| Revision as of 13:44, 18 April 2008 editWetman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers92,066 edits This "vetting" process← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:39, 18 April 2008 edit undoGeogre (talk | contribs)25,257 edits →Classing: perverse pedagogy, I supposeNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| ::Geogre, remember the argument between Zeal-of-the-Land Busy and the puppet in '']!'' Who are you defending the article ''to''? If one pays even passing attention to ''any'' ratings of anything at Misplaced Pages, they will will only distract and irritate one. The best ''defense'' of any Misplaced Pages text is the tacit one of supportive references. This "vetting" process is only as useful as ''you'' find it to be. --] (]) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | ::Geogre, remember the argument between Zeal-of-the-Land Busy and the puppet in '']!'' Who are you defending the article ''to''? If one pays even passing attention to ''any'' ratings of anything at Misplaced Pages, they will will only distract and irritate one. The best ''defense'' of any Misplaced Pages text is the tacit one of supportive references. This "vetting" process is only as useful as ''you'' find it to be. --] (]) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Oh, I had done my usual, with these things, and simply changed the assessment. However, the original "start class" assessor came to my talk page and told me to review the policies and revert myself. He also told me that I should use the talk page of the article. Well, not being one to act all arrogant and everything, I figured I'd ''demonstrate'' that I knew the categories pretty well, and I would use the article talk, and I would not revert. People who do assessments need to answer for their actions. There is something inherently arrogant about even sallying forth on such a campaign. People who do so need to have figured out ''why'' they need to assess, ''how'' they can assess, and ''that they are qualified'' to assess on any subject. Otherwise, they need to be humbler. ] (]) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:39, 18 April 2008
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Christianity B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from William Melmoth appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 January 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/January. |  |
Classing
Quote: "Start class" The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
* a particularly useful picture or graphic * multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic * a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic * multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
- A picture of William Melmoth? This is very unlikely, given his dates. There are probably engravings from frontispieces, but such a thing would hardly improve the article. What the author looked like is not germane. Elements should be added when needed, not when absent.
- Links: I defy anyone to suggest, much less demonstrate, that the article is not properly linked.
- Subheadings that treat an element of the topic: This is a biography of Melmoth gathered from the new DNB. The NDNB is 2004 and represents best scholarship. "Subheadings" should be employed when an article is long enough to need organization or when there are major topics introduced. In this case, there cannot be any such. Introducing more material on his work of religious reflection would not be germane to a biographical article and should be handled by an article on the work. Otherwise, there are no subtopics beyond paragraph level.
- Subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article: This has no such coatracks.
- It is manifest and obvious that this article is not "start class." If the person offering an assessment does not believe that it's B class, then it would be well for him or her to explain the exceptions from B class rather than to simply state that the article fits "start." This article does not use intralinear notation, per its author's preference. Other than that, it is fully referenced and has been edited by more than one person and has been reviewed. Whatever else, this is not "start class."
- If nothing else, I should very, very much like to hear what I failed to discuss in the article that belongs to the biography and which is necessary for it. Geogre (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Geogre, remember the argument between Zeal-of-the-Land Busy and the puppet in Bartholomew Fair! Who are you defending the article to? If one pays even passing attention to any ratings of anything at Misplaced Pages, they will will only distract and irritate one. The best defense of any Misplaced Pages text is the tacit one of supportive references. This "vetting" process is only as useful as you find it to be. --Wetman (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I had done my usual, with these things, and simply changed the assessment. However, the original "start class" assessor came to my talk page and told me to review the policies and revert myself. He also told me that I should use the talk page of the article. Well, not being one to act all arrogant and everything, I figured I'd demonstrate that I knew the categories pretty well, and I would use the article talk, and I would not revert. People who do assessments need to answer for their actions. There is something inherently arrogant about even sallying forth on such a campaign. People who do so need to have figured out why they need to assess, how they can assess, and that they are qualified to assess on any subject. Otherwise, they need to be humbler. Geogre (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)