Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Archive 3

Importance (or priority) ratings
The WikiProject Biography scheme for assessing the importance (or priority) of biographical articles seems to have been quite influential on other WikiProjects: in particular, at WikiProject Mathematics, we have long referred to it as a guideline for assessing the importance of articles about mathematicians.

There have been several discussions about article assessment recently at WT:WPM, and we are trying to develop more detailed guidelines about importance ratings at WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance. One issue is whether these ratings describe the importance of the article or the subject of the article. Although the two are often correlated, it seems to me that the former more faithfully describes the purpose of the assessment programme, and indeed is one reason to prefer the term "priority" to "importance" (as this project does).

I am therefore somewhat puzzled that the Biography importance/priority descriptors focus almost entirely on the importance of the person rather than the importance of having an article on that person. My favourite example of the distinction (within mathematics) is Srinivasa Ramanujan. While he was a mathematical genius with remarkable output, his contributions and impact on mathematics are not in the same league as those of mathematicians such as Leonard Euler and Carl Friedrich Gauss. On the other hand, an article on Ramanujan is surely of top importance because of the fascinating nature of his story, its social ramifications, and the insights it provides into the mind of a mathematical genius.

Assessing the importance of the person rather than the article creates other difficulties, in particular for biographies of living people. Such people cannot possibly have had impact across several generations, and so should typically be rated Mid or Low importance. I can imagine some living persons (and their devotees) having issues with such an assessment! Also person-importance does not necessarily generate the best criteria. I have mentioned impact across generations already; impact around the world is another example. This is not always relevant to the importance of the person or the article. Alexander the Great had little impact on the Americas, for instance, while subjects like mathematics are now inherently international. (And a theorem is always a theorem.)

So I wonder if it is worth having a discussion here on this issue. Geometry guy 11:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that bio templates are not currently displaying the importance/priority parameter. Why?
 * WRT, above I have interpretted generation as the range of birthdates (meaning affected people of all ages). I consider Michael Jordan an athlete who has impacted people, especially ahtletes for about 25 years, but I walk around Chicago and see 7 year olds begging for Jordan attire and feel that people born in 1950 or later were all impacted by him.  I am not sure how across generations applies here. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the core biographies have been officially rated by the biography project. Michael Jordan is a core biography and therefore of Top-importance. All other priority ratings have to be looked at with a more than average critical attitude, as they were most likely given by either people who aren't familiar with the Biography project, or by the writers of the article, fans, or other biased people. Er rab ee 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think across generations here refers to lasting historical impact. People from thousands of years ago still being talked about today, or the latest flash-in-the-pan that will be forgotten in a few years time. Carcharoth 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Geometry guy that rating by 'priority of the article' seems better than rating by 'importance of the person'.... I had more to say, but I've forgotten it. DonkeyKong64 (Mathematician in training) 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't this just the difference between the "priority" and "importance" rating scales? (As a new WP editor, though, I don't know if this dichotomy reflects progress in the 9 months or so between the previous post and mine.) Jmacwiki (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:People acquitted of sex crimes
Is Category:People acquitted of sex crimes a good idea? Canuckle 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is a terrible idea. Its definition is ambiguous and it conflicts with the idea that there should not be a criminal record for people acquitted of crimes. I suggest you nominate it for deletion at WP:CfD. Geometry guy 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It smacks of "name and shame", when there are no convictions to justify such an action. Readers would be tempted to access the category just to see who nearly got convicted of what. Definitely CfD. Ref (chew) (do) 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --BizMgr (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur, especially since there is no distinction between (at the extremes) "People unjustly tried by corrupt DAs", "People who killed their only sex-crime witnesses before they could testify and were therefore acquitted, though later convicted of murder". Where do I vote? Jmacwiki (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Too late, Jmacwiki. It survived deletion with a "no consensus" here. They say that all "People acquitted of" categories must be considered for deletion, not just "sex crimes". There you go. Ref (chew) (do) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jmacwiki (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Close the assessment department?
It seems like whoever opened the assessment department has departed. Articles no longer seem to get assessed.

