Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Assessment

message: After completing our initial ratings of our ScoutingWikiProject articles, Wim van Dorst and Rlevse see the need to reasses how we parcel out the importance ratings. (see Wim's talk page under "Gold Award" for background). Three things were obvious:
#not enough were Top importance (and some that were shouldn't have been)
#not enough were Low importance
#putting ALL association articles put too many into High importance, even associations for countries that had little or no Scouting were put there as were ones for countries like tiny island nations with few Scouts. The idea was to not show favoritism, but this seems to not have worked. 2/3 of the articles ended up as High initially, which is not realistic.
With an average of roughly 900 articles, the approximate target range we are shooting for is:
#Top = 5% (~63 articles)
#High = 35% ~445 articles) 
#Mid = 40% ~(360 articles) 50% ~(636 articles)
#Low = 20% (~180 articles) 10% ~(127 articles)
Steps (see Assessment project page too):
#Move articles into Top and Low until the target number is about right
#Association articles: Each association article (could be more than one, like BSA/GSUSA in USA) in the 15 countries with the most Scouting will stay in High. These countries are: Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States.  However, a small branch of one of those, like Antigua and Barbuda Branch of The Scout Association gets a Mid. Association articles on other countries will move into Mid.  The same is true of the highest Boy Scout rank (Eagle Scout, Queen Scout, etc) for the 15 countries and other countries.  The highest award in things like Cubs, Exploring, and Venturing, go into Mid for ALL countries.
#When the above two steps are achieved, we will take a reassessment and see where we're at.Rlevse 01:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Open for discussion. Not many watch this page. Put a note at WT:SCOUT and ask users to come here if they are interested. — Rlevse • Talk •  16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Down to it for ratings

message: That peer review link at the bottom goes to the military history project. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, changed a way more suitable for us, IMHO. Rlevse 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: When the comprehensive ratings of Scouting Project articles were last done in mid-2006, it was decided that articles about Associations in the 15 countries with the most Scouting would be assessed as "High" Importance, with others as Mid or Low, based on the Project's overall article target range of:
#Top = 5% (~63 articles)
#High = 35% ~445 articles) 
#Mid = 50% ~(636 articles)
#Low = 10% ~(127 articles)
It was also decided that a further reassessment would eventually take place to look at the results (see above 2006 discussion, Down to it for ratings). Now that we're two years down the road, we find that:
:(1) according to Scouting Project stats, presently 57 of 1689 Scouting-related articles are rated as "Top" importance, i.e., 3.4% vs. the 5% target.
:(2) by our article importance grading scheme, "Top" articles are those which "are a key topic for Scouting, or generally notable to people other than students of Scouting"
:(3) certain anomolies now exist in the Importance grading
One way to address this is to upgrade certain articles to "Top" Importance, specifically those of very large and/or historically significant associations, and biographical articles about founding leaders of those associations:
*Boy Scouts of America
*James E. West (Scouting)
*The Scout Association
*E. Urner Goodman
  
While we all want to avoid making the project USA-centric, the topic Boy Scouts of America currently has considerable notability outside of Scouting circles because of 3G litigation and extensive media coverage, thus meeting "Top" Importance criteria. Particularly now that William Hillcourt is of "Top" importance, it would be logical that the association he was associated with would likewise be of "Top" importance. Also, in view of the "Top" Importance given to the Hillcourt article, it could be argued that there's an inconsistency in rating James E. West (Scouting) and E. Urner Goodman as "High" importance. JGHowes talk -  20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good case but Hillcourt had more international influence than West or Goodman, who are mainly of note in America. I'm moving BSA and TSA to Top. Still open on others.  — Rlevse • Talk •  14:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: As more less-important topics have been creatd in the last two years, I don't mind adjusting the Low % to ~ %20, but we should look at the Top/High/Mid numbers and %. I'll post a note at WT:SCOUT.  — Rlevse • Talk •  14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed update of Importance ratings 

message: Talk on this topic generally occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk on this topic generally occurs at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting]]