Wikipedia talk:Content assessment

Could we change the 'Start' class article example?

The class' article is outdated by nearly 11 years and is likely complete by now. I would recommend potentially changing the example to List of NBA players born outside the United States since not all of it is always complete and the article's contents are always changing due to new players from different nations constantly entering the league. Just a suggestion more than anything, it'll probably get lost in the shuffle but those are my thoughts on the matter :) Bigmanethan (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course articles change over time. But the table lists examples which were of that class on the date named. If the link is followed, you reach that specific version, not the current version. This is intentional. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you'll notice, List of NBA players born outside the United States is a list, not a start article. Masterhatch (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I sort of agree. While the article's age isn't a concern in my opinion, and a list article can't be a start article, I do think that it's a rather unconventional start article. I would say it IS a start article, as its information comes from just 3 sources, two of which are the same site, and it has major content gaps, but I feel like it's not the best example OF a start-class article. I think a new example should be shorter, be worse in terms of following the Manual of Style, and have significantly larger content gaps. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone want to suggest any specific articles for consideration? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure!

Here's the first version of the Wikipedia page for Gravel: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravel&oldid=36735200

It:

• Is a commonly-known concept, meaning that people will easily be able to sense how far it is from what it needs to be
• Has some actual grammatical errors (i.e. "Sometimes gravel is restricted to rock..." instead of "Sometimes, gravel is restricted to rock...")
• Has significant gaps in content, but not so significant that it would be a Stub
• Cites just one source

To me, this article is much more clearly Start-class than the Ball article shown. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

In your second bullet point, the absence of a comma after the initial adverb is not a grammar error. It is also not a punctuation error. It is acceptable to omit the comma in such situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but it still doesn't look that formal. Anyways, here's an actual grammatical error:

"Gravel is an important commercial product, used in many applications."

instead of:

"Gravel is an important commercial product that has many applications." PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The addition of unnecessary commas is not necessarily a sign of formal writing style. Some people think it's the other way around, so that fewer commas means a more modern style.

Whether the first (which irritates me) is technically an ungrammatical dangling participle apparently depends on whether your schoolteachers were linguistic prescriptivists or descriptivists. I lean towards the prescriptive style mysefl, but in the latter case, if the meaning is intelligible to the recipient, then it's not actually grammatically wrong.

Your suggested copyedit, however, might be wrong, specifically in the sense that it changes the nature of the fact being communicated (from "[which is actually] used" to "that has many [possible or hypothetical] applications"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, how about:

"Gravel is an important commercial product that is used in many applications."

Preserved the wording as much as possible.

"Gravel is an important commercial product, used in many applications." is not a complete sentence. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I like your proposed edit better, but the sentence as written is a complete sentence. It has a subject, a verb, and a complete thought. The concept of a 'complete sentence' is not related to whether the sentence is grammatically correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay.

Even then, the article still has areas that could be written better. Also, I think this grammar thing is sidetracking from the main point: that this is a much better example of a Start class page than the current one. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You two got serious side-tracked by a comma :D PsyKat777: we have a principle of being bold here. Please make incremental changes that you see fit. If another editor disagrees they will revert — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay! PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit: I just found out that the part that I want to edit is the "Grading scheme" template, which can't be edited from here. Where do I even find this template so that I can edit it directly or, if I don't have permission, ask more directly there? PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Grading scheme — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I just changed the article. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Bottom importance

In the improtance section it doesn’t talk about bottom importance which I have seen. Houcaris (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

It's an uncommon, more or less "custom" variation. It should only be used if you're sure that the individual WikiProject in question supports it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2 § Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Good Article example doesn't meet the qualifications of a Good Article

I strongly believe that the article being used as an example of a good article, the 2019 version of Discovery of the neutron (and the present version for that matter), doesn't actually meet the requirements of a good article.

I'm currently having it reassessed here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Discovery of the neutron/1

Nobody is responding there right now, so I would much appreciate if someone could go and continue the reassessment. Anyways, the basic summary of that thread is that the article has too many grammatical errors and puffery issues to qualify as a good article, and would be better classified as a B-class or possibly even a C-class article. It fails the "Well written" criteria and possibly the "Neutrality" one as well, while a Good Article must fulfill all of the criteria.

And, besides that, it's not great for the Good Article example to itself not fit the criteria for a Good Article, so I think that should be swapped out as soon as possible. I may swap that out myself, but I'll only do that if it's been a while and I don't have a response here regarding that. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: I have just changed the Good Article example to "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". This should do much better as an example. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Content assessment for Suwałki Airport

Hello! I was wondering what could be done to the article Suwałki Airport to get it to Start Class. Just thought it would be good to get some opinions on how it could be improved. Thank you! Cubingx (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It has now been reassessed as Start class. Nurg (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Cubingx (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nurg ~2025-31323-02 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)