Should we note that it's inactive at the moment? Close it down? Or encourage people to ask a specific, uninvolved editor to use the criteria to assess? --Melty girl (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles are being assessed. The problem is with the assessment bot, which seems to encounter extreme problems when dealing with the half million or so articles which it has to keep track of. There is discussion taking place regarding how to deal with this matter. One of the suggestions is to "break off" the assessments for the various work groups from the main biography assessment, thus reducing the number of articles that have to be tabulated for the main biography assessment. Any support or opposition to this idea, or any other ideas, would certainly be welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Where is the conversation? --Melty girl (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of it has taken place, so far as I can tell, at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. It also mentions the possibility there, particularly in the "Table update" section, of creating more subprojects to maybe "speed up" the bot in a sense. If you can think of any additional subprojects which might fly, please feel free to propose them. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

infoboxes
The article on "Simon Rattle" has had a "WP Biography" banner for some time and a "WP Clasical music" banner has been added today. The article has had an infobox for about one year (which indicates implied consensus), but it has been removed today. There is an area on the talk page to discuss the presence of an infobox on this page. Snowman (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spring 2008 Assessment Drive
The Spring 2008 assessment drive is up and running and I look forward to working with all of you there! --Ozgod (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eftekasat Rating!
Hi guys! what's up?! As i understand, this article is related to the project, so i'm requesting a rating of the article and if possible suggestions on how to improve it! Thank you for you cooperation! :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have requested this in the correct place here for you. I have already carried out slight alterations per the manual of style. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article importance grading scheme
How come you guys have this(Top, High, Mid, Low) etc, you got it documented but you don't show it on the assessment template and it's not shown on the overall assessment figures. It this template issue? Or is there some further reason that I'm not aware of. SunCreator (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was determined that it would be too difficult to implement, and ultimately not particularly useful, considering about 1/8 of the total articles are biography. We basically leave the other projects to determine the relative importance of articles, except for the most essential ones. John Carter (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible that you mis-understand, so I'll try again. If you look on the pages of some biography's for example Talk:Patrick_Henry click edit and look at the assessment code you'll see the following:
 * I understand that means the priority for this biography is set and it is implemented(recognised by the template), and agrees with biography assessment information, however the talk page Talk:Patrick_Henry does not actually show the priority (to humans) viewing the template. SunCreator (talk)
 * We don't bother showing it because it's more or less useless, and doesn't really mean much for the project. We've had many problems and no benefits to having that, so we don't use it. Wizardman  00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So the documentation of it WikiProject_Biography/Assessment should be removed then? SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one have any objection then to it's removal. SunCreator (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The priority parameter in the above example sets the priority level for the politics & government work group, and adds the article to . It's not an ideal way of doing things, though. If you're interested there is some discussion about the priority parameter on the banner's talk page, but hopefully this will be resolved soon. PC78 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The priority parameter in the above example sets the priority level for the politics & government work group, and adds the article to . It's not an ideal way of doing things, though. If you're interested there is some discussion about the priority parameter on the banner's talk page, but hopefully this will be resolved soon. PC78 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese painter Pu Ru
I created a stub about Pu Ru; I thought this was one good place to ask for improvement to the article. B7T (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Assessment seems to be the place (I also hit your userpage).Mjquin_id (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton
Hello. I'm not sure this is the correct place to do so, but I would like to request help for the Alexander Hamilton biography. I previously posted a help request to the American History Taskforce, but there doesn't seem to be anyone home there. This article needs a great deal of help from the widest possible variety of quality editors. The Hamilton article, rather bizarrely, is shockingly contentious and POV. The article is guarded by a longtime editor, PMAnderson. This editor admits to disagreeing with the consensus of current historical research about Hamilton, and works to promote and preserve edits that skew the biography of Hamilton towards a far more negative version than the consensus of historical sources supports. I have tried improving parts of the article, only to find myself personally attacked over and over. I continue to work with him, but frankly, I am exhausted, and need help. PMAnderson edits Wikipedia almost all day long and almost everyday. He is deeply entrenched in this article. I do not have the time to keep up with him on my own. If you can, please, please help this article--new editors can only help it. All I want is for the article to reflect the historical consensus about Hamilton. Hamilton is such a basic American historical biography that it absolutely needs to be accurate. If this article does not within the scope of this project, please forward this SOS to an appropriate group, and/or let me know where I can find additional quality editors to lend the article some help. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Remerçiment,très grand remerçiment.De la part de Fred.
JIM mille merçi pour le prix que tu ma fait sur les live's que ta sortie .Merçi beaucoup c'est très gentil,sinkyou very mutch.Merçie aussis pour tous les remix et mix ,verssion ext. que tu ma donner par Bart ,c'est vraiment très gentil ,merçi beaucoup Sinkyou very mutch.Si tu pouvais m'envoyer une photo dédicacer du groupe ça serais very cool.Et aussis une photo de toi dédicacer ça serais genial.Merçie beaucoup .embrasses Burchill et les autres.ViVa the NEW ALBUM,VIVA SIMPLE MINDS,VIVA LES LIVE'S.SINKYOU VERY MUTCH.BISOUS.Fred. fargier.frederic@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.18.4 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FL-class
Is there a reason why there is no FL-class in the assessment table? e.g. List of Governors of Pennsylvania was promoted to a Featured List but is listed by all of its WikiProjects, including this one, as FA-class. --Millbrooky (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they're both featured, so I think it's less of a hassle to just have it as FA-class. The last thing we need right now is more classes. Wizardman  14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it would be a good thing to include FL-Class, not least because articles and lists achieve featured status via a different departments. Sincle the class is already being used by many other WikiProjects, and since our own Project banner already semi-supports FL-Class, it shouldn't require too much effort to include it. PC78 (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

