Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 7

message: Based on discussions and points above at the end of the "GA-Class tag -- how to use?" discussion string and based on my experience working with data, I added a new column to distinguish between GA/FA status and 1.0 A/B ect. class. The review processes are quite inconsistent. We don't want to loose information about our A/B ratings when coding GA status.  I sorted the data into appropriate columns.  Consider:
*5 articles are rated GA but also B-class in our table. This might be cleaned up by another 1.0 review; but it might be a problem with GA-review. (Note: there were 6 such conflicts in our table until review of Number today showed it was removed from the GA list. Also, I briefly reviewed the other five GA/B-class articles: Agriculture, Crime, Physics, Sound, Statistics. Most of these articles have few references. A few are short or have short sections.  --Vir 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added column for GA/FA ratings to core topic table 

message: Here is a general "professional" level review of the GA-listed article Crime, I wrote in discussion over on the Good Articles list. This is a rough draft.  
The first few sections of the Crime article and a few other sections read like a poorly written text book in summarizing some views of crime. Only one definition of crime is presented in summary at the top of the "why criminalize" section, without defining it as a point of view. This is a misleading sort of POV generalization. (For contrast, see the list to the right of the page for different theories of crime.) In the History section, there is attribution, but it deals in a very cursory way with the early modern period (a key period) in a few sentences, before going on to discuss extensively one type (amongst many) of modern theory of crime, not a history of the social development of crime per se in that era, which was the main topic of the section. How modern approaches to crime began to be institutionalized in the 18th century is not discussed. A number of key perspectives are omitted, such as Foucault's poststructuralist analysis of the development of modern disciplinary regimes. And, in the article as a whole, I saw little Marxist or Feminist analysis nor did I see a Frankfurt school perspective nor an environmental criminology perspective. (These are distinct and common notable perspectives on crime and social problems.) I saw little or nothing about white collar crime, corporate crime, war crimes, hate crimes, crimes of passion, or organized crime (though there are links at the bottom to some of these). I didn't see discussions of social processes that shape crime such as patterns of abuse or racial profiling (though links may be there at bottom as there are wikipedia articles on some of these topics). These are serious omissions, which point to the mostly rationalistic, individualistic bias of view of the article -- one perspective among many. The section on "Trial" returns to presenting an unattributed POV generalization. And, I'm not sure that this approach to trials, lifted out of context of the whole criminal justice system, belongs in a Crime article. Next, the outline list that is most of "Reasons" section is unclear and overgeneralized. The closing section on "Classification" is solely U.S.-centric (POV issue again), and seemed to me a poorly presented summary of that. For an overview article, this version has multiple problems. The article has POV issues. It is very uneven and not clearly constructed in general outline and within some sections. 
One editing approach: The various key missing topics and extensive POV issues could perhaps could be addressed if Crime were turned into portal article lifting short summaries from other existing articles and pointing to these topics (and to a separate more well developed history article). On this topic, Criminology does serve (perhaps inappropriately) as a general portal function, in part (rather incompletely again and with much less text than crime). (I'll revise this review rough draft and move it over to the crime talk page--later.) I wonder if part of the function of Criminology could be moved to Crime with Crime focusing on being a portal to types and history of crime and Criminology focusing on theories, methods, and history of that discipline. 
I would give Crime a C rating (if we had one), because of POV and lack of generalization issues, by the 1.0 core topics rating system. 
In general, based on looking over many GA articles, I don't think we can rely on the GA rating system for selecting articles to publish in a final fixed media versions, though for beta versions with disclaimers that is fine. But, we can use that system to be looking at articles for improvemetn and review. If it hasn't been done already, think we eventually need or would benefit from at least the above level of "written up" review (especially when revised beyond rough draft form) for all core topics and eventually vital articles (top 1000 articles). Specialist reviews would be even better, when possible. Comments? --Vir 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is excellent work, Vir, I'm glad you took a look at this.  I would suggest you do some major rewriting of that page some time.  We will have to include GAs in our beta tests, but maybe things will need to be tightened up a bit before we can rely on them for the "official" 1.0 release.  That's very important to know, thanks a lot! Walkerma 13:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A review of [[Crime]] 

message: Other things. I will be taking a break from making regular contributions in this group for a few months or longer. Talk to you later or see you in other Wikipedia spaces. --Vir 03:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your energy, and I hope you won't be away too long.  I understand about priorities, that's why I haven't been able to do so much here as I would like recently!  All the best, Walkerma 13:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll drop by from time to time. I'm going to focus on WP review processes and issues for now. As 1.0 ramps up, I might be a more frequent visitor. :) --Vir 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on... 

