Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/June 2013 backlog reduction drive/Worklists

Is second-party assessment needed when adding photos?
I've just added photos to a couple of articles flagged at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of military history via tags on their talk pages, and have removed these tags given that this isn't something usually covered at WP:MHA. Is this OK, or should I be asking someone else to verify? Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From the discussion at How to participate, I didn't think it was necessary. See bracketed comment in item 2 of the discussion. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I missed that - thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Alphasorting worklists
Would anyone violently object if I alphasorted the worklists by name? Obviously we can search to find our own stuff but I still think it's easier if it's alphabetical... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever works, Ian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries from me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Query re: scoring
G'day all, just wanted clarification about a scoring issue. If an editor checks an article and re-assesses one or more of the B Class criteria to "yes" (probably because the (usually partial) assessment is out-of-date), but the editor themselves has not actually made any changes to the article (and had it checked at MHA), that doesn't count towards their score does it?
 * I wouldn't have thought so. When looking for articles to work on, I've come across the odd one myself that I've just updated without adding to my worklist. Zawed (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, in most cases that is correct. To quote from the backlog page: "To qualify for the points detailed above for the first seven categories, you must have contributed to the article content within the scoring period. Points are also offered for articles that are removed from the eighth category by assessment action only (i.e. you complete an incomplete B class checklist) and the ninth category if you assess an article listed at WP:MHA (if an article meets both of these criteria, you may list it twice)". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I removed the content that the initial question referred to. I didn't really read the guidelines too carefully :) I thought there wasn't much of a difference between removing something from the list of articles with an incomplete b-class checklist and reducing some other backlog by checking and updating the assessment.
 * At the moment, there are hundreds if not thousands of articles listed as needing supporting materials although all it takes is an update of the b-class criteria. Most of the US Navy ship entries for example had an outdated assessment which means that the backlog can be reduced without too much searching for photos or other materials. There are about 300 US Navy ship articles for which this is true and I found numerous examples for other articles. I think with the help of some other editors, the articles needing attention to supporting materials category can easily achieve the goal of this drive, if not even more. PINTofCARLING (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What counts in scoring
While going through the incomplete checklists category, I reassessed several articles as stubs. Would these count in the drive? Wild Wolf (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so, as long as it led to their removal from that category. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Eleventh hour queries
With the drive about to wind up, thought I'd check on a couple of things -- excuse my ignorance as I've not participated in one before (surprisingly!). I've gathered from the instructions that the baseline for scoring depends on the condition/assessment of the article at the very start of the drive, i.e. midnight on 31 May / 1 June. Just to test that, let me put forward some cases... Obviously I bring these up because they're situations I've encountered this month and I want to ensure we're all on the same page and I don't waste people's time by listing articles I've improved or assessed in the wrong categories, or incorrectly assess anyone else's entries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) If an article is a stub at the beginning of the contest, it doesn't count because it wouldn't have shown up on any B-Class checklist category prior to 1 June. If someone then reassesses the same article after 1 June as Start, with a ticked and crossed B-Class checklist, and you improve one of the categories, there are no points to claim for either the assessor or the improver.
 * 2) If an article had an incomplete B-Class checklist at the start of the drive (all question marks) and someone after 1 June reassessed (without anyone having improved it) as say needing attention only to B1 and B2, and you come along and improve it and it's reassessed as B-Class, you claim in all categories.
 * Hi Ian. I would have thought the answer to 1. was yes, as the article would not have been on our radar at the beginning of the drive, and to 2. I would say you can't claim the criteria you re-assess it as having before any improvement, but you can claim any criteria you actually improve yourself (and get ticked off at MHA). But I will defer to Ac if he meant something else. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest I haven't looked into the history of the articles I have improved to confirm if they were there before the start of the drive (didn't even think it would be an issue) so I wonder if I might have breeched the rules myself... Anyway on the first point I would have thought any article that is in the backlog during the month (i.e. has an incomplete b class checklist - so yes not a stub that has been improved, but a start class article that has been improved), regardless of how or when it got there (perhaps except one you put there yourself), is probably fair game as it would meet the intent of the drive to reduce the overall backlog. On the second issue I think Peacemaker's interpretation is right, probably only claim for the categories you improved. Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's cool, don't have an issue with that. I think what we're saying is that if an article was unassessed at the start of the drive, and was subsequently assessed as meeting some B-Class criteria without anyone improving it, then it was meeting those criteria at the start of the drive, it just hadn't been thoroughly assessed -- therefore any improvement can only be for those criteria that remain to be met. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, that sounds right to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day all, I agree with this interpretation. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For future ref, it might be a good idea to freeze Category:Unassessed military history articles for any month we are doing a drive (not sure if that is technically possible), or at least ask editors to lay off it. I normally work on it, but haven't touched it this month because I've been too busy with the drive. If anyone was working on it during a drive, it could cause some scoring issues with stubs being re-assessed as start if someone wanted to get technical about it. Not sure if it worth worrying about, but thought I'd mention it for the future. Details, details... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Should an entry be included (missing B-class checklist) if it is downgraded from start to stub? I had one such instance where I bumped a two-sentence article down to stub-class. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Wild Wolf's query one up on this page, I believe the answer is yes, you can still count it as a B Class checklist done, as it has been taken off the total. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)