C Class
I see that people are busy regrading artricles to a new C class but there is no detailed description of this class in Section 2.4. Surely a formal definition distinguishing between the new classes is required here before people shoot off re-classifying articles? Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 09:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the new classes could simply be included using Grading scheme. BNutzer (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we adapt the grading scheme in WikiProject Biography? Green caterpillar (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think we should. I think we should just remove the quality scale we have now and just put that template there. Anyone agree? Green caterpillar (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. BNutzer (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since no one seems to disagree, and because the FL-class issue above needs to be fixed, I'll just do it. Green caterpillar (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted for now. While I agree with using Grading scheme in principle, this does pose several issues. Firstly, this project does not have an FL-Class (though perhaps this should be rectified?) - tag a biography article as FL-Class and it gets dumped in the Unassessed category. Secondly, the Grading scheme does not give the same prominence to the project's A-Class review department. As a side note, we do need to add List-Class to the assessment scale, and we could do with some updated biography-specific examples for each class. PC78 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made a rough draft here. It has basically everything you suggested except the updated biography-specific examples. If we were to include FL-class, there's a draft here. You can edit them if you want. Green caterpillar (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've just been over to A-Class review and it appears to be inactive, though I can't find the relevant discussion regarding its future. If A-Class review is no longer in use, then the wording in Grading scheme should be fine. Personally I think we should also use this opportunity to properly implement FL-Class, though this may not be an opinion shared by others. I'll see if I can find out what's going on with A-Class, though. PC78 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding FL-Class to the Biography assessment scale
FL-Class is now one of the standard grades at WP:ASSESS and seems to be fairly common elsewhere on Wikipedia; since it's absence here has been noted by others, I though I'd make a formal request. It appears not to have been previously discussed, but FWIW I personally don't see any good reason why we shouldn't have it. FL-Class obviously applies only to list articles that have been promoted at WP:FLC, a different process to normal articles which are promoted at WP:FAC. Currently, featured biography lists are assessed as FA-Class, but I think it's a useful distinction to make.

It wouldn't be difficult to implement, and I'm prepared to carry out the necessary work myself (i.e. making the required changes to WPBiography, and tagging all relevant articles). But I though I'd get a few other opinions before proceeding any further. PC78 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done, since no one objected. PC78 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft of new assessment scale
Well, because of the FL-class, C-class, A-class review, new biography examples, the new Grading scheme that the Version 1.0 Editorial team is using, and other concerns mentioned above, here is a new draft of a possible assessment scale for the Biography WikiProject:

So, anyone have any comments or suggestions?

I hope we can get a working assessment scale, because the old one isn't exactly working, seeing that we've started assessing the C-class rating already, and until we have a working one, we can't really assess anything else properly within the project (except maybe stubs). Green caterpillar (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never been a fan of the A-Class to begin with, and would support its removal. Granted, we'd be one of the few projects without it, but I don't see the need. The gap between GA and FA is so small already. Wizardman  23:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need do anything quite so drastic, though the project's A-Class review department appears to have died on its arse. With regards to the revised assessment scale above, I would prefer to get FL-Class sorted first, plus I'm still hoping we can just use the basic grading scheme. PC78 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you said up above that you didn't like it. This is basically grading scheme with a modified A-class description, a list class, a bunch of hidden code deleted, and new biography examples. But anyway, we need to get one working soon, some way or another, before we can continue assessment.


 * If you want FL-class removed, here's what it looks like:

Green caterpillar (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no, I never said that! :) It still needs a little work (there's still a fair bit of hidden code in there, for one thing), but I think we can afford to wait for a couple of days. If no-one objects to my proposed addition of FL-Class, I'll get that sorted then I'll take another look at this. PC78 (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK then, we now have FL-Class, and I've tweaked Green caterpillar's assessment scale. I've created a template at WikiProject Biography grading scheme and added it to the assessment page. Might do a bit more later. PC78 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the priority scale and parameter?
We never really use the priority scale or the parameter, except for the core=yes parameter for the core biographies part of the Wikiproject. So, I think they're just confusing. Why not just remove them? Also, I think we should remove the priority option for the WPBiography template, because we alread have the core one. Anyone disagree? Green caterpillar (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe priority is used for the various biography work groups. PC78 (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But on the main biography assessment page, it doesn't really have a use, and it's rather confusing. Green caterpillar (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The work groups don't generally have their own assessment pages, though. PC78 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a bug in the priority parameter?
__meco (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk:Baal Shem Tov has the priority=top set but doesn't show up in the corresponding category.
 * 2) Talk:Abraham Lincoln has the listas= correctly set, but shows up in the Top-priority category under A.


