Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment

message: What if the bot removed the stub rating from my article? Should I remove the tag myself? Or will it be officially removed? Thanks. --207.10.93.113 14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused about what you're asking. Are you talking about Naval heraldry? Looking at the history, it appears that you (or at least someone using the same IP address) accidentally removed the  banner from the talk page (see this diff) then put it back, but without the class=stub parameter (see this diff), which is what removed the stub-class rating. By the way, we're not using a bot to do the assessment for this project; it is done manually (although Mathbot does count up the number of assessed articles every night). I've reassessed the article as Start-class for the time being. --Dr pda 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. By the way, I removed the stub only after an entry appeared in the log  stating that the stub-class rating had been removed. If you look at the log, you will see an entry for this under OCt. 16, before I made the change. I tried to find another entry for an article which had undergone the same action to see how it works, but it seems that article was the only one listed that way in the log. thanks.--Sm8900 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I see what you're talking about now. This happens when an article has been renamed/moved. If you look closely at the log for Oct 16 you see that the first entry says US Navy Ship Seals (the old name, now only a redirect page) has been removed, but if you look further down the list for the same day you will see that the article Naval heraldry (the new name) was added. The rating was not removed from the article. (P.S. Looking at the history for the Naval heraldry article I notice that you have made a large number of small edits in rapid succession. You might like to try using the Show preview button to see the effect of the changes you have made before saving the page. This avoids cluttering up the page history, and makes it easier for other editors to see what has changed between different versions of the article.) --Dr pda 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re bots, ratings

message: Well now all the articles in :Category:Flag stubs should be assessed. Only a few (ca4-5) of them were assessed as start in stead of stub. Is anybody working on :Category:Heraldry stubs? Inge 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working alphabetically through :Category:Unassessed heraldry and vexillology articles, skipping any articles I couldn't assess quickly. I'm in the C's at the moment (boy, are there a lot of Polish coat of arms stubs!). It would be nice if some of the many people who expressed an interest in the project could help out with assessments. Dr pda 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will also have to go through all the heraldry stubs as there are no doubt some that don't have the WP:HV tag at all. Inge 10:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done all the articles in :Category:Heraldry stubs except the Coats of arms. Since you Dr pda have done the C's in :Category:Unassessed heraldry and vexillology articles maybe you could take a look at the few not listed there? Inge 20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing stubs 

