Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 1

message: How do Featured lists fit into the assessment criteria?  There is no featured list which is also a featured article, but they all meet the featured list criteria (that is, they have a good lead, are useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised, and have references, etc) so I would say that they all are in Class A.  Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question was also raised here recently.  We don't have a separate template for featured lists in tables, but we use the FA list.  For example the element folks have a couple of "FA" lists, see our listing here, and the isotope people have a couple of "A-Class" lists on the table below that one.  This issue still formally needs to be resolved, but I'm almost certain we'll include plenty of lists in 1.0. We'll update the assessment criteria accordingly, hopefully very soon. Cheers, Walkerma 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: While listing the examples, it would have been more helpful if it was mentioned which version of the article it was referring to. Antarctica has been edited 300 times since it was put up as an example of a 'B grade' article. Tintin (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the example links to specific revisions of that time. Femto 12:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Any chance someone working on this could clarify the difference between a "stub" and a "Stub Class" article, if any?  If they're different, this is a terminological train-wreck, and a likely to cause all manner of confusion down the way;  if they're essentially the same, the relationship between assessing the grade on the one hand, and bog-standard stub-sorting on the other should be clarified.  If an article self-classifies itself in one way, and the associated talk page makes some seemingly-inconsistent grade assessment (and puts it in a category with some similar but distinct-but-overlapping scope), heads are going to be scratched.  Alai 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By most means, a stub, as sorted by WP:WPSS, will be assessed as a stub in our assessment scale. The only difference is that a long article of inadequate quality may not be marked as a stub by the Stub Sorting WikiProject, but it will be marked as a stub by us if it is basically useless. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no maximum length defined by the stub guideline, so that's by no means clear.  Where in any case is the 1.0 definition that makes this explicit?  Given your comment on SFD, I rather anticipated your answer on this, but as I say above, this clearly needs to be clarified one way or another.  Alai 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From this page's companion: "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level [almost identical to the Wikipedia:Stub guideline]. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible [emphasis mine]." Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd read that, I was looking for something a little more...  definitional.  Anyway, points and questions still stand.  Alai 01:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these things differ principally in their purpose.  If your focus is on stub-sorting, you can ignore the assessment categorisation, and vice versa.  I don't see any need for head scratching.  In the few cases where there are differences, most people won't even notice, and those who do may double check to see if "stub" is appropriate, thereby helping both activities.  I expect that by the end of 2006 most Wikipedians will be familiar with this automated assessment system, and many will be using it, because of the great benefits it brings to WikiProjects and WP:1.0. Walkerma 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears this terminology and separate classification is being defended alternatingly on the grounds of being the same, and of being different, and I see nothing to change my original contention that this is as clear as proverbial mud. Given that this is flagged as a "proposed" system, it seems remarkable that the suggestion of renaming or removing a "grade" meets with such entrenched conservativism, and insistence that it'll be imposed on everyone else, especially when it's not even clear what the purpose of said class is, given the similarity in how the bottom two are "actioned" ("major editing" vs. "almost any editing").  If it actually is necessary, and its meaning is simply "useless", and not "stub", why not "useless grade", "placeholder grade", or some other less overloaded synonym?  Alai 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning of the two is similar, but the purpose of them is different.  Walkerma 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stub Class" 

message: How does an article/group of articles get nominated for assessment by the Editorial team?  I have noticed that nearly every article in :Category:Tropical_cyclones has been assessed, but I have been unable to find one article in general meteorology which has a ranking on the assessment scale.  There are several articles I have in mind for assessment—can I nominate them somewhere or does the team go in some type of order?  (posted by User:Runningonbrains)
:Several answers needed here!  
* The cyclone assessments have been done by members of the project themselves, which is of course how it should be. The WP1.0 team members typically don't have the specific expertise needed for good assessments on specialised articles.  Several projects have done similar things, but mostly they have just come up with a handful of decent and/or important articles (still very helpful).
* The cyclones group is unusual in that they are also participating in testing out a "bot", you can see all the results here.
* We have contacted all the WikiProjects that were on an "active list" in October 2005, and meteorology was contacted here in April.   Based on replies we fill out a table such as this table for Meteorology.  Often people are a bit reluctant to assign grades to the articles, so in that case team members do their best to look at easy things like layout, references, etc.  
* We will be re-contacting all the projects over the spring/summer, in order to request lists of key articles, and to encourage use of the bot for tracking assessments.  The bot will make it easier both for the project and for us at WP1.0 to keep track of thousands of articles.
* On the subject nominations, we will be taking nominations very soon at WP:V0.5N, I hope you and others will nominate some of the important meteorology articles!
* If you want to start using the bot straight away, reply here and we'll get you up & running. Thanks for contacting us, Walkerma 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Antarctica is here given as an exapmle of a B-Class article and lists problems with it.  However, it is a Featured Article. I am confused--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now it is featured, but at the time the snapshot included in the template was taken, it was not featured, and had some problems with it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been thinking that maybe we should update our examples to limit such confusion - thankfully all of them have improved since the example was taken!  Thoughts anyone? Walkerma 01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to the specific revision number, not the article name. Simple.Stevage 08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the way it is at the moment.  Tintin (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica 

