Wikipedia talk:Content assessment

This page is for discussing the Content assessment page. Reviews of pages should be in the relevant WikiProject, the article talk page, or in the assessment page

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:ASSESS

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 60 days

Council

This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil articles

Article quality research (inactive)

This article is within the scope of the article quality research project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Article quality researchWikipedia:WikiProject Article quality researchTemplate:Quality assessmentArticle quality research articles

Sugarhill Ddot -2024

Pls can someone help in assessing the article Sugarhill Ddot? Thank You. 2RDD (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stub 48JCL (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 158.62.88.23 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects with unneeded importance parameters

A redirect page needn't have an importance parameter, but many do. For example, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/New Zealand has 2,190 such redirects. Is there an automated tool that can remove importance parameters from all redirect pages for an individual project? Or is there another way to tidy this up, say by programmatically collating them in the NA column without the work of removing the importance parameter? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we could automatically rate these as NA and ignore the specified importance (as long as there was consensus for this). Then there would be no need to remove them all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

beged-kefet rating?

The article on the Hebrew concept of Begadkefat seems to fulfil everything required of a B-Class article, except that it's quite short. It seems to be comprehensive within the topic, but I'm not sure if I can put it as B-Class yet. Thoughts? Robynfeather (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs more references in my opinion Protegmatic (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reclassifying an article?

I wrote the article Great Fires of 1871 and it was originally rated as start class, I have now fixed all the Citation needed and Better source needed requests, can it get a better rating because of this? Bradinator33 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Normally you make a request to one of the relevant projects. In the case of WikiProject Military history this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. I have re-rated the article as B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A short article may be appropriate

I get the impression that, in practice, this rating system is biased towards simply measuring the length of an article and making an assessment based on that. Some subjects can be dealt with quite concisely – which is surely what we are trying to achieve with an encyclopaedia article. Quite simply, there may be nothing more that really needs to be added, but we have a complete article that is assessed as "C" or "stub" because it is not very long.

Articles that appear to me to have been mis-rated based on their length include Alfred Holt, Ariel (clipper), Far Eastern Freight Conference, Windermere Jetty: Museum of Boats, Steam and Stories, etc. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point and thanks for bringing it up. While the official guidelines do not contain any requirements on length, it is likely that some editors (and even some automated tools) may be using length as a metric to measure quality. Please feel free to update the assessment on any article that you think is mis-classified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]