message: An editor classed an article as C-class. This brought up the question - do we even use C-class? MILHIST does not, so it's not obvious to me that we use C-class, or should. My interpretation on the article ratings roughly has:
* FA = has passed FA or FL (possibly FP or FPO).
* A = is complete and well-referenced in its H&V content, but may be lacking in its non-H&V treatment of the topic (esp. biographies)
** A-class articles primarily about H&V should have passed GA or be capable of passing with little more research; may need some prose or style work
* GA = article has passed GA
* B = article's H&V content is fairly well developed and referenced, but not complete
* Start = article's H&V content has few or no references and still needs substantial work to be complete
* Stub = has stub template, or has extremely little of the H&V content it would have at A-class
I'm not sure C-class is particularly helpful. Gimmetrow 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems quite reasonable to me. I would support precluding a C class. It seems to me that any article that falls short of B should be considered Start. Admittedly, I'm relatively new to classifying articles, but I'm not so sure we need a C class. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another option is to work out some B-class criteria. If there were three criteria for B (say: well developed, referenced, focused), then start-class would be distinguished from start+1met and start+2met without the need for a C-class. Gimmetrow 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) The above class descriptions seem a good rule of thumb to me, though I notice that  has changed since the last time I looked at it; in particular there are now six criteria for B-class. I hadn't considered the idea of restricting the WP:HV rating only to the H&V content. However I think there is the expectation that all assessments of an article will be the same, (see eg this), so I don't know if would be tenable to, for example, assess a H&V-related biography with sketchy H&V coverage but otherwise B-class as a stub; I think you'd get editors coming along and "correcting" the assessment to B-class, on the grounds that the article is no longer a stub. Regarding the use of C-class, well, from a pragmatic perspective I don't know whether there's any point in a finer parsing of article quality; nothing has really been done with the rating information since all the articles within the scope of the project were assessed in October 2006. (In fact the WikiProject, as a project, hasn't really done much since then :) ) I've occasionally considered suggesting an "article improvement month" where everyone takes one article and tries to bump it up a class or two, but I never really have the time. And regarding Featured lists, I think some of them have been reassessed into List-class rather than FA-class. It looks like WP1.0 now supports an FL-class, so that may be more suitable to use. Dr pda (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not uncommon to see different projects rate the same article differently. Although the overall prose of an article is relevant, projects do view content differently. While marking an article a stub for H&V when it's a B otherwise is probably extreme, I could imagine an otherwise B-class article with Start-class H&V content. Given the coarseness of the rating system, probably not a big deal. In the abstract, I think it might be good to have some broad criteria for B-class (above I mention well-developed, referenced, focused), but a detailed re-assessment drive is probably not the best use of volunteer resources at this time. Regarding FL, yes V1.0 supports it, but WPHV has only a handful of featured lists. It's pretty easy to identify them in the "FA-Class" category so I didn't see a big need to have a separate FL-Class category at this time. "List" class should only be used for lists that are not featured lists. Gimmetrow 10:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think introducing a C-class is appropriate because I personally think that many H&V pages fit within the category; the maximum grade is not a B because of the limited scope of the article, but too high for start-class. Take English heraldry for example: although I rated it C in the mistaken belief there was a C class, I still think that Start doesn't cover it and neither does B. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, on a connected issue, your definition here of B-class is slightly lower than my interpretation. Where you'd say:B = article's H&V content is fairly well developed and referenced, but not complete
I'd say: B = article's content covers scope with satisfactory depth, but does not contain enough information for someone looking into the subject. It's subjective, so I'm thinking that without a C-class it's best to have a slightly lower B and higher Start. You see, I'd rate English heraldry as a high C, but I'm thinking it might be a B on your scale - is this fair? I just need to slightly re-evaluate and re-calibrate my internal ratings, that's all. Your thoughts? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  English heraldry is B in my view; it has development and a fair number of citations, but needs more work for GA or A. Gimmetrow 01:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added C class now, since most people seem to want it. Arms Jones (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this project understand article ratings? 

message: Are we using a template class for assessing templates? I ask because there are a lot of heraldry and vexillology related templates listed at Unassessed H/V articles. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing templates 

message: I've recently expanded Flag of Benin and Flag of Senegal for DYK.  The prose in these articles is not long at all; both of them are <3000 characters.  I'm unsure of which assessment category to place them in since C-class isn't utilized on this project.  The amount of references in them means they are definitely not start, but I feel they're not comprehensive enough to merit a B-class.  Could a project member please take a look and perhaps give a reassessment of these two?  Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of 2 newly expanded articles 

message: I deemed Coat of arms of Namibia to be C class on quality, but when I saved the page it turned otut as B class, so I felt I had to change it to start class. Arms Jones (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a C class now. Arms Jones (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come there's no C class in this project? 

message: Hey there thanks for taking this article Flags of the British Empire under your wings as the page needs a lot of attention. I personally believe having a page where as many of the former colonial flags of the British Empire are in one place will be a real addiction to the Wikipedia site. The page has some of the former colonial flags that were used but also there are many others out there that are not featured and I believe though your help we can change that, I have left some recommendations on the article in question which I hope you will find most interesting. {{90.197.194.14 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags of the British Empire 

message: Many other Wikipedia projects do not only have a quality assessment but also an importance assessment. Shouldn't we have that in the heraldry and vexillology project too? Arms Jones (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating of importance 

message: Hi, this project seems fairly inactive, is anyone still around? I am after some advise and a review of an article I am trying to expand. Thanks Paul  Bradbury 22:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone here?