Talk:John Clarence Webster

Stub class articles are tagged in the article
Hi and Just to clear things up for both of you, this is a stub class article: J. B. Mauney. Notice that the article has a stub class template at the bottom where it says, "This biographical article related to American sports is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

One way to remove the stub tag from the article and change the stub-class in the talk page is by expanding the article. See WP:STUB. The stub tag should not be used to tag an article that is start-class quality or higher; the article must be very rough to merit stub class when it is larger than a stub. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So, what is realistically the correct assessment here for this article. I point you to this page, but the table is the same in all wiki projects that include it: WikiProject Women's History/Assessment. More detail is given in further columns.


 * Stub Class = A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.
 * Start Class = An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.
 * C Class = The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
 * B Class = The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.

Upon reading the extended details in the table, it is quite clear to see that the classes are assigned on more than just some some broken links or citation formatting issues. This article is at least a C Class article. But see if you read it that way. What's absolutely clear is that it is not a Start-Class article. Btw, I left out GA and FA because they require reviews. List articles are also different. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * >>Good that you can improve out of stub. Ref/cit needs some fixing. Keep improving. Cheers! SWP13 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Upon second review, I didn't realize that it needed some citations in some areas as much as it did. But it can still squeak by on a C. Once totally cited, it can actually reach a B-class. It was definitely not a stub at any point, which is a bad quality article as shown by the Mauney article I linked. It was never "one step away" from deletion. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)