Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
| The Beatles WikiProject |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] The Beatles line-ups
Talk:The Beatles line-ups says to come here to discuss a rating if I disagree with it, which I do. So, it's assessment rating is "merge class". May I ask why? What could be the merge target? If it were merged into something else, would the resulting article be too big, that is, over the size limit of articles here at Wikipedia? Thanks. --luckymustard 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's got a lot bigger from when it was assessed (and I last saw it)... it's not even really correctly named any more! I'll think about it but will probably reassess it (if nobody else chips in in the meantime). --kingboyk 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --kingboyk 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conversion to new template
It seems that with the conversion to the new template, a lot of my ratings are being removed to make way for the less important parameters. Can we please be more careful? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't think so. Could you give me some examples? There's probably a reason for it, although given that this is an extremely tedious and dull job (which I've been doing full time for 3 days flat without thanks) I might well have made a mistake or 3 :) --kingboyk 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Methinks you doth mean this: [1]. Yes, your Mid-importance got turned off, but if you check the bottom of the talk page you'll see it doesn't make any difference :) See Template talk:WPBeatles#Importance for the reason why and some links to some wonderful new by-subtopic lists Mathbot is making for us. --kingboyk 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and it also happened here: [2] So, OK, it wasn't "a lot"; it was only two. But still, when it happens more than once, it's worth mentioning. Not that big of a deal, though. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you see any ratings you disagree with, please just change them. I'm rattling through as fast as I can so I'll make a mistake here or there for sure. Also, adding Comments would be really helpful. It's just not practical for me to do that too. (General invitation to all Project members). --kingboyk 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reopen a plea for migrating comments
if we have any older comments not yet migrated to the new scheme, here is a plea for people to migrate them over. See the archive and migrating, which explains how. Please? ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Unassessed Beatles articles is empty!!!
I've done it!!! Off to have a glass of wine now. There's comments still to do, ratings to fix, and importance to decide, but I'VE CLEARED THE ASSESSMENTS!!! Hooray! --kingboyk 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- One or two need reassessment. LuciferMorgan 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nothing gets past the 'steely-eyed missile man' LuciferMorgan. He is a brick. (A Roman term, BTW). andreasegde 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A-Class articles
I've looked through the three Beatles-related A-Class articles (Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and John Lennon), and I believe that none of them meet the A-Class standard, particularly because there is a severe lack of references in all of them. Unless someone wants to go and thoroughly cite the articles, they should be removed from the A-Class. Teemu08 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "The article provides a well-written and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a Great Article. It includes a well-written introduction to the topic, and an appropriate series of headings to break up the article. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" literature rather than websites. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems." I suppose George's article doesn't meet the references requirement, but other than that it's good. We'll get round to adding citations at some point (currently we're working on Paul McCartney). If you feel they must be downgraded to B go ahead. --kingboyk 11:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mimi Smith
I up-graded it to a B article. I think it should really be an A, or GA. (I would think that, wouldn't I? :) andreasegde 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have now nominated Mimi Smith for GA. Anyone disagree? andreasegde 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
And Julia Lennon. andreasegde 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I took her out. She's not quite ready, and I want to see if Mimi gets hacked to pieces... andreasegde 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, she's back in again. In, out, in, out, shake it all about... andreasegde 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul McCartney
I have nominated it for FA, and it failed. andreasegde 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
