Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Assessment

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Computing This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing

I clicked on the incomplete tag (stating that the articel was not yet rated) and was redirected here. I was hoping that I would find information on how to construct and add the rating tag but it is not listed here, nor do I see any obvious links to an article that describes the process. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just join up? -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can simply add yourself to the list of participants. decltype (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? This makes no sense. Humor would obviously get in the way. Mmkstarr (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Mmkstarr (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)) Yeah, this still makes no sense. As you can see, the problem has not been immediately or expediently fixed through your assumption.[reply]

Please defun declytpe.

No I really mean that. Could you please define decltype. I didn't see it as the whamo first fucking thing on its discussion page. You guys really aren't trying to solve this problem, are you.

How are the importance levels of articles decided? For example, would it be fair to say that complimentary terms would be of equal importance, or does the topic of each and people's opinion take precedence? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give a general answer to this. I decide on a case-by-case, and just leave it blank if I'm unable to assess the subject's importance decltype (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, ReactOS is an Operating System, so by your importance rankings, it should be top, and not low. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkstarr (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC) You're either drawling on, a bot, or stuck in cyberspace. The 2nd two of these things are not safe at the moment, b/c your reality is broken. The first, however, is simply obfuscating the information contained within the words you have put down in cyberink. Please edit, reword, rework, and get to, with less advocacy of red goats.[reply]

For me this is not quite clear - below the mark - which would be at the top of the list - or way below at the end of the list. --Krischik ^T 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a designated group of users who assess articles? Can any editor attempt to asses an article they come by using the outlined criteria? Paulish (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any member of WP:Computing is free to assess. As for others, as long as the assessment is in good faith, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. decltype (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish someone would answer these questions, since I needed an answer to many of these. Anyway, since no one answered the question of joining up, and I added and filled out the WikiProject Computing Template for an article (Polygon Mesh), I will do what Logical Premise did and join up in rating articles under this WikiProject. Some Old Man (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Old Man. Per your request, I have answered the questions above to the best of my ability. decltype (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Some Old Man (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "WikiProject Computing" template links to a non-existent anchor on this page labeled "Quality scale." This is equivalent to the "Grades" section of the article. I'm not sure how to proceed, so someone else can take care of this. HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a span tag to fix this, like the importance section had. --Pnm (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkstarr (talk) Requesting the internet be fixed.

I don't see the benefit of keeping the long list of completed reassessment requests here. If someone wants to track down past assessments, they're visible in the edit history. Plus, when you complete a reassessment, filling out that table is just one more thing to do.

It also adds a lot of content to the page, and this page is loaded any time someone clicks a quality or importance link from tens of thousands of article talk pages. --Pnm (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the history very useful for calibrating my own assessments. It also is encourages auditing the work of other reviewers. I would prefer the table be restored though I am not opposed to trimming some of the older assessments. --Kvng (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some other changes to the page. I asked reviewers to include the assessment decision in the edit summary, which should make it easier to audit the work of other reviewers.

I'm also interested in reviewing the work of other reviewers – including on a wider scale. This log is supposed to give a daily list of assessment changes across the project. Ours is useless because some articles are listed in multiple assessment categories, causing it to think mis-identify them as being changed. I'll start seeing what I can do about fixing it. --Pnm (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's working. Many unassessed pages disappearing off the list just by loading or purging the talk page. It's introduced some new conflicts – pages that have popped on to the list – but I'm working through them.

To help, open the talk pages and use the browser Find command to check for multiple categories matching "importance computing". If you find any, edit the WikiProject Computing importance= and subproject computing-importance= parameters to match. (Also check visually to make sure the quality assessments match.)

You can regenerate the log immediately by running the bot manually. --Pnm (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These look like useful tools. I've added them to the project page. --Kvng (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkstarr (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this very large inelligible chunk of text gets in my way, and I sort of just can't do anything. Also, I don't have a sane build environment (parameters are not being inherited from parent nodes), and I don't have a terminal. I can't really write anything. Does anyone speak like VB at least?

Please define immediately.

Hmm, yeah (Mmkstarr (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)), that's not bad. Ordering of elements in the sets which lead to the decision tree itself?[reply]

Shouldn't these include criteria relating to important historical advances? To call the article describing "the first complete and fully operational regular electronic digital stored program computer" (EDSAC) of low importance seems somewhat perverse to me. --TedColes (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkstarr (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Suggesting this article be given the lowest rating on the Wikipedia Discussion Pages rating scale.[reply]

Mmkstarr (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Broken sound card broken sound card broken sound card![reply]

Please review your B assessment of I Am Rich. Thank you. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your B assessment of I Am Rich. Thank you. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started an article for the historic 4T Intel 1103 DRAM chip (it was previously a redirect to DRAM). At this point, I just want to join it to the project, or at the least make sure you're aware of it. Whether it's Stub or Start, I don't know; I'm not very experienced as a Wikipedia editor (i.e. two of my references are blacklisted and one of them (TimeToast) is unreliable.) Featherwinglove (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkstarr (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Okay, this is starting to look like a scrapbook or something with, as is usual, soul and barriers to entry. Mmmm... please generate logfiles, and then have crawlers crawl over the log files instead of whatever they were crawling over. Mmmm...[reply]