message: I've done one change to the assessment scale, and to keep discussion at one place, see the main project's talk. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to assessment scale 

message: #Should we add Universe?
#If so, should we delete Outer space?
#Should we add Earth? Maurreen 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned above, Universe and Earth are both essential; Outer space is not because it is a page about a term (and a convention), not about something that physically exists. (Earth exists in space, not out of it, for example, just like all planets do; it is our perspective, not an objective fact, which makes it otherwise.) However, "outer space" might be appropriate if we are planning, for example, to have 1,600 entries, rather than the 160 that the page currently specifies. It's all a matter of relative importance. -Silence 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Universe, etc.

message: I'm going to shift my focus to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Version 1.0 Qualifying. Is anyone interested in coordinating the core topics project? Maurreen 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: I have trawled through all of the (often insightful) comments by others above, reflected on them, added a few thoughts of my own, and I would like to propose the following changes to our core topics list:
=== Remove from core into a core supplement ===
*Demographics (B-Class)
*Gambling (B-Class)
*Heuristics (B-Class)
*Hobby (Start)
*Museums (Listed as start, perhaps now B)
*Party (Start)
*Pet (Start)
Net effect: -7 in core
=== Replace in core ===
*Replace Personal finance (Start) with Money (A or B-Class, and a former FAC)
*Replace Landform (Start) with Continent (B?) and Ocean (Start/B?)
*Replace Historiography (B) with History of the Earth (A-Class?)
Net effect: +1 in core
=== Add into core ===
*Energy (B?)
*Matter (start)
*Nature (start or B)
*Earth (A?) (Current GA-COTW)
Net effect: +4
=== Create a core supplement ===
This would be one level below the core itself, covering lesser "top level" subjects (mainly fairly general or abstract) and also some important subjects that are very important but less general.  The following could be a start, and I have included many that are displaced from the core:
;Displaced from core
*Demographics
*Gambling
*Heuristics
*Hobby
*Museums
*Party
*Pet
*Personal finance
*Outer space (replaced recently with universe)
*Historiography 
;New
*Alphabet
*Big bang
*Buddha
*Chemical element
*Climate change
*Democracy
*Evolution
*Football (How could I be from Newcastle upon Tyne and not include this, under "religions"!) 
*Free will
*Gender role
*Globalization
*God
*Industrial revolution
*Inorganic chemistry
*Jesus
*Literacy
*Muhammad
*Monarchy
*Moon
*Organic chemistry
*Physical chemistry
*Planet
*Race
*Renaissance
*Revolution
*Sea
*Star
*Sun
*Thermodynamics
*World War I
*World War II
;Topical issues
*Iraq War
*Global warming
*Sustainable development or perhaps sustainability or Environmentalism (these are probably seen as more important in Europe than in the US)
*World Wide Web
*Petroleum
*Darfur conflict
;If we include people besides the religious 3 from above:
*George W. Bush
*Tony Blair (if he's still in office??!)
*William Shakespeare
*Albert Einstein
*Isaac Newton
*George Washington
*Mahatma Gandhi
=== General comments on the above ===
As most of you know, I personally don't have strong view on these issues, but I think the above changes would be useful to WP:1.0.  I am trying to put together a core of articles for WP:V0.5, and I'm sure the same will be happening with WP:V1.0.  Most of the new articles proposed for the supplement are B-Class or better, many are GA or FA.  Beyond the core and core supplement, the next level would be WP:VA and related lists.
The net change to the core would be to reduce the overall number by two articles.  There are 53 articles listed as a start for the supplement, I expect this would grow as others add things in.
I'd like to ask people to comment on two things:
Should we make the above changes to the main core topics list?  If you disagree with a specific proposal, mention it here, and make suggestions as needed.
Should we create a core topics supplement at all?  If the consensus is "yes" then I will create a list starting with my list from above, and then I will ask people to edit that list, rather than getting into a detailed discussion on a list of 53 articles here.  If you have strong views like "No people articles at this level" that's OK here, though. Walkerma 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to answer you in a couple of parts, but it's easier for me to separate them in different sections. Maurreen 04:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals for changes to the core topics list, and formation of a supplement 

