Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012

'''Ask all your queries about assessment or this competition here or on my talk page. Thank you and Happy assessment!'''  Yash  t  101  

Classification Variable
I think the classification variable functionality was removed from the talk page banner. A discussion related to it is pending here. -- S M S  Talk 14:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked an admin to have a look in the problem.  Yash  t  101   00:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Evaluating tags
Hi, Yasht, can you tell how you judged on this assessment: ? Allahabad Address is known for conception of Pakistan... so it forms the basis for almost all information relating to Pakistan's existence, ie. "Top" importance. -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I judged it by keeping in mind this example: Concept of General relativity is in this article: Introduction to general relativity (rated as HIGH importance) which describes the whole concept in simple words while, The real details are in this article General relativity {rated as TOP)
 * That was just an example,


 * Top means an article which forms the basis of all information NOT which gives the partial idea to other article. According to me, only Allahabad Address was not responsible for the partition. There was a movement way before the address was made. So articles such as Pakistan Movement and Partition of India can be given top status as they give the basic information. Allahabad Address only gives an idea and directs towards the final call. It DOES NOT form the basis of all information.


 * That is the reason why I gave it a mid. I feel that I jumped the gun on that one, so I have changed it to High now, but top is not proper for it.
 * Thanks for raising the issue. Its good to see the activeness. Keep it up and Happy assessment!  Yash  t  101   11:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining this. -- lTopGunl (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance Scale
I am a little confused about the Importance scale. From the description here (...they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic...), what I get is that it relates to number of general readers who will read that article. So will it be right to use the traffic stats tool to find out how much an article is read? If yes how much views will indicate the Top, High, Mid and Low importance? -- S M S  Talk 20:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I fear that your idea will not be good. Because the pages that are most popular on wikipedia (Top 10 most viewed pages) are with even Mid and at times low importance. This pages are popular but not that much notable to have a place as top or high. I got it from this link: Today's featured article/Most viewed.


 * Talk page assessment is not for readers. Assessments helps us to get the knowledge of how many VIP articles are there within our scope who form the base for other articles. It keeps everything at right place.


 * We do assessment to determine that which article has priority for editors to improve rather than less important. The whole concept of assessment is based on importance, not popularity since the start.


 * This is why popularity idea fails as Assessments are done on the bases of importance NOT popularity. That is the reason why there is, NOT


 * I hope that I was helpful. If you still have questions, then you can ask for sure. Thanks!  Yash  t  101   02:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 09:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment Bar
Hi

Is an assessment bar there even for Tag and Assess Pakistan? lordoftherings (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Closing time
The assessment drive seems to be inactive for sometime. An editor (User:Samar) asked me to close it. Though there still remain a large number of articles which need to be assessed, but due to inactivity I would like to close it if no one objects. We can start another drive sometime later when we have more active editors in the project. -- S M S  Talk 21:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I think we can wrap it up. Although the target of zero unassessed articles never got achieved, I think we can take positivity of the thousands of articles that we otherwise managed to assess throughout the drive. We can always start a new one although it'll probably have to be after a couple of months since I won't be able to dedicate as much time in the current timeframe.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)