Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment/QualityV2Draft

Split into several tables
I think the first thing we should do, especially if we are looking at adding multiple list classes, is split the single large table into several smaller tables as I have done to the original draft above. This makes it easier for somebody to find the particular type of article they are assessing and on our assessment page these can be separated by subsection headings to appear on the TOC. Even if we do not add a more list classes, I think that the non article classes should be separated because they are not as frequently used and in most cases we do not want these classes used outside their respective namespaces (category, template, etc.). Feel free to revert if you do not think this is the best course of action.--Cincotta1 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got wrapped up in a project IRL but am ready to tackle this again. I agree to split it into multiple tables. Looks fine to me. I think the next thing should be to define the criteria very clearly for each level of review. I'll try to tackle that this week; feel free to do it if you get the chance as well. Kees08 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I not really sure where to go from here so I'm glad your back. I recall in an earlier discussions, that we were considering change our criteria to more closely match wp milt. hist. In that vain, I replaced the c class criteria with b1 or b2 and b3 & b4 & b5. As always, revert if this isn't the best course of action.--Cincotta1 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I read through the whole thing again and I am happy with it as-is. Let's pull in a couple other opinions before we bring it back to the project to gain a consensus. Once we have a consensus, I plan on going through a ton of articles and reassessing them, as well as clearing out the backlog. Kees08 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Any of you guys interested in taking a look at the new criteria? We will be proposing this to the whole project once we have it hammered out. I am happy with it as-is. Let me know your thoughts, will be proposing to the project by tomorrow. Kees08 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on all of the changes, although I noticed some of them. Might it be possible to put up a side-by-side comparison, so those who drop by quickly can easily see the full extent of whatever changes you are proposing? In my quick scan, I did not see any issues however. N2e (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The big (and I think only..?) changes were: added A class, added FL class list, and more clearly defined a C-class article (based on the MilHist project). Kees08 (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, I think it is looking fine as proposed. Criteria in B and C are the same list (though C doesn't require all of them), is that correct? Rmvandijk (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup, that is correct. Kees08 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is pretty close to finished. The last step should be grabbing articles that are currently accurately assessed to put in the right column. We should grab the permalink to that so it does not become out of date. Once we do that (and any other cleanup you want to do), I think we should propose it to the project to see if we can get a consensus. After that, I am going to go through and assess a lot of articles! Do you have time to update that column? If not, I'll try to make time soon. Let me know thanks! Kees08 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll hit some of the easy ones tonight, might not finish though. Edit: looks like most of the examples are still accurate only needed to change a few, did you want to use a wp mil. hist. article as example for C for now, or did you want to run one of the current c class articles in this project through the new rules and use that as the example?--Cincotta1 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Made all the links permalinks. For C-class, I conveniently had MilHist review one for C-Class recently, so I linked that version. I think its ready to go to the project to gain a consensus, what are your thoughts? Kees08 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me--Cincotta1 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion for WikiProject Spaceflight adoption
Greetings all. It has been 6 or so years since we updated the assessment criteria for this project.

Proposal 1: Include A-class as an assessment option.

Proposal 2: Specify C-class grading scheme in a more clear way.

Proposal 3: Add BL-class grading scheme.

All other changes for this proposal are formatting, including: permalinks to the articles in the right column, splitting up the single table into multiple tables.

I have not proposed any changes like this before, I think I am close to the format people typically use? Fix that as needed. Let me know what you think! Kees08 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'd like to offer the caveat that I'm not an active editor within Spaceflight articles specifically, so feel free to disregard my comments if you wish. However, my background is more general assessment, so I've worked with a number of different assessment systems (including GA assessment).
 * I would definitely support the splitting into multiple tables, but I'd also like to point to the formatting of the assessment page for WikiProject Military history - the slightly more compact layout makes it more easily digested as a whole, after which a reader can go into the specifics.
 * With regards to the addition of an "A-class" status - I support that as well, especially to help process GA-class articles to FA-class (most notably in terms of highlighting which articles are close to being ready for FA review). The number of articles currently at B-class suggests that there are probably a few articles that could make it through GA review, and having a system for promoting GA articles towards FA will certainly help with that assessment goal (I've not ready through many of the GA articles recently, so I don't know how close to GA status they are).
 * The addition of C- and BL-class criteria are useful, but the specifying the criteria for C-class especially would probably require the template to be recoded (again, WP MilHist is a good example for this) and the C-class articles then be re-assessed against the B-class criteria (855 at last count). Don't let that daunt you - it can then produce very useful data on what needs to be addressed to produce a large crop of newly B-class articles - but it's something that you may want to bear in mind. Given the relative size of both the C-class and List-class pools of articles, I would still recommend it, as again, it can highlight articles that are more ready to be assessed for promotion.
 * In summary - I'm personally always for any changes that helps grade and graduate articles, but it ultimately is down to how useful active editors will find it for prioritising tasks that would help promote articles. To a large degree, I find this also ties in with agreed and explicit assessment goals that editors can work towards as they see fit.
 * And if you need an extra pair of hands to reassess anything, please let me know. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, that is all useful information. I think many of our articles are under-assessed, which is why I thought specifying the criteria better may help some get promoted and get that process moving. I agree with setting some goals for the project, that can be a fun way to improve the project. I'll look more into the MilHist formatting for the assessment table. I should be able to recode the template like Milhist's is, I'll have to do some sandbox testing to verify I do not screw it up. Overall seems like you generally agree with the suggestions, and are suggesting a couple ways to improve implementation. If I got that wrong, just let me know! Kees08 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you are spot on! The changes that you have proposed definitely help clarify the rating scheme; my caveat is simply that any assessment system is only as useful as editors find it, so this is where consensus is important. (That said, if even one person finds it helpful, then it may be worth it, especially if they use it extensively - it's pretty transitive like that.) To that end, may I recommend transcluding the discussion from this page onto the project's talk page to help it get more visibility? (Never mind, just read the discussion in the section above.)
 * Also, if you're interested, I have a page from when I was looking at updating a WikiProject a couple of years ago that has some ideas for assessment measurement and goals (including various automations); this is where this project's automated assessment progression bars came from, and there are more there, if you want. Let me know if there's anything that you would like help with. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that the assessment scheme is rolled out, do you think I need to do anything about the talk page template to automatically apply those rules? I looked at it, and I do not have a clue how. Do you, or know anyone that does? Kees08 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you're automating. If you're automating pages being tagged as Start-class, Stub-class, etc - that's a bit more complicated and would require bots with a clear heuristic on what characteristics make what class (e.g. how many images the page needs for a given class, how KB long the page is, how many levels of — or which — subheadings you're needing). If you're automating the measurement of how many pages are in a given class, and then setting targets for work (e.g. 1.2% of articles are B-class or higher, so you set a target of 2% by June, which is ~81 more or 13-14 per month), then that can be accomplished using templates and sorting categories.
 * I can have a look at the changes needed and get back to you later this week, but in the meantime, I'd recommend starting to generate some consensus on what people want to work on (or think needs working on), as this will guide work. For reference, I'd recommend taking a look at WikiProject Military history (especially the "milestones" on the front page as long-term goals) and WikiProject Medicine's metrics (which also seems to be using WikiProject X for its display) when you're looking at putting together mid-term and long-term goals. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)