Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Banksia/Assessment

Guidelines for importance rating
I wonder if we could establish some guidelines for the importance rating. The crux of the importance assessment, as I understand it, is this: If we decided to produce a print or CD edition of Banksia articles, how important would it be for the article to be included?

Based on that:
 * Banksia is obviously "top".
 * I previously rated all the species articles as "mid", but I regret that. I now think all the species articles should be at least "high", because it would be a pretty crappy print edition that didn't include all the species. Well known iconic species should be "top".
 * The subgenus, section and series articles probably should be "mid" importance, as one can easily imagine producing a good print edition that didn't include them. One could make a case for Banksia subg. Isostylis, to be "high", but that's about it.
 * Related taxa should be low, except Dryandra, which should be at least mid, since there is a chance of it being rolled into Banksia

Below is a draft table of importance guidelines. Can we edit up a consensus? Snottygobble 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The importance rating I'll leave to you guys, my knowledge isnt sufficient to really judge why one not the other. There is one point Alex George IMHO should be Top rated as he is the main reference for almost if not all articles about the plants. with that also the Banksia Atlas should be high importance. This doesnt mean they need major articles created but in relation to the subject matter both of these are significant references. Remember that the rating is not just how wikipedia uses the articles is also about how external people use wikipedia Gnangarra 03:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)