Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Dance/Archive 4 - Knowledge

Source šŸ“

136:, which I pretty much re-wrote from top to bottom. For some reason he gave the article a 'B'. I have emailed him twice aleardy to ask him his rationale for such a rating, and he has ignored my messages. Its not that I care about the rating, I just wanted to know how he came to conclude that the article deserved this rating, being that nowhere does he explain it on the discussion page or anywhere else. It also seems that he came to rate this article on his own, which I feel is ridiculous - it should be done with feedback from members of the wikiproject dance. From the looks of things this user doesnt seem to me to have any business rating any ballet related article - he has no "credentials" for rating an article pertaining to ballet history, and yet he has still rated this article. Anyway, all of this made me wonder about these assessments, and thier relevance - Does anyone know how one goes about doing them? Can anyone do it? When one does one of these asessments, do they judge the article based on its importance to the wiki dance project, or do they judge it based on wether or not it meets the wikipedia guidelines? When one does judge the article, do they do it with others or on thier own? I am under the impression that this person did this assessment on his own, and had no feedback from others. Thanks a lot! -- 224: 31: 200:
has not made any contributions to Knowledge since January 10, 2007. I assume that he's on wikibreak, hence why he's not responding to your messages. However, I don't think that he actually meant to re-rate the article, he was just reverting what he perceived as vandalism. With your numerous edits
205:
over the December 15th version and, to my untrained eye, looks better than Badbilltucker's original assessment. However, no single user can give an article "Featured" status without going through the formal process of
125: 140: 214: 120: 104: 154: 287: 279: 274: 262: 257: 252: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 183:), which should only be done after the article becomes a Featured Article Candidate and passes the gauntlet of editors there). 190: 165: 112:
Just thought you'd like to know that I've created a new article, timely given that the group performed on the recent
240: 47: 17: 202: 180: 231: 38: 106: 130:
A man who goes by the user name Cswrye did a featured article assesment on the article on
116:
broadcast. It's only a first pass, others here should be able to improve it considerably.
8: 113: 169: 137: 239:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
211: 151: 207: 176: 147: 160:
There was some miscommunication involved here. A little sleuthing reveals:
146:
Where was the review done? Could you provide some links? Did you take it to
117: 197: 187: 132: 179:
with an interest in ballet changes the banner from B-class to FA-class (
126:
Question about the so-called "Featured Article Asessments"
193:the edit, saying as much in his edit summary. 14: 237:Do not edit the contents of this page. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 218: 25: 164:December 15, 2006: the article was 23: 24: 301: 175:December 17, 2006: an anonymous 222: 29: 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Dance 13: 1: 121:00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 7: 10: 306: 215:23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 155:20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 141:19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 107:Pilobolus (dance company) 105:heads-up on new article: 201:today's version appears 235:of past discussions. 42:of past discussions. 186:December 19, 2006: 114:79th Academy Awards 293: 292: 247: 246: 241:current talk page 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 297: 271: 249: 248: 226: 225: 219: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 305: 304: 300: 299: 298: 296: 295: 294: 267: 223: 128: 110: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 303: 291: 290: 285: 282: 277: 272: 265: 260: 255: 245: 244: 227: 203:quite improved 195: 194: 184: 173: 158: 157: 127: 124: 109: 103: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 302: 289: 286: 283: 281: 278: 276: 273: 270: 266: 264: 261: 259: 256: 254: 251: 250: 242: 238: 234: 233: 228: 221: 220: 217: 216: 213: 209: 204: 199: 192: 189: 185: 182: 178: 174: 171: 170:Badbilltucker 167: 163: 162: 161: 156: 153: 149: 145: 144: 143: 142: 139: 135: 134: 123: 122: 119: 115: 108: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 268: 236: 230: 196: 159: 131: 129: 111: 101: 75: 43: 37: 229:This is an 168:B-class by 138:Mrlopez2681 133:La Bayadere 36:This is an 177:IP address 288:ArchiveĀ 8 280:ArchiveĀ 6 275:ArchiveĀ 5 269:ArchiveĀ 4 263:ArchiveĀ 3 258:ArchiveĀ 2 253:ArchiveĀ 1 212:Will.i.am 152:Fang Aili 95:ArchiveĀ 8 87:ArchiveĀ 6 82:ArchiveĀ 5 76:ArchiveĀ 4 70:ArchiveĀ 3 65:ArchiveĀ 2 60:ArchiveĀ 1 232:archive 191:reverts 118:Dyanega 39:archive 208:WP:FAC 198:Cswrye 188:Cswrye 148:WP:FAR 166:rated 16:< 181:diff 150:? -- 210:.-- 284:ā†’ 91:ā†’ 243:. 172:. 50:.

Index

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Dance
archive
current talk page
ArchiveĀ 1
ArchiveĀ 2
ArchiveĀ 3
ArchiveĀ 4
ArchiveĀ 5
ArchiveĀ 6
ArchiveĀ 8
Pilobolus (dance company)
79th Academy Awards
Dyanega
00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
La Bayadere
Mrlopez2681
19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:FAR
Fang Aili
20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
rated
Badbilltucker
IP address
diff
Cswrye
reverts
Cswrye
quite improved
WP:FAC
Will.i.am

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

ā†‘