 * The priority scale only applies to WPBiography work groups; since the article is not tagged as being part of any work group, the priority parameter does not apply.
 * Possibly. The article is sorted under "L" in other categories. PC78 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Appreciated. __meco (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Raymond of Toulouse
I leave this one up to you all, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_VII&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Count_of_Toulouse_Raymond_VII&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_VI,_count_of_Toulouse&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymund_VI,_Count_of_Toulouse&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raimon_VI_of_Toulouse&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_VI&redirect=no and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Count_of_Toulouse_Raymond_VI&redirect=no all need to be checked out. My apologies for not knowing if there is an easier way to post the links. Arenlor (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

K M Kader Mohideen
This is regarding the biography of Vellore MP, Mr K M Kader Mohideen. The article states he was a senate member of the standing committee at the Bharathidasan University in the late 1970s.

This is improbable as the Bharathidasan University itself was started in 1982. It appears the writer's not very careful style had contributed to this inaccuracy.

This is a time line error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.203.184 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tila Tequila = American?
This has been a long-running Talk:Tila_Tequila dispute on the talk page of Tila's article. I am not quite sure if this is the right place for such an inquiry, but I would like an editor (or several, if that's the case) to drop by and check it out. I want this matter settled, it's a bit annoying how the page is tagged one day and undone, yet redone the next. Thanks in advance. ★ Dasani ★ 08:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Museum?
There is an African American museum in Macon, GA, named the Tubman African American Museum; named for Harriet Tubman. Could this be mentioned on the Harriet Tubman page? I know some bio pages mention bridges and other things named after the person. I would not consider this as trivia but more of a recognition or memorial of sorts. I asked this question on the page itself but didn't get a response. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Brinkley32 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable to me. DThomsen8 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Adding to Ralph Cooper Hutchison
I request some editing help with the Ralph Cooper Hutchison article. I added a remark about how Hutchison went on to be president of Lafayette College, and included a book source, but so far there has been no response. I removed the University Project template from the article. Academics are not within the scope of that project. DThomsen8 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Rewrote Alexander Pechersky Article
I rewrote the whole article on Alexander Pechersky, the Sobibor uprising leader, from the ground up, basing it more on the Russian Wiki, but also using a lot more references (before we had 0). Any suggestions would be appreciated and if possible maybe we could regrade the article? I am a bit new to this, so not sure if I am posting this comment in the correct area.

I also created completely new bio-articles on Erich Bauer, Kurt Bolender, Hermann Michel & Gerrit Kleerekoper. If anyone care to look, and maybe grade those as well. Thanks! Meishern (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FAQ update needed for MetaData assessment script
The "MetaData article assessment script" referenced under the Frequently Asked Questions section of this project page has been deleted - intentionally according to comments found in the history before the page was blanked. Would someone familiar with this situation please make the needed changes to the project page FAQ? Thanks! Rostdo (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic ingredients of a good biography?
While perusing this page, I found metrics for biography articles, but the metrics are vague. There's no basic ingredients list of what an encyclopedia level biography needs to contain.

I came here because of Rudolf Wolters containing no information on his marriage to a person named "Erika" other than that she existed, and only passing reference to this person having a son. There's no other information about his immediate family. This to me seems to be pretty basic, core information that any good biography article should contain. Yet, it's missing. This article achieved featured article status with it missing. I don't understand this. For this reason alone, the article should not be a featured article. There's other reasons too, but that's beyond the scope of my concern here.

There should be a basic ingredients list of what a good biography article should contain. This is curiously absent. Casting about on other projects, I see this sort of thing is absent from some (all?) other projects as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue with a list such as you propose is what to do when the demands of the list are at odds with Verifiability. As the result of fire, insects, human error and other causes, records have a tendency to be lost or destroyed over time.  Differences in record keeping standards have also varied over time.  As a result, basic information such as names, places, and dates for a variety of life events are not always available. There may also be multiple competing versions of information.  How do you propose to deal with situations when there is no reliable source for the information demanded by this proposed list? --Allen3 talk 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Michael Chabon
I have reviewed this article as part of the GA sweeps process. The article is basically OK, but there are a number of dead links which need fixing. I have put the assessment on hold whilst these are addressed. Comments at Talk:Michael Chabon/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)