Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Jumpaclass

message: Hmm... well I started doing some copyediting on this and adding ISBN's then updated the class to B before reading the the Jumpaclass page.  Maybe I should've done it the other way around! Aleta 02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you do it furing 2007? Cos I imagine we can rate it retroactively. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was earlier today.  (And then more later on as well.)  Cheers! Aleta 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Though get someone else next time to rate it. we don't want accusations of corruption :) Badbilltucker is usually willing to help out with assessing if you need him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[LGBT history]]

message: What's the difference between the two sections "January" and "Jumped"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally arranged January by date but not enough people were signing up, so I swtched it to the month. It's where you listed currents "jumps" you're working on, then, after people have checked it and awarded you the points, it gets moved to "Jumped". We can rename it in February. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January vs. Jumped 

message: When someone gets a chance, Nicola Griffith needs a review to see how much I jumped it.  I think I've only managed to jump from stub to start, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so. For a B, I would expect more detail and references. But congratulations! I'll add you to the board. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review needed 

message: I'm not sure how to class San Francisco 2004 same-sex weddings - it's three days overdue, however, so does anyone want to take a look? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with a weak Start, but it still needs cleanup (wikilinks and citations, to name two issues). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that as well. I will go upgrade it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[San_Francisco_2004_same-sex_weddings]] 

message: Well, it's been seven days. Would someone please assess the Feb 19 articles? Thank you. :) — Emiellaiendiay 05:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready

message: FYI, sadly, my DSL modem died so I had only 5 days to work on San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus. Wish I could have done more! MusicMen 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only 5-days

message: Can new articles, rated higher than Stub initially, count as part of Jump-a-Class? I started one yesterday, which has been rated Start, and I started one in February that was rated B-class. Both were rated within a week of instigation. MusicMen 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but starting with B articles is  pain because you have to get it up to GA, which is quite difficult. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, so what should I do next? If they've already been rated, can I submit them to JAC retroactively? MusicMen 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, were they stubs to begin with? Because yeah, we'll rate stuff retroactively. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they weren't stubs. That's what I was asking. If one initiates an article, and it is then rated within a week, does that count as "jumped", i.e. from zero to Start or B-Class? MusicMen 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that we would grade them as we would stubs, tbh. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Great! So, what should I do to submit them for consideration (retroactively)? Sorry if I'm being dense. MusicMen 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me what the actual articles are! I'll take care of it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your help. The articles are: Melbourne Gay and Lesbian Chorus and San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus. NB, the latter is currently under consideration for JAC, although not from Stub. MusicMen 15:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus was launched Feb. 5 and rated B-class on Feb. 21. Melbourne Gay and Lesbian Chorus was launched Mar. 18 and rated Start on Mar. 19. MusicMen 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles? 

message: I noticed that San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus has been removed from the March list (originally posted for JAC consideration on March 8). If the article's not getting upgraded, will someone provide feedback or suggestions? Thanks. MusicMen 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly can I do with it? It's a B, you have to submit it for GA status, wich you didn't, and I can't leave it up forever. If you want feedback, submit it to our peer review. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had submitted for GA status, per the exchange with SatyrTN on my talk page back on March 21 (see:   Jump-a-class discussion). I guess I misunderstood. Sorry for the inconvenience. I will submit it to peer review per your suggestion. I would, however, appreciate retroactive considerations per our exchange undering the heading New articles?. Thanks for your patience, and sorry for my state of confusion. I’m new to this :-) MusicMen 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, all done! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrade status? 

message: Due to the huge backlog of stories to be reviewed for GA, so we think that taking articles from B to GA should be rethought under the one week timeframe here?? I had a B class article listed for GA status review for over three weeks until someone prodded someone to specifically look at it to do the GA review. In order to get more LGBT articles to the top of the class system, we may want to rethink the time limits on the upper level reviews... just a thought I had... jtowns 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, we generally do. I've always sort of been under the idea that I get to edit it for seven days, and then I have to wait to know if it made GA. Possibly a solution to this waiting period though, is putting together a list of editors willing to review GAs immediately, instead of tapping WJB every time? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  B to GA Jumps 

message: Is there arny reason why the Gateways Club didn't jump for March?
Also the tally at the end of the Jump a class section doesn't seem to be being updated?
Fluffball70 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... I'm not sure. I've updated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  March Jumps 

message: I really am not sure how to improve the article further. I've used the current issue to supplement some other articles (for references), but as for this specific page, no clue...(Well maybe a picture could be taken, as long as it doesn't breach any copyright law.)Zigzig20s 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try peer reviewing it or looking at similar FAs for inspiration. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Têtu]] 

message: I was looking at the fact that the points reset at the end of the year and wondering if perhaps we should instead aim to have it as a rolling 12 months, so points expire at 12 months instead of dying at the end of the calendar year. The winner at the end of each month would then choose the collaboration subject for the next month. We'd also want to keep an honour roll of monthly winners.
After all, we don't want people to stop in about October and wait until January so that their points won't expire within a couple of months... :) --AliceJMarkham 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just come across all of this - newbie and all of that - I'd agree that a rolling 12 months would be a good idea. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know, there's no risk of any of us stopping writing because we want to pick the collaboration, but we can certainly consider it. Bring it up at WT:LGBT for wider discussion (and it might encourage people to enter, too!). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling 12 months? 

message: Suppose you decide that a new article is needed / worth adding, and you decide to create it.  You could (I suppose) create a tiny article, get it rated as stub, then work on it to gain points.  So, can you just create it and work it up in a week (nominating that you are doing so in advance) and then collect points?  I realise the idea is to work on existing articles, but wouldn't this be a worthwhile extension?  Thoughts? Jay*Jay (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the same question ages ago. I think that the answer was that it would effectively be treated as starting as a stub. I don't know, because the articles that I worked on last year, including the created-from-scratch cleavage enhancement never got reviewed and scored. :( I think that the wheels fell off Jumpaclass in about July last year. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh, so far as I know, I did grade that. It just took quite a while to get round to it. Did the points not show up in your tally? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if you create an article from scratch?