Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Assessment

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
California This page is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Too many articles unnecessarily bopped

A few months ago, we had a reassessment. During the reassessment, some articles were dropped from top status without consensus. Death Valley is the most notable example--the only vote against it was an unsigned comment, and yet it was dropped. Bad move. Gotta be added again. We should also add Coastal California (since we have the more specific North Coast and Central Coast), and at least one regional/tourism center that doesn't have 500K ppl (either Anaheim, Monterey or Palm Springs)

Also, Jerry Brown should make top if re-elected governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 26 November 2009

Jerry Brown as only a governor, should only be rated high, even as a multi-term governor. He has not held higher office.

I can see Coastal California being included as a TOP due to the fact that the scope of that article covers a significant portion of the state, just as the Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, or Mohave desert does. However, I disagree with the fact that smaller cities should be rater at top, only because compared to the large metro areas, they are less significant. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you're OK with Death Valley up top, no? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If UC Berkeley, within the top rated UC system, can also be top it is my opinion that Death Valley, within the top rated Mojave Desert, can also be top as well.

However, if UC Berkeley is reduced to High, given that UC system is rated as Top, then Death Valley should remain as is.

On another note, I do agree with you on Coastal California being a top level article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contigency that dah Bears are still Top, I'm boldy marking Coastal California (which needs lots and lots of work, by the way) and Death Valley top. Feel free to continue discussing, and if the discussion does not support, I will revert Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get things straight here so there's no confusion. A few months ago I started a discussion with the eventual goal of clearing Category:Unknown-importance California articles, starting with developing a list of top importance, so that we could compare to the matching category and identify any new additions, such as California Department of Parks and Recreation. As the entire point of article importance is to decide what should be included in the release versions of Wikipedia, I was trying to limit the number of articles to a reasonable amount for the same reason we limit the length of articles, which is that no one is going to read massive opuses which include every fact under the sun, when they'd rather see the basics of a subject. And as part of limiting the number I moved Death Valley from top to high, since I felt that the combination of coverage by Mojave Desert and the recently reviewed High Importance FA Death Valley National Park meant that the subject would be well represented in any release version. I started this discussion on a separate subpage so that I could transclude it on the main project talk page to get more attention, while still centralizing the discussion. This isn't uncommon to see special discussion sub-pages, (see Talk:Barack Obama), or to see pages with the prefix archive being actively edited which is the case with any WP:FAC.

All of that being said: I'm fine with Death Valley and Coastal California at Top; I've been doing everything a project coordinator would do for around a year now on this project, so yeah it's a safe assumption; If you wish to continue suggesting changes to the top importance criteria, please do so on the /Archive 2 sub-page, just don't suggest a list where approximately half of them are already at top importance. I'd prefer to leave Anaheim, Monterey, and Palm Springs at their population based level as they're tourist destination status would give them a higher popularity rating so the combination should accurately represent them on any release versions. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of cities

This is not a question regarding top rated cities, my question is about cities overall, and possibly municiple areas. What criterea are we using to differ incirporated communities from being High, Mid, and low? Is it based on population, on the number of notable articles within that municipalities limits, something more arbitrary? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Importance assessments of California settlement articles and Quality assessments. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will list Chula Vista, California as high, keeping with that precedence. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing unassessed category, also importance category scheme

I'm looking to have another bot assessment run of Category:Unassessed California articles, this time by User:Xenobot Mk V (normally I've gone with User:AnomieBOT in the past, but he's on break). I'm only looking to clear the stubs, and the ones where the default quality applies User:Xenobot Mk V/process, and using Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Assessment/Categories for the importance. I'm only looking to have the bot work those unassessed articles for now, then process the remainder using WP:AWB and then manually]]. I'm not trying to address all the unknown importance, just those that are already unassessed, so if you disagree with one of the importance of categories just move it to the no importance section of that categories page. I'm going to check with the botop if this is feasible, then request an update to the banner for autoimportance tagging, and if there are no objections, concerns in a few days to request the run. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Task complete. 534 edits. –xeno^talk 15:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Just FYI for people, Xeno noticed that there are approximately 13K pages that would have been tagged given the current category list. I'm just trying to clear our current set of unassessed pages before tagging more, and I'm also not sure what benefit there would be to some of the possible tags. See oldid. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State song

Should I Love You, California be top or high? (I tagged it as top for the moment). What about the other state emblems, like the Grizzly bear? Purplebackpack89 21:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touro University California Reassessment

Would someone be willing to reassess the Touro University California article regarding its ranking on the quality scale? Trying to get it to GA status or better but it's currently at C-class. I've expanded it significantly since the last time it was evaluated and I think it can at least be bumped up to B class now. Thanks in advance! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment request: Hercules, California

The Hercules, California article is currently assessed Start. I've just done some minor work myself, but in particular recognition of the work by Joeconsumer (talk | contribs), I think it might be up to "B" level. But I've never done an assessment, so I'm not comfortable making that decision myself. Could someone more knowledgeable take a look? Thanks. --Floatjon (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]