Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force/Assessment

Importance assessment
Since the tagging system only allows classification by class, and not importance, Anlace is now trying to add that option. — Emiellaiendiay 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * but i didnt succeed. the code is too different from california wiki project. help please, someone. Anlace 06:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jumpaclass
We really need to assess class standing of improved articles. Please help out, project members; visit WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area/Jumpaclass. Anlace 06:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A few assessment questions
The importance assessment works now, right? A couple questions
 * reassessing importance. I've been tinkering around with trying to improve the  Willie Brown article.  After inadvertently earning the article an WP:NPOV tag by overenthusiastic editing, I also noticed that the current importance assessment is "mid."  I disagree, and think that any recent mayor's importance is high almost by definition because every mayor has a profound effect on the business, culture, etc., of the city.  However, I'm new to the project and don't want to step on anyone's toes.  So, is it okay to change this importance of this article?  Please let me know what you think.
 * quality assessing your own edits. I know it's lame to write a new article then self-rate it.  But what about rating an article where you've made relatively minor edits, or edits that were strictly formatting and clean-up rather than adding anything?  I've been reviewing some articles for assessment, and I can't help but notice that some things could be improved about them.  Do I have to choose between fixing up and editing, or can I do a little of both?  Does it make any difference that we don't have peer review?
 * importance of neighborhoods. Are all SF neighborhoods automatically of high importance?  Or maybe mid?  Or should we say that some (e.g. Haight, Mission, Pac Heights) are high importance because they're bigger and better known and others (Glenn Park, Excelcior) are mid?  I don't want to get snobby or into neighborhood wars or institutional racial bias so how about deciding across the board that every neighborhood in SF is a high importance subject? Wikidemo 13:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More Assessment questions
I also have a couple of questions about assessment (having never done this). I have jumped in to edit some of the articles (and even added the project template to articles), but I am not sure if I should be the one to assess the article as well. For example, Contra Costa County, California has LOTS of stuff (too much) but no inline citations (so very not an easy article to edit). I tried to reorganize so that an editor could at least start to try to make sense of the article, but it is not assessed (probably a Start? B?). High importance?--Tinned Elk 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * okay, another question. How come some articles are showing up as unassessed on the article page (not the talk page), or showing up at all even though the template has not been added to the talk page? For example, Zinfandel, California. This also appears to have happened with other classifications. Shouldn't the project template go on the talk page? Thanks--Tinned Elk 23:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone in this project (or even outside it) can assess the article. Just use this page (meaning the main page) as a guide. Cholga added the Category:Unassessed SFBA articles cat to some articles, but I have told him/her to just rate as he/she sees fit him/herself. — Kurykh  23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Tinned Elk 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. I've probably added 100 articles article tags to the project.  To be fair I try not to rate articles I've been involved in at all beyond very minor clean-up, but sometimes after rating an article I can't help myself but jump in and fix things up.  I also add the wikiproject California tag to most of these things because most things suitable for us are suitable for them....then if it involves gay people I add the GLBT tag, for restaurants and chefs the food tag, etc.  I asked a couple projects if they minded and they said no, go right ahead.  I think if you live or work in the BA, have ever visited, or even know what the BA is that's good enough to assess the quality and in most cases importance of an article.  On the other hand, I wouldn't presume to say how important a particular individual is, say, to GLBT issues without knowing that subject very well.
 * When I'm assessing some new subject like a college or university, hotel, chain of restaurants, local celebrity, etc., I try to look at the main page and also a few other similar articles to see what the norm is. Acme Bread and It's It ice cream treatsare highly important to me, but maybe on the low end of the scale as part of overall life of the bay area.Wikidemo 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you are the perfect person to look at IT'S-IT Ice Cream and decide its fate! --Tinned Elk 01:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm. I just had one last night.  So delicious and so value priced.  I see it's rated "mid" importance.  Although I can't in good conscience agree that an ice cream product of regional distribution is more than a "low" there's no policy that says you must correct everything you see.  So I'll leave it be.  Wikidemo 01:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Adjusting importance categories
I've just edited the importance categories. I did two things. First, I added some more detail about how to assess buildings, historical events, and companies/organizations (which weren't in there or weren't clear). Also, I normalized these because having rated a few hundred in the past few days some of the distinctions seemed a little arbitrary and uneven. For example, I removed the statement that any incorporated city would have at least a "mid" importance...some are just too tiny and out of the way. I said only the top 3 cities get "top" status, because that's the case. I suggested that the very few top historical people, bands, artists, movements, etc., should get "high" status rather than "mid" status. I also adjusted the description of notability and fame. "Not notable" shouldn't be in wikipedia, period; shouldn't just be a "low" priority. Also, the "top" items are generally world famous, and even "high" importance subjects are typically known internationally among specialized audiences or people who want to know about the Bay Area.

