Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC/Assessment

Template Error
I believe that there is an error in the template. Should there not be an 'importance' parameter? It worked when I added it, but I have not saved the changes as I don't know weather it is right or not....  Tiddly Tom  13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just added the importance parameter - you're quite right, it should be there. The Islander 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How to work Parameters
OK, I feel really stupid asking this, but how exactly do I use the following parameters?


 * attention
 * collaboration-candidate
 * past-collaboration
 * peer-review
 * old-peer-review
 * needs-infobox

For example, say an article needs an infobox, how do I put that in? Neither "yes" nor "y" work. The Islander 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question :P Are BBC articles even required to have info boxes? Some of the parameters may not apply.  Tiddly Tom  21:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh of course some of them won't apply, but some will; for instance, a channel needs a channel infobox. I've looked through the coding of the template, but I can't find the answer... The Islander 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem!
I think that basicly all articles that are part of the project have been assessed now (Mostly by TheIslander). The main problem I am seeing is that there are hundreds of articles that have not been added into the project! I think that when people come to look at this page to help assess pages, they will look for the unassessed articles, see they are all assessed and go and do somethine elce! Maybe a big notice might help :P  Tiddly Tom  19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, I've got a feeling that's covered by the project's main page already - this page is just for assessment really, not for adding new topics. Others might disagree, though. The Islander 20:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment backlog dealt with
Well, I had a bit of an empty day, so I've gone through the entire list and assessed everything that wasn't assessed, so we now have a completely assessed project. Not only that, but I found a way of kick-starting the bot to re-calculate everything right now, so what you see in front of you are the correct stats as of this message. The Islander 20:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great work! I have been through all of the articles on this list and added and assessed them :)  Tiddly Tom  21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Subjective Assessment
I see that a low importance has been applied to Rock Goes To College. I would suggest you remove this until you do the following:

A. Have objective criteria for importance. OR B. Change your labelling system to reflect what exactly is meant by "importance".

I think the reasons for this are clear. The subjective views of "someone who happens to think something" ... are exactly what we want to avoid in Wikipedia. In fact what is labelled as important is actually "currently high profile in the entertainment industry as relates to the BBC." I will therefore remove the template in the above mentioned page soon - although I am happy to enter into discussion about this and hope you can persuade me otherwise.

I am not critisising the good intentions but really, I think that RGTC is a unique technical achievement for its time and therefore actually of notable "importance" (as would be the first outside broadcast for example - although of a higher level when taken into historical technological perspective). I am not asking for it to be regraded, promoted or anything. Simply remove the banner until you achieve either of the objectives above.

I await your input. Candy 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The assessment refers to the imortance of the program within this Wikiproject. The assessment criteria can be found here. Any more questions, feel free to add them below. Sorry for any confusion. Tiddly - Tom  19:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment criteria for People
Hi, I have mentioned this elsewhere, but could an assessment criteria of specific people within the organisation be drawn up. For example, where do news readers or notable news editors (thinking Nick Robinson here) fit into the big scheme of things? The presenter of a popular programme then and now? At the moment the lines are unclear and a quite diverse array of importance has occured. Can something be drawn up and agreed on? Rafmarham (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)