message: The claim that the editor's experience of featured articles is that "No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light" is simply preposterous, and is one of the main reasons I consider the entire Featured Article concept to be misguided. I have never seen a featured article that couldn't stand to be improved on, whether for style or content. However, any attempt to do so is immediately reverted by the article's "protectors" who actually believe the above statement. The sentence "Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered "complete", although obviously edits will continue to be made" is just as bad — in fact, no article can ever be considered "complete". Science is never finished. There is no area of human endeavor in which all questions have even been asked, let alone answered. Whoever thought it would be a good idea to release a paper and/or CD version of Wikipedia was simply being extremely short-sighted. User:Angr 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor's experience of featured articles 

message: It seems to me that the "stub-class" is actually two classes in one? Shouldn't the short article, and the less than totally usable classes be separate? Say, a C-Class? - just some of my thoughts. 132.205.45.148 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all short articles are useless, though. Short, but useful articles fall under the traditional definition of a stub, though. Titoxd(?!?) 03:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant that not-short articles seem to be classifiable under stub, from the description of what "stub-class" is. Sorry for any confusion in my query. 132.205.95.25 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, they indeed can, if they are useless. Short articles, that can be stubs, can be assessed as a higher-class article if they're more useful. Titoxd(?!?) 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: "Classes lower than this" ... would be? IS there a D-class or an F-class? 132.205.45.148 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's that? Titoxd(?!?) 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. 
:Would not "more material for a complete article" be better.
This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built.
:What a put down, this is not an encouragement to editor's efforts.
::Sorry I see what is being attempted here but there is a disparity in experience between "Criteria" whic is good "stuff" and these other columns. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editor's experience

message: I note the descriptors for FA class:
:Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.
and
:No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light.
Do all FAs qualify for this category, and if so, do these descriptors purport to apply to all FAs? Many, even most FAs require further editing, and are not outstanding" by any stretch of the imagination.
By locial inference, does this mean that an article that is not an FA is necessarily in need of minor edits, as the descriptor for A class says?
Tony
: What it means is that the articles that qualify for the FA class are any and all that went through WP:WIAFA and passed, and as a result, need no major editing unless significant new information comes to light. (Of course any article will need minor edits every now and then.) The current language was adopted from there. If FAs are not outstanding, that's a discussion that should be done at WT:FA, or WP:FAR, as it is more appropriate there.. 
: As for an A-Class article, it is pretty much equivalent to FA-Class, yet it is almost a sure fact that an article that is sent to FAC will receive a few more significant edits as part of the process. The key phrase there is that the article has a passing chance at FAC in its current shape. Titoxd(?!?) 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification 

message: To take the previous matter further, I note that Medal of Honor is displayed as the example of FA-class articles, next to the statement that these articles require:
 "no further editing ... unless new published information has come to light." 
I wonder why, then, a cursory reading of the first few paragraphs of the article revealed the following problems.
*"All branches of the U.S. military are eligible to receive the medal, though each branch has a special design." "Though" in wrong here, since it doesn't contradict the preceding clause.
*"The Congressional Space Medal of Honor is a separate award and not equivalent." Insert "is" before "not"; "equivalent" to what needs to be explicated for ease of reading.
*"Scott did not approve the medal; however, such a medal found support in the Navy." Either "approve of the medal" or  "approve the proposal" is required here, whichever conveys the intended meaning.
*"In the rare cases (19 so far) where a service member has been awarded more than one Medal of Honor, regulations specify that an appropriate award device will be centered on the MOH ribbon and neck medal." The parenthetical phrase would be less intrusive if place after "Honor" (i.e., before the comma). Remove "will".
*Stubby, one-sentence paragraphs, including one in the lead and quite a few further down.
I haven't read the whole article, but these problems suggest that it needs a close copy-edit if it's to continue to be held up as a shining example. I'm listing it for a Featured Article Review to provide an opportunity for this to be done.
A related issue is my slight discomfort that the topic may be construed by some readers, both within and outside the US, as too culturally and/or politically sensitive to serve as an example of the pinnacle of Wikipedia's achievements. 
Tony 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, you know the FAs better than most of us.  Can you suggest a good example? It's easy to change this example, since no one can debate whether or not an FA is an FA.  Thanks, Walkerma 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanssouci is very nicely written, but may be a little image-crowded. What do you think? Tony 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: Looks nice to me, though I may be accused of bias as I hale from Potsdam, New York!  We'll see if anyone here objects, then change it. Thanks, Walkerma 02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just by looking at the references, they're not properly formatted. Any other examples? Titoxd(?!?) 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everyone has their own ideas about how references should be formatted - what do you think is wrong with the reference of Sanssouci?  Presuambly such a small technical matter is easily fixed? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How does Sikhism look to you? I just reviewed it for 0.5, it certainly "felt" like a very nice article to me. The English wasn't absolutely perfect, but was generally a high standard.  It may not be good to have a WP:FAR article as our example. Walkerma 03:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The example chosen of the ideal FA-class article 

message: I note that 'good' articles appear to be those restricted to the 'where','what','when' and 'who' of a subject, expressed in lists of phrases such as one might employ to teach a parrot to recite.  Is this really knowledge? Where is the 'how' and 'why'? I cannot see how any deep understanding, particularly of science, engineering or mathematics could possibly be imparted by such bland articles. Gordon Vigurs 10:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, that's probably a major difference between Good Articles and Featured Articles.  Your comment reminds me of my (history?) teacher's comment {paraphrased): "In O-level we teach you what, but if you want to learn why you have to take A-levels."  I think there's a good reason for it - "What" is easy to pull out of a book and is usually uncontroversial, whereas "Why" will often involve a POV.  Try writing about "Why" the stock market and the federal budget have suffered during George Bush's term and you'll see - but if you list the relevant numbers in the appropriate articles with citations no one will question you!  You really need to raise this on the GA talk page, though - that is where GAs are actually voted on. Walkerma 04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Depth and 'Quality'

message: May editors remove the assessment tag from a page if they don't want the article assessed? What I mean is, if all WP articles receive assessment tags, which certainly seems to be the direction things are going in, but are not then assessed, what is the point?  -Acjelen 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're eventually going to be assessed if there's a WikiProject for them, so it seems somewhat counterproductive to remove the tags.  Much better would simply be to assess the article; most projects are very liberal about having people—even those who don't consider themselves members of the project—helping out with their backlog of unassessed articles. Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, what will that achieve, aside from exterminating every red talk-page link, and bloating the size of the database with another several hundred thousand talk pages with no information content?  Wouldn't it be more sensible to have an "opt-in", where only articles with a meaningful assessment are tagged, on the basis that the remaining vast wadge of stubs are never going to make in into WP1.0 anyway, especially if no human being has ever actually "assessed" them for such?  (I'm assuming for the purpose of this message (though not necessarily otherwise) that 1.0 is an actual product that will actually appear at some point.)  Alai 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opt out 

message: I would like to propose a class for articles that are in between B class and Start class. In my opinion, a C-Class assessment can serve as a borderline between B and Start, since the current ranks go from B and drops off steeply to a Start class. I know that there are six ranks in the assessment table, but before the article can go from B class to GA, it has to go through some kind of nomination process. That means that there are only three classes to put articles without putting it through a week or month-long, headaching process; B class, Start class, then Stub class. And since I think Start and Stub class articles are the lowest ranking articles in Wikipedia, and B class is "okay, almost there (Since it is one level lower than GA)," I think a C class can be created to describe "good, but not quite." An example of a C class article in my opinion is Son Goten, which is currently rated as "start", since it couldn't be rated as "B-Class." Goten's article, in my perspective, is slightly higher than the expectations of a start article (especially when it was "started" in July 2003), but falls a little bit short of the expectations of a B class, therefore assessing it as a C class. But, other than Goten, I believe there are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that are listed in the B class or the Start class that should really be listed in the hypothetical C class. 65.8.35.224 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have had a variety of suggestions in the past, including this one, but the consensus reached has always clearly been the same - the current simpler system works well.  Interestingly in the original proposal to WP:Chem there was a C-Class like you suggest, but then things were switched over to the system we currently use.  In principle, therefore, I wouldn't have minded a C level, but at this point after 70,000 articles have been assessed using the current system, it wouldn't be appropriate.  We haven't seen any strong desire to change from this system. Of course an individual project can adopt their own system, it just couldn't be read separately by the bot.  Thanks, Walkerma 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, the AfD class exists - a lively and contentious category. 24.148.93.88 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify - the A-Class doesn't require GA-status. Girolamo Savonarola 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, since this original discussion took place, the Mathematics WikiProject has started using a B+ assessment level.  This shows up in the bot list just as a B, but on the article talk page it appears as a B+ indicating what we tend to call "a good B".  This seems to be working well - so instead of a C-Class, your project could simply use a B- (going into bot category as B-Class) or even a C (going into bot category as Start-Class).  Walkerma 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-Class 

message: On the table listing grades and the assessment sidebar on some pages there are no links to Good Articles and Featured Articles as there are for A class articles and so forth. It would be nice to see some consistency, I just can't figure out how to edit this table myself.
RichMac 22:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Seems like a really good idea, especially for consistency's sake.  -Runningonbrains 01:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing classification table 

message: Please vote for bug 4288. This would allow you to tag an individual revision of the article. I think that would be helpful to your project. --Gbleem 18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting on bugs isn't the most effective thing to do, as developers seldom pay attention to that. However, stable versions, as well as version tagging, will be implemented soon, as Brion Vibber indicated during Wikimania. Titoxd(?!?) 18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bug 4288 

message: The talk page for Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles has a box that says, "This article has been rated as Future-Class on the assessment scale." There is a reel of film symbol that says 'FF'.
However, I am not able to find any references or explanations for FF, FF-class, or Future-Class either on the main page or the discussion page of the assessment scale. Shouldn't this be fixed?
--Robotech_Master 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a custom class used by WP:FILMS; please discuss the issue with them. Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FF class? 

message: I've noticed that many articles will be covered by more than one wikiproject, and hence may have more than one banner.. and in some cases this will mean more than one assessment given. so the obvious question is whether or not the bot counts these articles once or twice? should i worry about this when tagging my WikiProjects banner (Template:WP Space exploration) to pages that have already been assessed? Mlm42 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the bot has been counting such articles only once for quite some time now; that was something specifically requested when the issue first came up. Kirill Lokshin 13:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the next obvious question is, if there are two differing assessments, which one does it count? Mlm42 14:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IIRC, both, just one for one project, and the other for the second project. If there are differences in assessment, though, projects should discuss it between themselves on a case-by-case basis. Titoxd(?!?) 19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a problem with lots of space being taken up at the start of the talk page with lots of direrent boxes. For example Talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss has 7 boxes on it, and I've seen pages with many more. I've now redone Template:maths rating so it only used two lines, which should save a bit of talk page clutter. --Salix alba (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too bad, I think.  While the tags to eat up a certain amount of space (which isn't all that significant on talk pages that are quite long to begin with, incidentally), the benefits of having them—which go beyond assessment (and, indeed, are primarily not about assessment at all)—generally outweigh the minor inconvenience when multiple ones appear on a page. Kirill Lokshin 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: One solution to this is at Wikipedia:Mini Talkpage Template where a smaller version of the templates is being investigated. You can see its use at Talk:Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace. --Salix alba (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles covered by multiple WikiProjects

message: Am I the only one who doesn't like the new colors? Titoxd(?!?) 19:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're not. I agree that the colors should be changed back (the new color for Start-class is too close to the color for Template-class, for instance). The new ones look too startlingly different. --Coredesat (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Nope, not the only one; they're too neon-ish for my taste. Is there any reason we can't just use a normal six-color spectrum here, though? Kirill Lokshin 19:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, IIRC, we had green and blue on one side of the spectrum, to give the impression that they would be what was acceptable for 1.0, and the other ones were reddish to indicate they're not... Titoxd(?!?) 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The trouble with darker colours is that the contrast between background and text isn't wonderful, which doesn't help acessability. Tompw 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should go back to the original colours as a starting point for discussion.  The only changes I would support would be for GA and A (I prefer the new colors for those two), but I'd also be happy with the way things were.  There were several ideas when the colours were originally set up: (a) The "spectrum" from red to blue representing the spectrum of assessments; (b) The idea of bright red being a warning (STUB WARNING!) and the green of GA was supposed to go with the green icon that is used.  At some point someone made that green more pastel, presumably for the reasons Tompw gives in the post before this one.  So, is there any powerful reason we need to change? Walkerma 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We also need to sonsider what they look like on the standard class="messagebox standard-talk" background which is where they frequently appear so:
Old colours	Stub	Start	B	GA	A	FA
           	    	     	 	  	 	
