Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Archive 1

Proposal
This page is based mainly on the military history page since I felt that we needed to have something like this. Feedback would be much appreciated. I won't go ahead with implementing the A-Class nomination system yet until it's clear that there is consensus among the members here that this is a good idea. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2007-01-6 06:34
 * I am all in favor of setting up an assesment page, where people con come and get someone else to rate their articles. And I mean all in favor in that "actually participate" kind of way.  --PresN

Category class
It seems to me that we could do with also including a "Category" (Cat) class as part of assessing pages, seeing as the CVG talk page box already has this implemented and the ratings are used by several other WikiProjects, including WikiProject Film. Also, categories fall outside of article space and standard ratings (i.e. Start, B) don't really apply here. Green451 03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the "NA" class works fine for that, not much besides categories and Wikiproject pages are covered in that. --PresN 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of time
How long should an article stay in the assessment section before it is moved to the archives? Is there a minimum time, or should it be moved as soon as an editor has looked at/commented on the article? --PresN 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that as soon as someone has reviewed the article it can be moved to the archive. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-01-13 08:18

Class criteria
It's probably a good idea to formalise the criteria for the different classes, see for example the milhist criteria for B-Class articles. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2007-01-16 18:07

Anyone out there?
I know that there's not a lot of articles being nominated, but this place is more like "CVG:PresN gives his opinions on the state of your article". Not that I don't think that's pretty cool and all, but... I think I'll spam the main talk page and remind people of this again. --PresN 05:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. Nifboy 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've managed to take out the A, B, and C's thus far. This is a very slow process though.--Kung Fu Man 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Start class vs. B-Class lists.
I have a question / comment on such rankings. First off, thanks to Mitaphane, Nifboy, and PresN for dropping by the Suikoden III characters list, as well as doing the thankless ranking job in general. I'd like to emphasize that this is not whining about the ranking of a specific article; this is more a general "ranking philosophy" issue.

Mitaphane: "The article is through; however there was one thing that prevented me from assessing it to B class, reference sources." Nifboy: "I have difficulty B-classing anything without any refs." PresN: "Pop some out-of-universe info in these characters, ref it up, and it's a B."

Obviously a good idea in general, of course; however, I'm not sure if that's a good distinction between Start and B-Class articles and lists (especially lists). I'm going from Template:Grading scheme, which says that Start-class means "Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded." (emphasis mine)  "most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed."

B-class means "Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the 'Wikipedia 0.5' or 'usable' standard." The article may need "cleanup" and "correcting significant policy errors."

In other words, an immaculately sourced article with no OR and NPOV that's still only half an article would be Start-class, as it needs expansion. A horrible and bloated article that needs major cleanup, however, would be B-class, assuming that it contained somewhere within it the information that "should" be there. Stub to B-class is focused on content; B-class to FA/FL is focused on adherence to policy, references, writing style, etc. Most of Wikipedia is probably B-class, and this includes a lot of awful articles.

Anyway, I think this goes double for lists. While it can be hard to tell when an article on a game is getting close to "complete," it should be comparatively easy to tell for lists. There are only so many locations, characters, racetracks, etc. in a game, and the list should eventually hit the point where any more information will probably not be encyclopedic. I just don't want to give editors the idea from seeing "Start" class that the list has only barely begun, and that they should go add some more trivia right now.

Let me emphasize that a fair response is "Hey, the Grading Scheme rules are weird on this one, so let's require refs before moving to B-class for CVG." I'm fine if the consensus is that yes, we need refs before we rank things B-class. It's just that the Grading Scheme Template seems to currently say to me that the difference between Start and B-class is in comprehensiveness, not references and adherence to WP policy. SnowFire 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Hey, the Grading Scheme rules are weird on this one, so let's require refs before moving to B-class for CVG." Heehee.  Anyways... I feel like unless an article is very, very well written, it needs refs to be a B.  I.E., almost or at GA quality, just missing refs.  --PresN 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, both of the first two quotes are Nifboy, Mitaphane never commented, though he did originally rate it as a start, over a week ago. --PresN 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Like I said, it's no skin off my nose if that standard is used, though you might want to suggest that the template be rewritten slightly to mention that.  Mitaphane mentioned that comment on his talk page. SnowFire 07:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This kind of problem is exactly what I was talking about when I said above that it might be a good idea to formalize the criteria for B-class articles, like the Military History project has done. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-02-11 20:49


 * Why bother changing our own when we can change the 1.0 criteria? Nifboy 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I like to take the perspective, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy on this one. The whole point of assessment is to a get a better perspective on the all the articles the project covers: what's good, what's bad, what we should be working on, what isn't that important, etc. I probably already spend way too much time assessing articles that could be spent improving important ones. There's so many articles to be rated, most of them stubs, beginning articles, or articles on non-notable fictional things, that I make just a slightly above-superficial-look at article before I make an assessment that goes like:


