Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 October 16

= October 16 =

A-class article Vs. Featured article
What are the differences between an A-class article and a Featured article or a Good article? Which one is more high quality? Thank you. 2.179.229.134 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment will help. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Generally, "Featured Article" is the "gold standard" for quality - although featured articles that make it onto the front page go through an additional level of scrutiny and polish - so you might argue that they are even higher quality. "Good" and "A-class" are assessed rather differently and there is some dispute as to how well that process is handled - but it's definitely a lower bar to cross than the "Featured Article" standard.


 * The 'class' grade is generally awarded by subject-matter-specific Wikipedia project groups...so for an article Car, you'd find that WikiProject Automobiles had awarded it both a quality grade and an importance factor. But some articles cross the boundaries of many WikiProjects and may get different ratings from each of them.  Homeopathy, for example, has been rated by WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject Alternative medicine, WikiProject Alternative Views, WikiProject Medicine and a couple of other defunct projects.  In that case, they all awarded it a "B-rating" - but I'm sure there are other articles under multiple areas of interest that have different grades awarded by different project groups.


 * It's tough to say whether "A-class" or "Good" is a higher standard because they are judged differently. "Good" is judged by generalist editors who are mainly looking for good spelling, grammar, punctuation, use of pictures, coverage with reliable sources, neutrality and so forth.  But the "A-class" award is made by people who are specialists in some particular area, who tend to make awards according to more technical factors - such as whether the subject is fully covered, whether all sides of the story have been told (with appropriate 'weight' given to differing views).   So it's easily possible for an A-grade article to not be "Good" or a "Good" article to not make A-grade.  They are really measuring different things.


 * It's also worth mentioning that the 'grade' system tends to come about because members of the applicable WikiProject found the article out there and decided to grade it.  But to become a "good" or "featured" article requires that one of the main authors/editors of the article go to the appropriate committee and petition to have their article assessed.   I've had two of my articles raised to the dizzy heights of front-page featured article - and I can tell you that it requires a hell of a lot of committment and effort to get to that level.  The people who review the article will nit-pick it to death!   Many of them are English majors - and they'll tear into your use of the language like a pack of sharks!   That means that many articles that might be of "Good" or even "Featured" quality do not have that accolade simply because none of the authors could be bothered with the months of hard work it takes to get it through all of those committee stages.


 * Yet another problem is that the requirements to pass (or even maintain) each level is a moving target.  An article I wrote almost single-handedly ("Mini Moke") was A-grade, Good-Article, Featured Article and front-page Featured-Article in February 2007 - one of the top 1000 articles in the entire encyclopedia.  But it was gradually downgraded back to merely "good" and then not even that within about 4 years.  It's now merely "B-grade" according to WikiProject Automobiles.   The quality of the article didn't change significantly over that time - but the demands of those standards have raised the bar spectacularly over the following years.


 * The decision to downgrade an article is another one of those "somebody noticed it" kinds of thing - so it's very likely that there are articles that are labelled as "Featured" that would not make it at that grade level if they were brought forward for assessment today.


 * Bottom line is that none of those quality measures are applied uniformly, so it's dangerous to judge quality using them.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Paper Clip article
Suggestion: Add to the Paper Clip article the measurements of different sizes of paper clips, e.g. #1, #2, and the large ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:24FF:2CF0:0:0:0:39 (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You could move this section to that article's talk page and then find sources supporting what you're describing, and then add the info yourself. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How to search a 'user' (volunteer):
How do I search for a 'user' (volunteer) who helped me before? (Russell.mo (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC))


 * Are you referring to User:W.carter.--Aspro (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Russell.mo were you looking for me? Or can I help you with something? w.carter -Talk  21:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, I hope you are well . I was wondering, just in case I lose all the traces of an user who helped me how do I get back in touch with them...? Do you guys have any idea? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC))
 * Thanks --(Russell.mo (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC))


 * To get back in contact. Go to your talk page, which in your case is:User talk:Russell.mo then just click on the talk bit after the user name of whom you wish to correspond to. It will take you to their user page--Aspro (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as you know the name of the user you can always just write it in brackets anywhere (just like you did with my name here) and that user will know you want to get in touch. If you don't remember the name, you can always trace your own steps back in your "Contributions" history, where you can look at all your previous posts and see who were involved in the conversations there. Just click on "Contributions" at the top of you page, look up the edit you want and click on where it says "diff". If you want to you can also create a notebook-page (I can help you start it if you like), where you write down things you want to keep track of. I have one myself for notes as you can see here. Hope this helps you, otherwise just call on me again. Best, w.carter -Talk  21:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And a User:Russell.mo/sandbox may be useful. I once got a new article deleted whilst I stopped off for a cup of coffee (15 minutes max), because I had not got far enough to add the references.  A 'sandbox' provides a space to get a new article complete enough to satisfy the  Wikipedia requirements for a new article without it being speedily deleted. Wikipedia is really very easy, it is the initial learning curve which is steep. --Aspro (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I would be happy creating a 'note book'. About the 'sandbox', How safe is it? How can I keep my article(s) private and show it to desired people only? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC))


 * Nothing on Wikipedia can be hidden – hence its strength in openness and transparency. You can add say a template Template:User sandbox. That will indicate that what you have in your sandbox is not a WP article. Also, on the template you will see: For a sandbox of your own, create it here.  Click on crate it here and create your own sandbox.--Aspro (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you choose to create a sandbox, then cut and past this to the top of the page:    This will make the template magically appear at the top of your sandbox (you will have to refresh the page before you see it).  Then people will know it is just your sandbox used for experimentation, Etc., et cetera.--Aspro (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just try it. You will not mess anything up.--Aspro (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - (Russell.mo (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC))
 * You've gotten your answers here, and that's fine, we like to help. But in the future, please use the reference desk for questions about the world, and use the WP:HELPDESK for questions about how to use Wikipedia. (Yes I know WP is part of the world but you get my point :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC))