Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments

message: The past few days I have been going through every article in :Category: Unassessed-Class Christian music articles, and have assessed every article which was unassessed. I did not add an importance tag to every article, as on some articles I really had no idea of their importance. However, there are currently no articles which belong in the unassessed category. Unfortunately, because of some odd issues with the banner (see Template talk:Christianmusic), articles which are classed as NA are still showing up in the category. -- PEPSI2786talk 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Assessment 

message: * Develop a standard for article assessments within the WikiProject (i.e. what makes a "GA-Class" article? what makes a "B-Class" article?). 
Well, other than the examples we already have on the Assessment page; (i.e. Coffee table book is an example of a stub, Real analysis is an example of a Start, etc), my basic way of checking the class of an article is pretty simple. If it's really short, and really rough, it's a stub. If some effort has been put into it, but it doesn't at all resemble a good article yet, it's a start. If it looks pretty good, and I'd maybe consider putting it up for a GA Nomination, it's B class. 
I don't think we should make any article better than B class without going through a formal review process. I'd hate to see us inflating our articles ratings because of pride. -- PEPSI2786talk 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that we should have people outside the project review any article up for classification above B. My problem is that as I was tagging the former Gospel music and Southern Gospel Wikiproject articles I found various stages of development. If they were more than a few lines of text I marked them as start. But some had more detail (discography, awards, history, etc), but not enough in my opinion to be a B. But it was only my opinion. I didn't really have anything else to evaluate them on. I'd like to have something I could point another editor to to justify why I gave a certain rating. I know a "template format" may lead to heated discussions and/or edit wars on articles, but I think we should have some basic measurement standard that people can follow. I'll look at the other music related WikiProjects over the weekend and bring back some suggestions for the Project members to review. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard for article assessments 

message: In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments#Requesting an assessment section, regarding requests for article assessment, there is an invitation to "please feel free to list it below. But immediately below (Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments#Assessment log) there is a warning not to add entries due to the section being handled by a WP:BOT. Should the text about manual requests go, or should this be clarified somehow to be distinct from the Assessment log? Dl2000 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the list is there but no entries have been added. Do you have a suggested article? Absolon S. Kent (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve Bell (musician) is a suggestion. Also was looking into Steve Scott (poet), who hadn't been tagged, but is currently facing AfD (not sure if that article should be evaluated unless/until that AfD clears). Dl2000 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, looks like the concept is now clear, thx. Have added a request. Dl2000 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Review completed on 31 January 2008. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction about requesting assessment?