Overall, I've found the best approach is to ask (1) how likely is it that either a casual Wikipedia reader, a student of the Bay Area, or random users performing google searches would want to read the article, (2) how much the subject truly relates to the BA -- if it happens to involve SF or took place here but isn't associated in people's minds or not connected to other things, a lower impotance; (3) how important is knowing this subject to an overall, comprehensive, balanced understand of the BA, its people, culture, climate, geography, environment, history, etc. So a single person like Mario Savio (father of the free speech movement) or Lawrence Ferlinghetti (poet, beat, owner of City Lights Books) may rate as important as an entire small town -- in terms of interest in their article. Not asserting that one person is more important than any other.

Please feel free to comment, advise, revise, etc. I have no special stake here, just trying to help. Wikidemo 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a "duh" moment today that I will share and which you probably already know. The importance ranking is not just in terms of the project or users of online WP, but also the importance to the release of WP in print/CD, etc. at Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria. Clearly whether something is considered a core topic, or important for a complete understanding of a place or part of life is somewhat different from whether the topic is important in general. Your criteria above seem to fit in with both purposes. It is an interesting thing to grapple with, and you and others here in this project have made a good start. --Tinned Elk 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on bots
I'm contemplating designing a personal bot for a couple things:

1. Quick assessment work - will quickly pull up articles needing class assessments and importance ratings so I can review them 2. Searching key words for existing and new Bay Area articles. I think we've missed about half of them. There are scores of companies, places, brands, companies, buildings, famous people, historical figures and events, etc., in the bay area that are not tagged. Is everyone ready for a big influx of Bay Area articles that we've missed so far? I think that could enhance the scope and prestige of our project, and also help Wikipedia users the world over get a better fix on the Bay Area.

Also, what about Napa and Sonoma Counties? They're officially part of the Bay Area but most things there are not yet in our project. Should we add all the relevant wineries and the wine industry articles, roads, lakes, county parks, etc., to our project?

Let me know what you think? Wikidemo 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally would love some such bot (I haven't yet gotten into that area of wikilife). I think that the Napa/Sonoma articles should be tagged also. Of course, I am not promising that I will be any help once they are marked. (I have gotten sidetracked to the WikiProject Amusement Parks by the article on Oakland that mentioned an old amusement park!). I do think that tagging articles is a great way of attracting attention and helpers to a project. --Tinned Elk 20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WD: Did you ever create this bot? I see you have cleaned up the backlog of unassessed! good job. --Tinned Elk 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template change mongs assessments
A recent template change had the effect of monging most of the current A, B, and C-level assessments. It seems to now be looking for a checklist to be filled out for these articles, and in the absence of the checklist it incorrectly displays them as start-class articles. That ought to be changed because now most of the A through C articles cannot be readily found (it is not clear whether this affects FA or GA articles).

If the intent was to implement a requirement to complete an assessment checklist, that bears some discussion. I don't think that is a good idea, at least not for B and C level articles. It seems like a lot of busywork for something that is already a thankless task. The 3,700+ articles already in the BA project are probably 1/2 or less of all the articles eligible, and now that I have added a page for Alexbot to catch new entries, we are probably getting 5-10 new articles per day. Also, as I noted the change in effect throws out the assessments that have already been made by requiring someone to add the checklist (to a group of articles that cannot easily be located) so that the prior assessment shows up.

Most Wikiprojects do not have a checklist (which brings up another problem, that this frustrates the bot and human editors who copy over quality scale assessments automatically from other projects). It would be better to implement the checklist as an optional feature for anyone who wants to take the time to complete it. Wikidemon (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page updates
Ive updated this page a little bit, tweaked the guidlines for importance, and removed the "historical" as this was added only due to lack of participation, not for its being obsolete.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Review and Reassessment
Hello, is this the correct place to request an article reassessment? I have looked through the project pages, but perhaps I missed it.

I'd like to request an assessment please for The Phenomenauts, a Bay Area band. I recently made a large number of changes and I'd like to have someone independent take a look. This article has been largely untouched for the past 6-10 years, currently ranked as Stub. I have added: 109 references; five new free images; 3 new non-free images; four sample audio clips (all within fair use sizes); subtitles for the audio clips; and a band member timeline chart. I have added roughly 4,000 words to the article. I have grouped it into sections, and tried to do several passes at copyediting. I have tried to make it follow the WikiProject Musicians article guidelines. I would like to propose it could now be rated as at least B class. Feedback is quite welcome. I created a feedback section on the Talk page to help. Thanks! --Culix (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)