 * Stub: Article is just a paragraph or so that explain what the topic is.
 * Start: Article starts to branch into subtopics (like plot, gameplay, development) and has started to add standard template VG article stuff (infoboxes, pics, categories, etc)
 * B: Article has pretty much all the standard VG article stuff in place; it has pretty much fleshed out all the big subtopics out there. It doesn't violate policy or guidelines (this usually stops a lot of articles about fiction that are rife with WP:OR or WP:WAF problems). And, there's at least a some references made so that there's something out to show that it's not going to have a problem with WP:V.
 * A: Article has pretty much covered every possible subtopic in detail. It's well written. Has all the standard VG template stuff in place. Every section has been fact checked with references so that its comprehensive and is a good reflection of what knowledge is known of the topic outside WP. Its basically a FA without having gone through the bureaucratic process of FA.
 * FA: It's gone through the final phase where a number of editors have reviewed it over to make sure nothing is wrong and it meets FAC. It is especially important that editors, not associated with WP:CVG, have looked at it from a perspective outside the world of gaming so its known the article is easily readable from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the topic or video gaming in general.
 * Everyone has their own standards of what an ideal article of class X looks like. And they're always going to be vague because everyone's perspective on what some words mean varies. Because of that I'm of the mindset of "just change it if you think it mets your interpretation of this definition" and move on. If someone thinks that's wrong it will be changed anyway. The important thing it has some relative close grade so that people see where its at in the big picture. — Mitaphane  ? 06:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment: M
I'm currently trying to make myself useful, and I'll try to assess all articles starting with an M in the next week or so. --Krator 12:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Update on unassessed articles and a suggestion
So far all the unassessed computer and video game articles beginning with 'F' have been assessed, as have a selection of some of the other unassessed articles. Completion of this work is slow, though, so it would help to have another assesser on the job to keep this particular category down to as few as possible; assessers cannot mark every single article that comes through. Finally, a suggestion for any future assessers; in the edit summary, type the following text as recognition:

Addition of quality and importance ratings for WikiProject Computer and video games.

If an assesser has enough assessed articles to their name the CVG Star may be awarded, as well as the Working Man's Barnstar. Totalinarian 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha... .  Mainly the middle 1000 or so. Of that page, anyway, there are a lot more later on.  Since there are a few new people working on the list, let me explain.  It all started here.  As you can see, at the time, the unrated list was 6445 deep.  Over the next few months, we knocked it down to about 400.  Then, at the beginning of January, Jacoplane started going through the other cvg categories, and putting the template on the talk pages that were missing one.  Even then, by the end of January, we had knocked it down to 300 or so.  Soon after, Jacoplane added 1800+ articles, and we've been whittling it down since then.  We're at 1300ish now, so a few more weeks to a month, I think, unless someone finds a lot more that are untagged.  --PresN 07:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've been holding off from adding more articles. When we finish this bunch I'll see if I can find more that need to be done. I think most large categories have been covered now though. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-02-23 23:32

Assessment: Comments
I've been continuing with my assessments today, and I wonder how many of the other assessers write comments/suggestions on every article they assess. Personally I try to comment on every Mid importance+ article, or every article with a recent (new comments this week) talk page. --User:Krator (t c) 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I was just looking at it... . 8300 edits, 4300 of which are talk pages.  Of those, probably 3000ish are assessing articles.  I don't bother adding comments, which is why I try to make extensive comments on article requests here.  It's also why, even though I keep track of it, I find edit counts to be generally worthless.  --PresN 07:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Archive
Could we use Werdnabot for the archiving? --User:Krator (t c) 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could, though I don't know how, but I don't think that it matters very much, at our current rate of assessments. Especially the way I set it up, where every time you assess an article you archive the oldest assessment.  --PresN 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it to monthly archiving just now. I think it's not a good idea to have to edit two articles each time something is assessed. --User:Krator (t c) 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A-class
I think we should use the A-class system to its fullest potential. According to the guidelines, it only takes three endorses, and the review process is not as involving as FAC, so it won't be extremely difficult to gather a core group. It is important to use A-class to its greatest potential, because Featured topics is getting fairly strict about limiting GAs across the topics. A-class provides a place for those articles that can be improved beyond GA, but will be difficult to (or cannot be) elevated to FA status. It also seems that A-class is more reliable than the GA system. I can understand a potental lack of personnel, but I know I'd be interested in helping out, and I know Krator, Jacoplane, and PresN are active on this page as well. It should not be too difficult to ignite as least minor interest.

For the time being, I assume it's being handled more informally? &mdash; Deckiller 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My own ideas on the A-class are that the current procedure as outlined on this page is too much effort. If someone's willing to go through all the hassle of creating a subpage and doing all the template stuff, with an article that already meets a large portion of the FA criteria, just submitting for FA is a much more logical step.


 * That's why A-class has to be much more like the other assessment things - basically, someone asks for it, an editor says yes or no, and that's it. The difference between A-class and the others should be, that A-class requires two assessments agreeing on the rating, instead of just one.


 * --User:Krator (t c) 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. The articles I was/am considering are Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy XII. Both are fairly close to FA status, although it might take another several weeks. &mdash; Deckiller 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Request Rating
Is the rating/importance listed for each item supposed to be it's current rating, or the requested rating? Kolano 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * New Requests: current rating. (add new requests in this section)
 * Archived requests: what it was rated as. (don't edit this section unless you assessed something yourself)


 * Don't request a rating, the editor who will assess your article will decide upon that.


 * --User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A-class proposal
I'm not sure how many people are watching this, so I hope this doesn't go without any response.

My idea is to scrap the difficult inactive A-class thing with templates and subpages etc.- maybe a single template function would be handy, but not needed. The idea is just like the current assessment procedure, except that it requires two assessments, instead of one. To achieve this, a section for "A-class Second Assessments" should be made on this page, where the editor who made the first assessment puts the article after assessing an article as A-class. Any other editor can assess the article from that list again, just like it is currently done, and the article is promoted if both agree.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Donations?

--User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I have a good idea here:


 * [[Image:Symbol_wait.svg|15px]] On hold: This article is currently awaiting improvements before pass/fail.
 * Second opinion: This reviewer has passed this article, but requires second editor's assessment to promote this article to A-class.
 * [[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).
 * Promoted This article has been promoted by User: Example and User: Example2.

We can make templates out of these, similar to GAReview. --haha169 (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Werdnabot
Werdnabot is currently disabled, and as such is not archiving the completed assessments for the month of March. I can manually move this list into the Archive, but am unsure if it will cause any problems. Digiwrld1 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There never was a bot - Werdnabot has never been told to archive this page - for the simple reason that Assessment has only been really active for a month or two. Archived. --User:Krator (t c) 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I had assumed (from the earlier discussion on this talk page) that a bot had been implemented. I'll keep that in mind form now on, my apologies.Digiwrld1 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment quality scale needs rewriting
Hello project members! I think the assessment quality scale grading scheme needs to be slightly rewritten to match the project's needs. For example, giving articles such as Munich air disaster and Real analysis as examples of xyz-class articles doesn't really help me judge an article about a computer game &mdash; give articles in the project's scope as examples. Take Hitman 2: Silent Assassin for example. It is rated as a Start-class article. I just added a chapter about the general reception, referencing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Is this enough to push it to B-class? I think the description of a stub-article is fine, everyone recognizes one when they see it, same goes for featured article. The problem arises between Start, B and A classes. How much can you write about a video game? What points should every article have? Probably at least reception and plot synopsis. (Edit/Add: See WikiProject_Films/Assessment. They still reference Africa in the Start-class article description but at least the example column has proper examples.) --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 09:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second this. In addition, there are some issues with wording in the rating scale itself that seem to be at conflict with Wikipedia policy (most notably sections of WP:NOT).  One example that I keep seeing fairly often is the description of a "B-Class" article's usefulness:

Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.


 * Unfortunately, it seems that this leaves a lot of room for interpretation in game articles. A serious student or researcher may be interested in high levels of detail, such as scoring details, strategies, programming tips, bugs and exploits, hardware specifications, etc. - all of which have been deemed inappropriate in other sections of the guidelines for this project.  I'm currently involved in a rather heated dispute in Pac-Man Championship Edition partly due to the bolded part of the quote above. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Note that the process for attaining an A-rating is currently not active,?"
Then how'd List of Wii Games get an A?Wi Account ki 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The rating's there, the difficult process to officially attain it not. List of Wii Games is a list that clearly fitted the A guidelines, so I was bold and promoted it. Please sign your comment. --User:Krator (t c) 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I forgot. And thanks for answering my question.Wi Account ki 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ashnard
Excuse me, but does anybody know when Ashnard will be assessed? It has been on the request list for about five days and has not been assessed. It would probably only take about 20 minutes, sorry if I seem impatient, it's just that I didn't know it would take this long and I may as well have just asked a user directly. I am actually awaiting assessment before I help renovate any other Fire Emblem articles, so I'm not doing anyhting until I find out if the attempted renovation of Ashnard was successful. Thanks. Ashnard  talk  20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People haven't been submitting articles with interesting subjects for assessment recently, so I've been reluctant to do assessments. I'll look into it now. --User:Krator (t c) 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!! Ashnard  talk  20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-articles in CVG
Could there be an extra listing added in the "current status" table for class NA pages?

Also, it seems that the CVG template can automatically tell when it is placed in a non-article, as it does not list the article as unassessed, but it does not automatically change "article" to "non-article". Can that be changed? It would be convenient and reliable, as opposed to relying on people knowing to manually add class=NA when they add the template. JohnnyMrNinja 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the first question, no. We don't even make the table, it's WP:1.0s, and they update it automatically with a bot.  You could ask them, but it's doubtful, as the table isn't really for us to see how many articles we have in the project, it's for them to see which articles could be put in a cd release of Wikipedia.  As to the second question, I had never noticed that, but you're right, at least on category pages.   You might try asking on the main WP:VG talk page, or on the template talk page, as you'd get more replies, I personally don't know hoe to do it.  --PresN 08:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bring "no priority" back into the fold.
So I decided that I am going to give everyone involved in this project indian burns until they cry and listen to my demands.

...Well, demand - bring it back!


 * 1) People argue that if something is of no priority, it shouldn't be here. Here are flaws in that:
 * 2) Generally, people view priority assessment as within the VG realm. It can be of high priority in some other realm, but no priority here.
 * 3) Priority just says which articles are of greater priority to make great.
 * 4) Being able to find articles with no priority also adds the ability to either reassess if possible or Prod/AfD it. Without them immediately visible, this is impossible.
 * 5) And the coup de grâce - people still use it. Just because we no longer acknowledge it as a part of article assessment doesn't mean everyone else got the memo. Having a separate category can only help in either changing these articles of no priority to low priority or to Prod/AfD them instead.

I see no reason why category creation would hurt that bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

EndWar
I am not a member of this project, but I would like to request a review of Tom Clancy's EndWar. It is, as of April 27, a stub. However, a look at the article would clearly confirm otherwise.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Freelancer as a Top importance FA?
I am not a member of this project, but I have been editing game articles which have been submitted for assessments. I have been under the assumption that article gradings are undertaken by members of the project(s). When I read the article Freelancer, I am pretty surprised to find it is a featured article. It is overly long on focusing on the mechanics and story of the game without a fair representation of what the game means to the gaming community or the general public. The most damning of which is it is an article without any reference sources for news, possessing only a link to IMdb for voice cast, and soundtrack.

I believe the article Freelancer can be done better with referred sources detailing its development and impact on the space simulator gaming scene, and earn a FA based on those merits, but find the current article's grade hard to believe or swallow. It makes a mockery of the other FA articles, and makes me wary of those that are listed as FA but I have yet to read.

I investigated the history of its talk page and discovered the responsible party is a Ranger1991 who changed the article's class to FA on 9 July 2007 (link). He has also gradually changed the article's importance from Low to Top over the time. I believe Ranger1991 is not a member of any grading projects, nor has the backing to do so.

Please look into this. Jappalang 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Freelancer is not, nor ever has been, an FA-class article, so I changed the tag to Start-class.  While no one has to be a member of a "grading project" to assess an article, FA-class needs to be approved at WP:FA before it is official, and Wikiproject tags should reflect this.  Again, thanks! --PresN 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Stance on assessing your own work?
Right, I've been working on Incoming for the past week or so, and I think I've taken it from Start-Class up to B-Class or possibly GA level. I'm reluctant to stick the article up at WP:GAC because it isn't very active and I'm off on holiday next week so might not be around when it gets a GAR. So I said to myself, "Assessment is usually quicker, so why don't I just list it at VG assessment to get a reasonable idea?" Then another thought: "Why not just change the grading myself?"

I've been assessing articles on and off for a few months now, so I figured I 'dhave a pretty good idea of where my article stands on the assessment scale. But then I realised that bias and spending significant amounts of time working on the article might cloud my judgement. Should I just list it for assessment, or be bold and change the rating to B-Class myself (assuming it meets the required standards)? Una LagunaTalk 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine to reassess your work to B-class, but of course then you don't get any outside input. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-10-15 20:55


 * Well, that short sentence makes more sense than my two paragraphs' of rambling. Cheers, Una LagunaTalk 06:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Grade assessment table examples.
If there's no objections, I'm going to modify the assessment table to create a VG wikiproject specific one with VG related examples. It seems odd to have examples relating to things like the ISS and medical syndromes, when it would be more helpful for editors to see examples that actually relate to the VG project. I won't change any of the criteria, just the examples. I'll put up a sandbox table later. -- Sabre 11:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Change anything you want to, please. This has been bugging me for a while, and it is good to see someone picking it up. Also, make sure to link to permanent versions with the examples. User:Krator (t c) 12:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandbox here. I've tried to get a good mix by using three game title articles, an article on a single character, an article covering characters in a series and a game developer. -- Sabre 13:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No further comments? OK, I'm updating the table. -- Sabre 11:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Though the examples do fit the criteria, none of them is a particularly good example of their category. The difference between the Start and Stub articles is not that great, and one might question why they are not switched around. Half Life 2 in that format wouldn't survive FAR. Final Fantasy is quite long, which makes it hard to use as an example. I'll try to find some examples as I go and assess things. User:Krator (t c) 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just after updating the examples to be specific to the project, I mostly assumed that they were in the category so they'll be ok. If you can get more appropriate examples go right ahead, although I'd recommend looking further down the revision line on the Half-Life 2 article: I simply took it from the nearest edit date to when it was made FA over a year ago, and it's probably improved to a more appropriate format somewhere since then. -- Sabre 14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Category browsing
In there any way to make Wikipedia display all the High-priority video game articles that are also Start-Class video game articles, or all the Top-priority video game articles that are also B-Class video game articles? Thank you. Jecowa (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * AutoWikiBrowser can create intersections of article categories, and the list of VG articles by quality groups articles by quality, and sub-groups them by priority (for example, the High-priority Start-class articles are listed on page 4). Nifboy (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links. I found that top priority stub I was looking for with the list sorted by quality. I'm surprised that the Satoru Iwata article is a stub, not that I know much about that kind of stuff. Jecowa (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Example articles
Is that old Lara Croft article really a good example of a B-class article? It doesn't even have any refs. --Mika1h (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't really. Feel free to change it to a more appropriate version or another more suitable article, just be sure to use the pernament link. -- Sabre (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists = Unassessed
For some reason when using the "list" rating on an article.. it still remains in the unassessed category.. which simply is wrong... so any ways to fix that?? Cant edit the template myself since its protected ;)  Y zm o  talk  20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:VG has no list rating. Lists can be Stub, Start, B, GA, A and FA like any other article. User:Krator (t c) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not GA, but yeah, we rate them as to their quality. --PresN (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that explains that.. thx  Y zm o  talk  12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The main assesment page now has documentation about Lists Class.  So, is this an acceptable class now? Dawynn (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is "tolerated". Previous attempts at reaching a consensus on this issue (one way or the other) have always stalled and failed due to lack of input. Kariteh (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this is such an issue. There is an obvious difference between a strict list where the only writing is the intro, and a page where there is a list of things, each of which has a small paragraph. IMO, the former should be rated List-Class, and the latter should be rated like other articles. There are only rare occasions where there is a page that could go either way. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my beef. After spending considerable time revamping the SNES / SFC game lists, at the end of the day, all I can hope to acheive is "List" class.  That gives absolutely no rating as to the quality of the work.  Even lists can be ugly, incomplete, and disorganized, but such lists are still given an even rating of "List" class with a polished work.


 * Is my work polished? Well, its better than what was there originally.  I'd like to have the ability for others to give their input on how well I did.  If someone ranks my work as C, why wasn't it a B?  If its ranked as B, do they have any suggestions that would make it A-level work in their eyes?  With the List class, it can only be thrown in the heap of all other lists, good, bad, or downright ugly.


 * (Yes, there is such a thing as a Featured List, but I personally wouldn't classify any of the game lists in that arena. But that shouldn't prevent it from being classified according to quality of work) Dawynn (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is where to draw the distiction between, say, a "C-list" and a "B-list". It's very difficult for most lists, which is the main reason why this class was adopted. I do understand your concerns however. As a matter of interest, Featured list criteria is nowhere near as strict and is much more leniant than Featured article criteria. I've seen many lists obtain FL status in a matter of weeks. -- .: Alex  :.  19:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"No" importance rating
What is the meaning of "no" importance rating? It doesn't even show in the statistics. Can someone explain why it's used instead of "low" rating? --Mika1h (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It shows as "None".  JohnnyMrNinja  10:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're talking about Quake Army Knife, I'd interpret it as meaning "You haven't met the basic criteria for including this article in Wikipedia". In other words, what makes QuArK worth mentioning, and can you back that up with some decent sources? Nifboy (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but as I said it messes up the statistics because it doesn't show in table (it hides the article) . I don't know where the graphic for the rating comes, but Wikipedia's general importance scale doesn't even include "no" importance. The information that the article may need to be deleted can be conveyed otherwise. --Mika1h (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the "no" importance puts the article to "low" importance category. I guess it's okay then... --Mika1h (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

See also my personal cheatsheet for VG importance ratings. User:Krator (t c) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessing
Assessed all unassessed vg articles except the afd ones ;)  Y zm o  talk  22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Weapons of Resident Evil 4 getting a straight A?
The assessment guidelines notes recommending: "Note that while the formal process for attaining an A-rating is currently not active, it is recommended that at least two assessors agree on rating an article as A-class before declaring it as such."

So Weapons of Resident Evil 4 gets a straight A from just one assessor? With all respect, with statements like "Unlocked upon beating the game on Normal difficulty, the Chicago Typewriter is a Thompson submachine gun with a maximum firepower level of 10, making it the automatic equivalent to the Butterfly. This weapon has unlimited ammunition", "The Handcannon is a .50 Magnum with a maximum firepower level of 99 when upgraded", "The rocket launcher is a one-use weapon that can be bought from the shop for 30,000 pesetas"; how did this article avoid violating WP:GAMECRUFT or WP:GAMEGUIDE? "Game Over Online Magazine applauds the game's 'welcome additions of a scoped rifle, the mine launcher from Resident Evil 3, a submachinegun, and a one-shot rocket launcher'" is a notable statement? While it is not violating policy, what about the large chunk of a quote in the Creation section; couldn't it be written into prose? Is this the standard of a "near-FA" quality game article? 220.255.4.132 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree with you on that, this article is not A-class standard. At most, its B-class - if only because of its sourcing - but that table is brink on game guide material, the creation section needs to be points backed up by specific lines in the quote rather than simply the block of quote, and the last few sections could use merging into a single "cultural impact" section with appropriate sub-headings. That, plus the fact that the article's relevant information is more suited to the main game article than a separate forked-off article and the relative disregard for the external links policy, in my view doesn't even make it close to A-class. Krator's usually quite good with the articles I've seen him assess, but this one certainly is a blip on his radar, especially with the lack of any comments for the assessment given its high rating. -- Sabre (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree most of the content should be merged into the main article since only the chainsaw is notable on its own. 220.255.4.132 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the content should be merged. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'd note that since "the formal process for attaining an A-rating is currently not active", it only takes 2 people to assess if it's requested here, otherwise it's an ad hoc 1 person assessment like it is everywhere else. --PresN (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to re-assess this anyone. To explain a few things: User:Krator (t c) 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When assessing an article for the first time, I sometimes ignore the 2-people A-class thing, and rarely leave comments, as PresN says above. Most of my first time assessments are done via AWB anyway.
 * When assessing this article, I considered both B and A, and decided to go for A, even though it was a bit high. It was the kind of problem this article has that made me go for A. See below.
 * The usual thing that separates A from FA is the prose. Gaming jargon, general copyediting, etc. A-class is, IMHO, when all the information is there, fully referenced, without POV issues or guideline failures. I thought there was not much more to the topic than the content of this article. Note that this point is probably the most controversial: I recently proposed Toki Tori for A for the same reason, which was rejected.
 * I'm usually not in for a fight about ratings (not here, at least), so it doesn't matter much if anyone feels like changing it.


