Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maryland/Assessment

message: it appears there are articles waiting for assessments for over a year now. If this process is no longer active, I propose removing of the template from talk pages. It makes articles that are stuck in limbo with a low class but have been heavily edited and expecting a reassessment look poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopenstein (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This process is again active. I have just completed all pending article assessment requests to date. ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 09:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Assessments 

message: Today I happened to come across Maryland articles by quality and importance. I saw that a large number of high-importance articles are rated as stub articles. Out of the 711 assessed high-importance articles, 418 are rated as stub. It surprised me that 58.8% of articles deemed to be high-importance were given such a low rating. I then went to the list of those high-importance, stub-rated articles and saw that a large majority of these stub articles were assessed more than a decade ago. It became pretty clear to me that some of these articles now deserve a higher rating than merely stub.
I clicked on the first 100 articles listed, from Abell to Dickerson, to gauge the extent of improvements made to these articles over the last decade since they were assessed. Of these 100 articles, I counted 24 that can be readily upgraded from stub class. They all include significantly more information than when they were originally assessed. They include at least 2 of the following: references, organized sections, pictures, and an infobox template. Few of the articles had any of these features at the time of assessment.
Here are those 24 articles listed. I hope that by listing them here, they can be re-assessed in the near future. If most or all of these articles can earn a rating above stub, then it's quite possible the number of stub-rated high-importance Maryland articles can be knocked down by 100 or more.
Article                             	Date quality was assessed	Article                 	Date quality was assessed
Anne Arundel Community College      	2008-03-12               	Cheltenham, Maryland    	2009-01-29
Beallsville, Maryland               	2009-01-31               	Chesapeake College      	2008-03-21
Benedict, Maryland                  	2007-10-28               	Chesapeake Ranch Estates	2007-10-28
Bristol, Maryland                   	2009-01-31               	Childs, Maryland        	2009-03-01
Brooklyn, Baltimore                 	2008-02-23               	Clarksville, Maryland   	2007-10-28
Broomes Island, Maryland            	2007-10-28               	Conowingo, Maryland     	2007-10-28
Bryantown, Maryland                 	2009-01-31               	Corriganville, Maryland 	2007-10-28
Buckeystown, Maryland               	2011-04-24               	Cresaptown, Maryland    	2007-10-28
Cardiff, Maryland                   	2008-02-28               	Curtis Bay, Baltimore   	2008-02-24
Carpenter Point, Maryland           	2009-03-01               	Darlington, Maryland    	2008-03-01
Carrollton Ridge, Baltimore         	2009-02-28               	Dayton, Maryland        	2007-10-28
Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore	2009-06-20               	Dickerson, Maryland     	2007-10-28
Thanks for your attention. I can go on to scan through the remaining 318 articles on the list if this proves valuable.
DAK4Blizzard (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past time to re-assess stub-rated high-importance Maryland articles 

message: Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments