This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
This page is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
I started to write a instruction, but after writing it I can not really put oceanic in as high, and I do think it should be in high. My grading was that well known sharks that most everybody knows, like great white and whale shark and other important and common sharks should be high, low is unknown, rarely seen often deep water sharks, and everything else was medium. But I'm not sure that is a good way to describe it? Any better ideas? Stefan 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I hadn't really thought much about the full assessment bit yet. But what i think i had in mind was something like this:
Each article name would have a level 3 header (which is linked) and then within that this table would reside. A new row for each new User's comments. This would allow for users to suggest a Status and an importance, as well as providing space to leave some remarks about what they think could be done, or what is good.
Also, not every article is going to be a species, although most will so this leaves it open for all.
As for choosing importance levels, i had thought something similar to what you said. The main, more commonly known shark species would have high importance or top. then the smaller, rarer, speices (eg all the different wobbegongs) would be low. and then the rest mid. The official importance levels are here so that gives us a rough idea of what it should be for.--chris_huh 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, so we have top also ... ok, read some more since I started, not sure where GA fits in, it says that we can skip GA, anyway I submitted tiger and whale for GA lets see what happens. I think they are close to A class but not really sure what that is. So you say that we discuss assessment here on this talk page or on the pages talk page, I'm not sure I understand??? hum. I only made species list for now, see chem for example they have one table for each type of subject, suggest we do the same, with species, families, general and maybe people. Stefan 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Have a look at the Assessment page now. That is more how i was thinking? --chris_huh 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, now we can have many users assessing one page, but also much harder to read. Anyway ok with me, is that the only page we have or do we move it somewhere else when we have some kind of consensus? Stefan 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see what you mean about being harder to read. I will have a look at maybe making a better way of doing it. What do you mean by just one page, i don't understand. Do you mean that once the status has been chosen we move it to another 'archive' type page? chris_huh 15:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
How about something more like this; it is in a table but looks less cluttered.
This allows it to be more of a discussion so that after a while of being up there the most consistent selection will be chosen for that article. --chris_huh 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have tried to set up the category infrastructure to get project sharks listed on the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team assessment, the first run seams to have worked, I have now added, importance also. The system described in Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Using_the_bot seams to be a better system on how to log comments on pages, we only have to have them in one place, no more updating both this page and the talk page of the article. What we will get is something like this Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Biography_articles_by_quality/1 our looks like this Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Shark_articles_by_quality now, next time the bot runs we should get the importance in also. But the comments needs some more work. I can not really figure out the comment code in the template (or I think I do but Im not brave enough to try it now ....) if anyone understand please add the code to add the comment page and then the related category and subcategories, if not I will try ... some time ... later :-), also we do not have unassessed category, the template should set that if no assessment is doen, not sure how to do that either. Stefan 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