 * I agree with the assessment as A-class. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your opinion carry little weight to the A-class with regards to you being the primary contributor to this article. 220.255.4.132 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that I devoted so much of my volunteer time to improving this article, whereas you have not done so at all, suggests that my opinion does matter. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the weapons listed in the "gameguide" In-game weapons section has proven their real-world notability. The sole exception being the Chainsaw and the controller bearing its likeness. The article's title is incompatible with those contents appropriate for Wikipedia (meaning the Chainsaw). The point you brought up is indeed controversial. It seems to imply that an article with all possible "information" can be A-class even if it isn't notable and goes against several policies. (Transcluding this topic to the article's discussion) 220.255.4.132 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article survived the AfD because many editors correctly believe that the material is notable and passes all of our policies. I have seen no convincing evidence or argument otherwise.  Persisting in calling it "game guide" is dishonest.  The article's title is totally consistent with Wikipedia in that it is a sub or spinoff article of the main Resident Evil 4 article.  There is no identifiable controversy in Krator's accurate and fair reasoning.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I appreciate your support, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, you may indeed be biased as the main author of the article. On a different point, our friendly Singaporean IP-editor above does have a selective perception of what is suitable and what is not. All but one of the sections of the article are unquestionable, and the other is necessary as a summary, and to provide context. If I understand this correctly from the focus on the 'chainsaw' as only 'good part', he appears to believe that only things made of 'stuff' are worthy of articles. This would make WP:MATH very unhappy :) User:Krator (t c) 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, something seems fishy with the IP. I am not sure what to make of this one, but please check this IP's edits: .  It looks a lot like a registered user who is disgurntled over the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 article being kept and is now editing with an IP instead.  The other edits from the IP being on such articles as List of D.Gray-man episodes and List of characters in Ben 10 make me think it is one of the ArbCom parties, maybe one of those who participated in the AfD: .  Anyway, the IP just tagged two other IPs as well, which have also edited character related articles or made anti-game guide edits:  and .  From the above two IPs, see for example,  and .  Undeniably the same editor has used these three IPs and the specific game list and character article material targetted is consistent with either some of the involved ArbCom party related editing, and the style of writing and specific interest in the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 article strike me as someone who participated in the AfD and is disappointed in the result.  The fact that those three IPs I listed had edits that focused on episode, character, and what they perceive as "game guide" material seem consistent with either certain registered editors who typically go after episode, character, or "game list" articles with a degree of intensity as well.  Considering the tremendous gap in the main IPs edit history to all of a sudden focus on this one particular article in various talk page discussions does not strike me as a non-regular user.   Were I to draw a connection between the IPs, consider, for example these diffs:


 * IP:
 * Other IP:


 * Both the IPs have an issue with certain kinds of content they consider "game guide" and indicate as much in edit summaries and on the Video Games Wikiproject. In any event, notice that the block log of this IP: .  You'll see that the first IP has made an edit to that IP: .  Even if the similarities of the IPs are coincidences, then it looks like that editor may be IP hopping to evade a three month block.  Also, look at a similar IP in that range with a block through next month:  and also .  Compare with this IP: .  Both similar IPs edited The Evil Spartan's user talk page around the same time.  Finally, another IP in the same range has been blocked indefinitely for proxy and socking: .  Something of a disruptive nature seems to be going on from whoever is editing from these IPs:




 * Regards, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe in conspiracy theories. User:Krator (t c) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not much of a theory. The same editor is clearly editing off of various IPs two of which had extended blocks and one an idefinite block.  I apologize if this is not the best place to post this evidence, but it appears as if we are dealing with someone evading blocks and I am not sure if we are supposed to indulge such editors?  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Krator, while I'm satisfied there is no irregularity with the grading system but the article contents don't match what is expected of the grade given (in fact, now this discussion is turning towards the notability of the article itself rather than your awarded grade). I believe you misunderstood my comments on the chainsaw. With a title like "Weapons of RE4", the article is expected to show why those weapons are notable. Maybe they affected the development of some other games, maybe players remember the game because of the weapons, maybe they caused controversy, etc. I'm pretty sure you know this and what the article has presented to illustrate this. The current article does not do this. The reception section consists of one-sentence bites which praise the weapons on a generic scope. The creation section focuses on the weapon system and contains a few sentences. The bulk of the article consists of a gameguide Weapon section which states how much you can buy a weapon for, how you can unlock them, the stats of their firepower, etc. This is the issue I am having with. The weapons aren't proving their "Wiki-worth" so as to speak. It would be like "List of Weapons in Counter-Strike". That is why I said only the chainsaw did. It stood out from those generic weapons with its controller spinoff. 220.255.4.134 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, the article's contents match what is expected by the grade given and the article indicates why the weapons are notable multiple times. The current article does exactly these things and a statement of facts regarding the weapons is not one is in a game guide.  I happen to own a game guide on this game and the weapons table looks NOTHING like the pages in the game guide.  The article presents the "wiki-worth" with flying colors.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Le Grand, do you even know what is a dynamic or shared ip. So now you preach making Wikipedia exclusive to only those with static ips, and blame the actions of an errant ip sharer on the whole pool? You're simply trying to divert attention on the article since you don't have substantial arguments at all. Go ahead and bring it up on WP:ANI. Either you don't understand why some of those ips are blocked and some aren't, or you are deliberately misintepreting the data to advance some agenda. You don't understand what the policy on gameguide is (what is your defence for the Weapons section). You don't understand why it is inappropriate for you to defend its assessment (go ask regulars at GAC/FAC and refer to Krator's comments). The article wasn't kept because overwhelming numbers stated good reasons for it to be kept, but rather they thought they saw promise of more notable content (prompted by your addition of sources and bringing up the chainsaw, compare to the version up for AfD then) which could have made a good article. However this isn't the case for the reasons pointed out above. The article's content can be merged into the main article itself without any issues at all, and make the presentation of the Resident Evil 4 topic much better in Wikipedia. 220.255.4.134 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are admittedly jumping from one IP to another, which tends to look suspicious to other editors, especially when you have used IPs that have been blocked for sockpuppetry recently. It is entirely appropriate to defend something that I volunteered time to work on against someone (all we can go with are the IP edits) who has seemingly not made any constructive edits, but rather target material inaccurately referred by the IP hopper as "game guide" when the material does not provide a walkthrough of the game and is not "how to" in nature.  If you do not wish to be accused of anything by using IPs used heavily for vandalism or by going from one IP to another in the same discussion, then I encourage you to create a stable account.  Sincrerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for showing your ignorance and biasness in assuming I deliberately jump ips or go around vandalizing user talk pages and articles. Go read up on dynamic ips, policies and the admins' discussions on them until you understand what them, how they're handled and why wikipedia allows anonymous editing. Constant assumption of bad faith contradicts wiki's guideline to assume good faith. Again you show ignorance or are deliberately twisting things around in stating the article isn't gameguide. So "There is a short delay before firing, making the rocket launcher impractical against faster enemies", "This explosion is powerful and has a wide splash damage radius, making it useful against both crowds of weaker enemies and stronger single enemies" doesn't tell players when and how to use them? "Although unsuitable for destroying doors or shelves, it can be upgraded to increase its chance of a critical headshot by 500%", "It can only fire one shot at a time, making it difficult to dispatch larger groups of enemies." doesn't tell them how to use this weapon? "Unlocked upon beating the game on Normal difficulty, the Chicago Typewriter" doesn't tell them how to unlock this weapon? "The rocket launcher is a one-use weapon that can be bought from the shop for 30,000 pesetas", "Its firepower level is 13.0. When completely modified, its firepower reaches 50. To balance out its firepower, ammunition is rarely encountered" doesn't give useless info to readers? Claiming all the weapons are ridiculous since only the chainsaw is mentioned as an impact in real-world. No other weapon is mentioned as such on its own (Butterfly, Typewriter, rocket launcher, etc; where's the talk on them, what's their impact, etc). You're just blindly and fanatically defending your own work instead of fixing the article up to what people had expected. I'm done with this section since I was seeking an answer to the grading system and I got it. It's pointless talking to you to get the article fixed up since you are blind to what's wrong and a fanatical defender of gameguide (per policy) contents, and constantly assuming bad faith to legitimate concerns. Bye. 220.255.4.134 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are clearly using multiple IPs to participate in the same discussion:
 * 220.255.4.134
 * 220.255.4.132
 * It's no assumption, it is obvious and it is on IPs with large numbers of vandalism warnings if not outright blocks. I own a game guide for this game; the section is dramatically different from what is in the game guide.  You do not know what you are talking about, are making personal attacks against me, and your criticism of Krator's deicision is totally baseless.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I grasp your point by now, and I think it would be foolish to continue this discussion any further. Thank you for your observant attitude and swift notification here, that's why transparent processes are nice. User:Krator (t c) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Aliens: Colonial Marines
No longer a stub. JAF1970 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rated as start. You should use the assessment page though for this not the talk page. It still has some ways to go though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for interview
I am a Georgia Tech research student studying the Design of Online Communities, and I would like to interview some members from the Video Game Assessment community regarding your experiences in editing Wikipedia. If you are interested in helping out my research, please contact me through my Wiki Talk page. Thank you! Midas7g (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

