This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
A fact from Thomas Jordan (poet) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the 17th-century English poet Thomas Jordan wrote one poem that was widely anthologized in the 20th century, even though his poetry had been disdained by his contemporaries?
Casliber, I looked up the criteria for "Start class", which is your rating of this article, for the relevant projects (Biography, London, and Poetry), and it turned out the criteria are the same for all three. At first I wasn't at all offended at having it judged "Start class" — it's only a short thing, after all, on an unimportant subject (I quite agree with the "Low importance" rating) — but after checking out the actual "Start" criteria I'm a little baffled. Do you really consider the article to be quite incomplete (in what way?) and, "most notably" lacking in adequate reliable sources? And to also need substantial improvement in content and organisation? Are you sure all these objections aren't just a roundabout way of saying it's too short to be a B a C? Because as far as I can see the article is pretty complete, in relation to the extant information and in relation to the (minor) importance of the subject. And as for reliable sources, I'd sooner accuse the article of being choked by over-referencing than of "notably lacking in adequate reliable sources" — it's mysterious to me how anybody could find it so. As for "also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation" — well, if that's your opinion, cool; that dimension has a subjective element, so I won't contest your assessment.
Do you really think all articles fit on the Procrustes bed of these quite detailed criteria? Perhaps this is an example of one that needs assessing by hand, with a personalised description? Something like "Short and boring, nothing in there that anybody wants to know, well-referenced (yes, you know, seriously it is well-referenced), too short to be a B a C, therefore Start Class"? Just a suggestion. Bishonen | talk 00:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
P.S. Clicking on the "more detailed criteria" — well, I realise I might as well have left it alone, but I did click on it — I found that Start-class articles are, furthermore, weak in many areas, especially (again!) in referencing, the quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. Right. Do you feel these "grades" are adequate and/or helpful as tools for rating articles, may I ask? Bishonen | talk 00:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Aah, I often stick'em on "start" without thinking....how about a "C" ..is there much more that might be around? If not it'd be a "B"...their main value is when you do a big graph of all articles related to a wikiproject... Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't mean Thomas Jordan needed upgrading, more that I was surprised to see how sucky the rating system is. Perhaps it would be better to just have the grades and a few examples, and no criteria at all? Because how likely are any of those sets of criteria to fit any actual article? Why would lack of reliable sources be expected to go with unencyclopedic tone, or being substantial go with needing cleanup? As well have a system for rating human appearance where "redhaired" goes with "tall". Anyway, to answer your question, I should think there might be more at the British Museum. This is what I found on the web. A better researcher might find more there. Bishonen | talk 10:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Aah regarding the class templates, I think they are of better use quantitatively, so looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Assessment#Statistics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Banksia/Article notes gives me a rough idea of the development of a project. I am pretty casual with the ratings so maybe a few starts are Cs or vice versa.....anyway, there are loads more interesting things to do......................ummmmmmmm..............................look over there, an article! (ducks and runs in opposite direction)Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