New colours	Stub	Start	B	GA	A	FA
           	    	     	 	  	 	
Less "neon"	Stub	Start	B	GA	A	FA
           	    	     	 	  	 	
Dulled     	Stub	Start	B	GA	A	FA
           	    	     	 	  	 	
revised    	Stub	Start	B	GA	A	FA
Less Neon and dulled B's don't have much contrast with the background.
Personally I prefer a purpilish FA as it has a more rainbow feal, so I've tweeked new colours and added a more purple FA.
revised	Stub	Start	B	GA	A	FA
--Salix alba (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow... I honestly didn't think it would generate so much discussion. I feel the purple is too dark for good contrast, plus I feel that FA should be a similar colour to A-class. Purple and cyan are too different. By the way, I changed template-class to magenta, which solves the problem of looking like any of the colours above. (Also, I remember the Tropical storm colour thing... I lacked time to contriubute, as the discussion took place over christmas/new year.) Tompw 09:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm not a fan of the purple here because it overlaps with the article 'importance' colour scheme, which are purply colours. i like having both A and FA class as blue. so i'm in favour of the 'new colours'.  Mlm42 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote in favor of the "new colors."  38.100.34.2 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: Could someone please create versions of the images with transparent backgrounds rather than white? Also, why were images added to the other classes? Tompw 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: although i'm not flat out opposed to each class having an image, these ones are no good.. especially the stub big red X symbol! it's not like we're handing in these articles to be marked, this is a work in progress.. teachers don't come around and draw big red X's on your essay after you've been working on it for three minutes! :) Mlm42 14:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The GA and FA templates have an icon attached because (a) those icons are strongly associated with the GA or FA tag and (b) they represent an external "award" rather than a WikiProject assessment.  I think it was an interesting experiment, but with over 130,000 articles now using these templates you're likely to ruffle feathers with any changes - IMHO it's best to discuss first any template changes here (or on the template talk page), and reach consensus before applying changes.  Walkerma 03:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, here. That way, it gets more eyes that can discuss it. Titoxd(?!?) 21:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images on classification templates 

message: I apologize for revisiting the colors issue again, I'm sure everyone was glad that issue had dropped off everyone's radar...  I'd just like to propose that we change from the current sea-foam green to a more neutral green that doesn't conflict so much with talk-template backgrounds such as on ...
Current:
GA
Proposed possibilites:
GA		GA
I can't edit the template myself, and discussion should probably occur first anyway. Thoughts? -- Renesis (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first proposal is better than the second one, although I'm still undecided whether it is better than the current one... Titoxd(?!?) 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The exsisting colour scheme was carefully chosen so that the colours used for the various grades were as disinct as possible (by being equally spaced within the RGB colour space). Therefore, if you wish to propose a new clour for any grade(s), please show *all* the grades/colours togther, rather than one in isolation. Also, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. :-) Tompw (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New GA Green proposal 

message: Please join the discussion, as it pertains to the Assessment project and several issues raised or broached here. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More thoughts on GA standards, citations, and assessment... 

message: Ello.  I would like to set up this assessment machinery for WP:TREK.  Is there an easy howto guide somewhere or does some kind soul mind helping us out with this? Apologies if I am missing something obvious. Morwen - Talk 11:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot, the easiest way to set up a template is to copy an existing one and modify it as necessary. If you get stuck you can ask here or on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. --Salix alba (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternately, just follow the instructions here. :-) Kirill Lokshin 14:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  setting up templates 

message: Currently pages that have "significant gaps or missing elements or references" or need "substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or" contain "other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)" are eligible to be graded as B-Class.  Copyright problems are a serious matter; therefore, I request that articles with copyright problems not be eligible even for B-class.  19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for change to criteria 

message: I've spent some time cleaning up an article previously graded at Stub class, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit into that class now. How do I go about getting it re-assessed so I can see the fruits of my labours? Tbone762 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's under the purview of WP:CVG, you should bring it up in their talk page. Titoxd(?!?) 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-assessment?

message: Can someone confirm that articles should progress from GA to A to FA? (This seems strange considering that GA and FA articles have in my experience so much buzz compared to A Class. I've heard of Wikipedians trying to make an article GA or FA but not A. I've never even heard of A Class until now.) 
--Tiger MarcROAR! 00:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that would be the full progression (although it's quite common for articles to skip levels—B-Class to FA is a common jump, for example).  As far as A-Class, most projects don't (yet) have any formal process for assigning it, which makes it somewhat less process-driven than GA. Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article progression from GA to A to FA???