C-Class
Now that there is a C class, which i think quite a few VG articles will fall under, we should add it to the templates about assessment.. ASAP.  Y zm o  talk  12:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When do we start implementing it? MuZemike (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as people start putting it on talk pages, from what I gather. Nifboy (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should also add explanations on this assessment page. Kariteh (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How come the criteria of the Vgproj assessment scale are substantially "lower" than that of Wikipedia v1.0? for B-class for instance. Kariteh (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * B-class was recently changed, and our assessment scale hadn't been touched much in a while until the last couple of days. We need to take a good-hard-look at our scale, or just cut-and-paste from WP 1.0.  JohnnyMrNinja  10:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We do need to check against the general assessment descriptions and examples. In particular, I think our example of a Start class article (AoE III - the warchiefs) bears no resemblance to the general assessment's article in terms of size. It's closer to C-class than Start. Someoneanother 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not literally do a cut-and-paste, then adapt it back to our needs? It seems simpler than trying to make our outdated assessments match the already-upgraded WP 1.0.  JohnnyMrNinja  18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking another look, I think ours is pretty good, with the exception that emphasis should be placed on C-class articles containing references to reliable sources. Considering the main rating does so, C seems like the ideal point to insist on referencing. That and the Start class example, which is somewhere between Start and C as opposed to a typical start class article like Alan Wake. Stub class refers to 'a lot of work needed before the article could become A-class' - why A-class? Why mention any other grade? Someoneanother 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Edit In the general assessment area, it's stated that C-class articles should not be eligible for speedy deletion, following on from that, if it's C-class it should be relatively safe from AFD because it's adequately referenced. Stipulating something like that would be very useful because then we'd know which articles (stub and start) need work in order to prevent them being AFD candidates in the future. Someoneanother 18:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the B-class criteria
So, apparently we have B-class criteria now. I'd like to see them off this page for the following reasons: On a related note, what happened to the WP:VG specific descriptions of A-class, for example? User:Krator (t c) 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not different from the GA criteria in spirit, only in wording. It is hard for editors trying to upgrade an article to discern the actual difference between B and GA, and this goes on top the GA/A confusion.
 * The B-class criteria do not actually add anything but bureaucracy to the assessment process. B-class is not something to be proud of, nor something that is widely recognised like GA or FA is. It is simply a "step in the right direction". A lot of scrutiny and such isn't needed there, a lot of help in reviewing is. Criteria that can be copy pasted like most GA reviewers do nowadays do not help.
 * The criteria are not well written or extremely helpful, which would be an excuse for their inclusion regardless of the above two. The first criterium, for example, contains irrelevant advice on citation templates.
 * Wikipedia v1.0 Editorial Team did this for all classes except the specialty classes like lists or images. If you click "show" on any of the classes, you should see the criteria for to make that class. I suppose the Editorial team is trying to be more detailed or rigorous on what qualifies as C-Class, B-Class, etc. I don't know if it's really going to help any, though. MuZemike (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Formal A-class process
It seems to me that most of the new assessment requests are for A-class. I think that a formal process should be adopted - one similar to the GAN process except there are two individual reviewers. --haha169 (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Before changing anything, what's wrong with the current 'process', and how does a formal process counter that? User:Krator (t c) 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Krator. If criteria must be met before promotion to (Edit: or suggestion of) "A", they can be listed on the article talk page (or a subpage thereof, if at all necessary) and checked off as they are met.  That seems to be the very purpose of GAN, apart from instant approval or rejection. --an odd name 01:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Necrid was recently promoted to A-class with less comments and suggestions for improvement than that of an average GAN or peer review. A-class suggestions aren't being taken seriously enough at the moment, and is being used as an alternative for articles who can't yet achieve FA, rather than articles who are on the verge of being an FAC (as criteria says). --haha169 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at Anarchy Online, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and The Guardian Legend. Those articles are quite decent, and definitely great GA-articles, but not near the quality required of FAs, or even, IMO, A-class. They place too much undue weight on different aspects of the article, and not enough on others. They all have there own sets of issues. Simply put; the current A-class rating system is too simple to pass, and people are taking advantage of it. --haha169 (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will admit that The Guardian Legend, which I have edited here-and-there for three years, can still use more Development information. I think Rg998, AMHR285, and MuZemike have busted their individual and collective asses looking for and translating sources just to find the main character's nickname (they managed to dispel that glaring rumor/suggestion on various websites that her nickname was "Alyssa" or "Aryssa"; for that alone I am highly grateful), nevermind the other game info they found along the way (like the print reviews, or the Open Systems Today thing...I didn't even know there were five enemy tribes).  So I think if there could be more Development info, it would already be there.  Of course, if you can make sense of the game's guidebook or manual and can squeeze out extra dev info, or if you can use them or another good source to verify the developers' real names, go right ahead and edit, we'll wait.


 * You seem to suggest, though, that there's a rash of A-class requests that needs to be brought under control and oversight with a formal process. If you think there's something wrong with them becoming A-class, you should say so under the articles' respective list items (as Kung Fu Man did with 3D Monster Maze) and maybe someone will stand back and say "Hey, I agree with haha169, who said that (blah) is wrong with the article so I think I'll forget about A-ing it".  Or put them to peer review or whatever Wikpedia has for appeals and such if they're already promoted.  Do not expect others to read your mind and oppose them for you, even if they mean well—silence yields power.  I don't agree with your statement, I just want to help. --an odd name 17:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The current informal process requires trust in each other's ability to judge these articles. One way to build that is to give feedback on another editor's talk page when you believe they made a bad call. When introduced nicely ("Hey, just to give you some feedback, I think .. ") this will lead to an overall increase in the quality of assessments. User:Krator (t c) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A-class rating is supposed to be just a step away from FAC; and articles rated A-class should be able to pass an FAC without too much difficulty, and its review process has traditionally been used as a peer review. (Much like GAN) However, with the increase in volume of A-class requests, A-class is becoming a target for articles which aren't planning on going towards FA-class, but rather just settling on A-class. It's rather degrading the current standards.


 * Therefore, I honestly think that a formal A-class process be drafted up. Honestly, I think any GAN could currently pass FA-class; and I seem to remember a time in the archive when articles weren't promoted to A-class so easily.


 * Of course I judge people's abilities to judge articles, but with lack of rules, people are leaving lazy, short comments that isn't even fit for a GAN review. Many A-class promotion discussions are shorter than most GAN discussions. (See Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door vs. Talk: Golden Sun: The Lost Age.)--haha169 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just thought I would throw my two cents in. I requested another assesment of Anarchy Online only because I thought that it meet the criteria at first glance, and because I wanted to gauge how close it could be to a FAC. That being said, I'm happy with its GA rating right now. If you guys feel that the A-rating shouldn't be used in this way then by all means fail it. I'm not a member of Wikiproject: VideoGames, but I would much rather that you uphold the project's rating standards than pass articles simply because that's the way its been done with others lately. --Sebquantic (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, I wasn't against your behavior. By all means, continue nominating articles for A-class, since there is no consensus against such nominations. I was just suggesting tightening up current WPVG A-class processes so all articles passed meet the current official A-class requirements.--haha169 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A class announcements
Y'all may or may not have noticed yet, but a section for new A-class articles has been added to the latest newsletter. MrKIA11 has been excellent about keeping track of the article changes and numbers for the newsletter, but I don't want him to be bogged down with everything. Anyway, I was hoping a regular assessor could update that section as new A-class articles are promoted. It probably won't happen too often, but something to keep in mind when it does. Please let me know if this is something an assessor here is willing to do; it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Assessment Requests Archive
The archive currently only lists the reviewer, article, and promotion status. But currently, there have been more and more discussion on the request page concerning the assessment itself. Perhaps we should change the archival system to include these discussions as well? --haha169 (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

future class
Noting we have alot of articles on future video games and such (and noting I've seen articles on events currently in progress get denied GA status), think we could officially utilize Future class? For an article on a future game with not as much information on its subject, it wouldn't be good to jump to conclusions rating wise. ViperSnake151 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before and rejected here and here. The short version is that "Future" is not a measure of quality. Nifboy (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)