Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishing/Assessment/Drive Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Archives!

This page houses the Archived discussions of articles evaluated as part of the Fishing Project Assessment Drive. If you wish to discuss an article's evaluation further, visit the Talk page for WikiProject Fishing Assessment Drive: Talk:WikiProject Fishing/Assessment/Drive. Please do not edit the discussions below: they are only an archive of the consensus reached.

Better Project Wikification Coming[edit]

This page will be prettified further at a later date. You may discuss the page itself with User:LaughingVulcan.

Spoonplug[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion: Stub and Low
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 12:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • LOW Importance overall. This appears to be a commercial for a branded lure name, not a specific, well defined form of lure. Additionally the article is totally unsourced. This a Stub at best if it warrants an article at all.--Mike Cline 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know that the Spoonplug was a specific brand (I knew of them, though, as a hybrid spoon and plug. ;) I agree that's it's clearly a Stub, and agree that the importance is Low. LaughingVulcan 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing rules and regulations[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion: Definitively Stub and Low. Questionable existence.
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 15:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • This is at best at Stub. Even the stub has some POV problems and will need a lot of information to polish. I'm really unsure about the importance of this. People who would be looking for rules and regulations information may be looking for how-to or local information; I'd say this is of Low importance, but could improve with editing. LaughingVulcan 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance--Lower than Low--irrelevant. The existance of laws, rules and regulations related to fishing are so, so varied in purpose and related in many cases to issues completely unrelated to fishing, that any attempt at an NPOV article would be folly. IMHO this isn't worth an article.--Mike Cline 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Bamboo fly rods[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --[[User:Mike Cline|Mike Cline}} 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Result of Discussion: B-Class (actually unanimous despite below,) Mid Importance
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 15:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Mid Importance. Although Bamboo Fly Rods are notable in the context of fly fishing, especially here in the U.S., they are but a minor part of the overall scheme of fishing. The article itself meets B-Class standards. It is not especially well written and unsourced/uncited as it should be. This one is on my to do list. There are more than sufficient historic and contemporary works available on Bamboo fly rods to make this a top-notch article. --Mike Cline 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree completely on the B-Class per Mike. I'm questioning, though, where it fits in importance. If we assume that Fly fishing is a Top-Importance article (which may be debatable,) I'd suggest that the critical pieces of equipment are High importance. Add sig: LaughingVulcan 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LV - Agree. But I have the following comments. Relative to the subject of Fly Fishing - Bamboo Fly Rods are of High Importance. Relative to the overall subject of fishing, Bamboo Fly rods are a relatively obscure topic in a comtemporary view and a bit less obscurce in a historical view. Not being an expert or actually having much experience in this Wikipedia Assessment business, I continue to struggle a bit with making actual importance assessments within the guidelines as they are currently defined. In the end, and this applies to any article, if someone is interested in a specific subject, and the article is A Class or above, it is somewhat irrelevant as to what importance level it is tagged at. If importance levels meant absolute priority of work (in other words, until all the High importance articles reached A Class, you can't work on less important articles), then they might be more useful. But that is not the Wikipedia way. A bit long-winded, but what I just said was that I don't really care what importance rating is given to any specific article. Am I missing something here?--Mike Cline 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I think struggling with importance is normal. As I read the Importance guidelines, what I came across is that it is a subjective judgment about what the hypothetically "normal" reader of Wikipedia would feel about a subject being important. So it takes making a guess what a non-fisher would think are Top, High, etc. The benefit is primarily to the WP 1.0 team, so that they can prioritize which articles should or should not be included in a CD (or other) version of WP, without regard to an article's immediate quality. Theoretically, a Stub class article could be of Top-Importance. And I suppose that importance can be of guidance to an editor looking for work, in that Top priority should probably get first attention. But I just ask, "Were I looking for info for the first time about the "fishing world," how important is this topic?" But that's also why consensus assessment is important - no single one of us has to be "right," but collectively we probably are.
  • I reckon that this article's importance is Mid and the class is B. themcman1 talk 12:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Surf fishing[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion: B-Class, High, unanimous
