Undid revision 573224096. Restore AFC editor's rating for WikiProject AFC. Read the discussion. Highly inappropriate to change AFC's rating. |
Undid revision 573234051 by Doncram (talk) it's entirely appropriate if it's wrong |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class= |
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=stub|ts=20130905155030|reviewer=MatthewVanitas}} |
||
{{WikiProject Colorado|class=stub|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Colorado|class=stub|importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject NRHP|class=stub|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject NRHP|class=stub|importance=low}} |
Revision as of 00:20, 17 September 2013
Articles for creation Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
United States: Colorado Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
National Register of Historic Places Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
WHY was this rated a START???
I changed the articles rating to that of a Stub. It was rated a start. I ask, why? Honestly, it restates a NRHP nom form. It barely crosses the threashold of being a dictionary definition of the place. In fact, you could probably, go to that place, strike up a conversation with a local person and they would know as much if not more than what is in the current article. IMO, thats a stub. I checked oin the Wiki rankings of articles, turnes out, WP:ASSESS pretty much spells it out. WHY do I care. Using this as a metric, lets just go along and assume its a Start. Add a pic. Well now we have a pic, of the building, WOW! I am now bolt upright, jaw agape, THIS MUST BE A CLASS A or FA NOW. How about another ref? WOO HOO! Its a FA now. 3 refs...EGAD, the HAND OF GOD must be a new ranking. The entire paradigm of human knowledge has now been transformed as we now know it. BECAUSE, we have a pic, 3 sentences, and 2+ refs...UH...NOCoal town guy (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I returned the AFC rating to Start. I believe it is not proper to change that from the AFC member's evaluation. Whatever, otherwise. --doncram 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is no rule or law stating that. Its a stub. Its barely 4 sentences......really?Coal town guy (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's a rating by a named AFC reviewer. You should not change their rating. I don't care what rating for Wikiproject NRHP, am leaving that different. --doncram 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- AFC reviewers aren't infallible. Just because one of them decided that three sentences, one of which is a direct quote, was somehow start-class despite assessment policy to the contrary doesn't mean that it has to stay that way forever. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's a rating by a named AFC reviewer. You should not change their rating. I don't care what rating for Wikiproject NRHP, am leaving that different. --doncram 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Warning at all: Please for the love of DIETY do not edit war over the evaluation that a member of the AfC project gave to a page. If you disagree with the rating given on behalf of your project, feel free to change it, but each project has it's own rubric over what constitutes the various classes. @Coal town guy: Why did you not bring the issue to the reviewer who promoted the submission out of AfC space rather than have (what appears to be) a conniption fit/disruptive point making here on the talk page. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)