sites of interest served by this road. It is also illustrated with several more pictures on the way. A cursory look at Google Earth shows the information to be correct and descriptive. Marqqq (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Marqqq
- For anyone interested, see Talk:Ohio State Route 732/Comments. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] North Carolina Highway 42 & North Carolina Highway 98
I assume this is where I should list these articles. I just tagged them with the appropriate projects. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can list them here if you want, but as long as they've been tagged with the USRD project banner, someone who frequents the unassessed categories will assess them within a few days. Unlike some of the larger projects, there is no assessment backlog that I know of at USRD (at least not since assessment was first launched). – TMF 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