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 15:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Again a quality article, though I'm a little concerned with the how-to aspects of the article. But it's of better quality than Noodling right now. I'd say that the B-Class applies (and would be A-Class if it was tweaked slightly.) I'd say the importance is a little higher, and ranks at High Importance. LaughingVulcan 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just read this one I will agree with LV. High Importance - Surf Fishing is clearly a top of the hierarchy topic. B-Class on quality, for the most part dealing its somewhat ill-defined introduction. As it reads now, Surf fishing covers Inshore Saltwater Flats fishing, but I am not sure that is correct. If I am wading and fishing in a mangrove backwater in Tampa Bay, am I Surf Fishing? Neither am I sure that if I was standing on a windy Jetty on Lake Superior casting for trout that I would be Surf Fishing, but the article supports that contention.--Mike Cline 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Fishing[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion: A Class, Top Importance
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Fishing was the first article I used the template on, simply as a capability test (just as this is a serious and real candidate, but is also a test of the Assessment Drive system.) While I'm pretty sure it's Top-importance, I didn't really assess the article at the time for quality. I'll add my opinion on that a little later, but I'd appreciate hearing from you what state you believe the article is in quality-wise. LaughingVulcan 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing, this article was rated A-Level by the .5 assessment. I'd agree that it's A-Level. It was a failed FA candidate (have to look into why,) but it might be time to nominate this for GA status. Obviously of Top-Importance, and I'd second that it's at A-Level. LaughingVulcan 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon it is worthy of 'official' GA-Class, maybe A-Class. Definitely top importance. themcman1 talk 12:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Blast fishing[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: themcman1 talk 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion: B Class, Mid Importance
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • I know it's a bit early, but i think this aricle needs reviewing. It's currently a 'B', but I'd like it push it to a GA. themcman1 talk 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC) mid importance as well. themcman1 talk 12:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem like a B-level article (just up out of Start.) Seems like it could use more historical references (if they are available,) certainly needs some illustrations (wish list - a world map illustrating where it is definitely illegal to blast fish.) The methodology section may need expansion as well (or removal - we don't want to push it into how-to.) And, while it may be common sense, some definition of why it works (blast concussion, etc.) may be in order. I don't know if it would be considered trivial or not, but the classic opening scene of Crocodile Dundee II certainly makes a cultural reference to the 'backwater' nature of explosives fishing -- that would have to be referenced, though. My opinion - it's B-level and Mid Importance. LaughingVulcan 00:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Fishing reel[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion: B class, Top importance
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • While I know that angling isn't the only branch of fishing, I'd say that that this is Top Importance (that an average WP reader looking for Fishing information would have this article at the highest level.) The article is superbly written. It needs more information on other types of reels, but I think this is A-Class (even if it's not quite ready for GA-nomination -- but I don't think it will take this article long to reach FA-status.) LaughingVulcan 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with LV on Importance, but not on the Assessment. Very little of the information is sourced as it should be. Additionally the inclusion of Underspin, Direct-Drive and Anti-Reverse as Types of Reels may be technically correct, but not consistent with the other type names. These should all be of the same level of abstraction. The absence of Trolling Reel is another glaring ommision. --Mike Cline 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to plant my pole firmly here, I would say the article is a B-Class article as it currently stands.--Mike Cline 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Fly fishing[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: LaughingVulcan 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion: A Class, Top Importance
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Fly fishing parallels fishing itself, I'd say this is of Top importance. On first blush I'd say this is A-Class stuff and should at least be a GA nom, if not FA. But I'd like an expert fly opinion. ;) LaughingVulcan 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top Importance. I will admit a bit of bias as I have contributed significantly to this article. It is at least A-Class. Organizationally, I think it can be improved--most notably on the history and equipment aspects.--Mike Cline 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings

Woolly Bugger[edit]

Assessment Data
User and Date submitted: --Mike Cline 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of Discussion: A Class, Mid Importance
Secretary and date closed: LaughingVulcan 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Mid Importance as it is just one fly among many thousands. Although the Woolly Bugger is probably one of the top ten flies to have in your fly box no matter where you fly fish. Although I did not create this article, I did substantially rewrite it in an attempt to establish sort of a standardized approach for articles on specific fly patterns. Personally I think it meets A-Class quality. It is well organized and well sourced. It will improve with time as more varied images are included. I hope that all fly pattern articles could be written to this quality. --Mike Cline 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mid works for me if we go with Fly fishing as Top and Fly tying as High. I'd say the "most" important or well-known fly patterns would rank Mid, and minor patterns would rank low. While the content of the article is not voluminous, A-rank articles don't have to be voluminous, only virtually complete. So I'd go with A-Class also. LaughingVulcan 19:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishing/Assessment/Drive_Archive&oldid=1138363785"