message: As most of you know, I personally don't have strong view on these issues, but I think the above changes would be useful to WP:1.0.  I am trying to put together a core of articles for WP:V0.5, and I'm sure the same will be happening with WP:V1.0.  Most of the new articles proposed for the supplement are B-Class or better, many are GA or FA.  Beyond the core and core supplement, the next level would be WP:VA and related lists.
The net change to the core would be to reduce the overall number by two articles.  There are 53 articles listed as a start for the supplement, I expect this would grow as others add things in.
I'd like to ask people to comment on two things:
Should we make the above changes to the main core topics list?  If you disagree with a specific proposal, mention it here, and make suggestions as needed.
Should we create a core topics supplement at all?  If the consensus is "yes" then I will create a list starting with my list from above, and then I will ask people to edit that list, rather than getting into a detailed discussion on a list of 53 articles here.  If you have strong views like "No people articles at this level" that's OK here, though. Walkerma 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to answer you in a couple of parts, but it's easier for me to separate them in different sections. Maurreen 04:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments on the above 

message: I could go for a various levels of core topics, more or less as Martin has called a "core topics supplement".
I would see the next level as having 200 - 500 entries. (Not sure either way about the biographies at the moment.)
We might want to consider Wikipedia:List_of_basic_topic_lists and especially early smaller versions of Vital Articles. 
Wikipedia already has a few "core topics" types of lists that mainly differ by the number of articles included. I've been thinking it could make sense for them all to have a naming system and a template to connect them. Maurreen 04:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elaborating -- My choice at the moment would be for further levels to be more exposed to the wider WP, such as WP:VA is, than to just be listed within our project. Maurreen 04:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, though I'm not sure how to actually organise that.  VA could organise that, only that project is not very active.  WVWP will be coordinating the still further levels via contact with projects and with the bot, that may be the best place for subject-specific info. Walkerma 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Core levels

message: Martin, thanks for archiving and for updating the COTF. Maurreen 03:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: I've created  to serve as a sort of WikiProject "banner" for the purposes of Mathbot assessment logging. I've added the template to several pages, but some of the articles have valid concerns there, so I would recommend they be reassessed. If possible, could someone review the few articles I added (only FAs and A-Classes) to check if they still are at those levels? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great!  I was going to suggest we did it, but you've already done that!  I think we need to re-assess every article - remember that these assessments are mostly over 6 months old now.  I'll post requests for the other Core Topics team members to help out with this, and to add in the template as they do each article.  Thanks a ton, Walkerma 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, a template is a good idea. Maurreen 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:core topic|core topic]]}} and reassessments 

message: :I've created this page, and started assessing Silence's list.  Please help out when you can! Walkerma 20:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The table makes it hard for me to review the supplement suggestions. Only a few can be seen at a time, so it is hard to consider context and relativity. Maurreen 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer not to include George Bush and especially Tony Blair at this level. Maurreen 21:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list suggestions are more than 200. I'm working on categorizing the items.  Maurreen 22:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd question the inclusion of Blair, but if you are going to include not only people but people from such recent history, it would seem to be a bit serious-minded to exclude The Beatles (considered by most to be the iconic entertainers of the 20th century). --kingboyk 08:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I simply copied over all of the suggestions from various talk pages and pasted them into the page.  I started assessing the first few, so that Silence could understand better what I was doing (and could maybe help out?).  I also wanted to set it up in the style that the bot can read.  Once we agree on what's in and what's not, we can get the bot to handle the table.   I think Tito has started getting the automation started for the main core topics table.  Obviously the supplement table needs a LOT more work. By the way, my exams are over, just marking to do then I'll have a bit more time. Walkerma 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplement