Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Inclusion to FA-class India articles

I think for the FA class, we can directly add all the India related FAs from bolded articles in selected articles or Indian Notice board. We still need to judiciosly select them as some might be disputed (like Jinnah in WP:INWNB and Norman Borlaug in WP:PINSA). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is dispute/doubt, check WP:FA. If it is found there, then it is featured. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about the fact whether the article is featured or not. What I am pointing out is the fact whether the article comes under the purview of WikiProject India. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I understand what you are saying. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance scale

Is the rating on importance at the discretion of the reviewer, or there is a formal process of getting an informed decision on it. I am eagerly waiting for this answer as this question is preventing me from adding the details to over a couple of dozen pages. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Assessment#Importance_scale. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The Importance standards section under Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Assessment#Importance_scale explains a bit. If the article falls out of those, it is left to the descretion of the reviewer. There is a request section if you want to let others decide. You do not have to include that tag if in doubt. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, currently most articles are not under the ambit of any Wikiproject. Should we add "orphan=yes" to all of them? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds right. If not sure, just add {{WP India}} with no tags. That will add them to unaccessed. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing articles

I have found that quite a few articles (like Kochi and Ladakh) are either above or equivalent to {{GA-Class}}. However, the assessment procedures prohibit such an assessment unless the articles are listed as good. Noting that they are seriously in line for the FAC soon, how should we go ahead while assessing them? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A-Class I think. - Ganeshk (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment of Indian States

I have assessed all Indian states' articles as per the guidelines given. On importance scale, I have marked all as "Top". — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have marked some states. All of the ones I marked were 'B'. - Ganeshk (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Some north-eastern states have very poor articles. I have ranked Manipur and Mizoram as start-class. Haryana has been marked stub-class. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings

Ganeshk assessed this article as Mid-importance. Nobleeagle re-assessed it as high importance. I feel that though this might be a top priority article now (because of its visibility), a few months down the line, very few people will be intereted in it. Apart from the fact that this article made breaking news, there is no long-term importance of this article for WikiProject India, and hence should be rated as Mid-importance. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics assessments

While assessing politics articles, I am rating them of high importance if they are concerned with national level politics. For regional, I am rating mid and for local/federations etc, I am rating as low. -- Lost(talk) 07:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For politicians, PM/ Union Cabinet Ministers = Top importance, CM/ governor/ MPs = High, MLA/ Ex CM etc = Mid/ Others = Low -- Lost(talk) 08:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would lists classify as non articles

Would the lists classify as Non Articles for the purpose of assessment? -- Lost(talk) 15:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I initally thought they were NA. But was told otherwise. :) - Ganeshk (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Examples: This is NA. This is an article. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks..-- Lost(talk) 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HOI articles

I have begun assessing HOI articles and am using the following rationale for importance:

  • Top Importance: events/persons/places that had a very high impact on present India/ Indians
  • High: Events that were very high impact when they happened but may not be so relevant today
  • Medium: Had a moderate impact
  • Low: Low or no impact

Please let me know if there is disagreement on this -- Lost(talk) 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wars of India

  • Major wars that have an ongoing impact on India = Top importance
  • Major wars in the history but with little impact on current India = High importance
  • Minor wars and battles as part of a war with little current impact = Mid importance
  • Minor skirmishes with no impact = Low importance

— Lost(talk) 15:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP1.0

All those assessing articles, please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/MartinBotII — Lost(talk) 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

This article may have various quality issues. Please review the article and provide your feedback. See also Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. Freedom skies| talk  13:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Alert -- very strange importance rating given ---> Rabindranath Tagore: High, but Aamir Khan: Top! ==

I believe there are instances of gross inaccuracies in the rating of some Wikipedia articles by importance.. I point out the following example: Aamir Khan has the highest importance rating ('top') and the article for an established and important Indian icon such as Rabindranath Tagore has an importance rating one notch lower ('high'). I strongly call for a review of the ratings of these articles. One would think that Rabindranath Tagore's article merits a 'top' importance, while Aamir Khan's would be at 'mid'-level importance. AppleJuggler 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

why can't they both be top level? Rating isn't exactly a comparison. --hydkat 11:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The India project is a massive project and we have many subprojects working as part of one. My advice would be to see if the article falls under a subproject (e.g. Aamir Khan under Indian cinema and Rabindranath Tagore under Indian politics), and create some sort of standards for each sub project and list them here. Generally our definitions should fit the global definitions of what is top/high/low importance. — Lost(talk) 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with lost. If seen as an Indian, Tagore would be "top" importance and Aamir would be "medium/high" importance; but since WP:INDIA combines number of diverse workgroups, it becomes difficult to decide the criteria for rating. While Tagore would remain "top" importance irrespective of the criteria, Aamir's article would have to a "top" importance article if evaluated for Indian Cinema articles. A combined rating does have a conflict of importance rating between workgroups, and using rating based on other workgroup consideration should not be recommended. One solution that comes to my mind is to have a general importance rating as India-related article, and separate (optional) rating parameters for workgroups if their own rating is different. For the time being I have went ahead with changing the importance of Tagore's article as "Top". For the changes to template, I think Ganesh can help implementing it. Should we ping him? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ganesh has updated the template. I think this resolves the whole issue. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 12:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good solution! — Lost(talk) 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Workgroup-level statistics table for WikiProject Indian television

Since WikiProject Indian television is the newest workgroup there needs to be a statistics table for it because there are hundreds of articles on the Wikipedia mainsapce that fall into the category of Indian Television. I need someone's help to arrange this for me. Thanks - Bhavesh.Chauhan 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Of Madhapuram Khammam

Address

Madhapuram (Post) or Madapuram Tallampadu (Via) Mudigonda (Mandal) Khammam (Dist) Andhra Pradesh (State) India Pin code : 507170

Madhapuram Population Data

Households: 625 , Total Population: 2,560 , Male Population: 1,298 , Female Population: 1,262 , Kids Under 6 Yrs: 312 , Boys Under 6 Yrs: 167 , Girls Under 6 Yrs: 145 , Total Literates: 1,300 , Total Illeterates: 1,260


Web Map/Driving directions http://mapmyindia.com/embed_preview.jsp?x=-1097103.375&y=4914701.5&z=9&width=800&height=400


Land Records http://apland.ap.nic.in/DistPahani.asp?dcode=22&mc=41&vc=1&mname=MUDIGONDA&dname=Khammam

School Information

M.P.Primary School http://projects.cgg.gov.in/dsemis/School.do?&mgtcode=1&schlcode=2241001&count=1


Z.P.High School http://projects.cgg.gov.in/dsemis/School.do?&mgtcode=1&schlcode=2241601&count=1



MPTC Election Result Winner = Morthala Hanimi Reddy (INC) , Runner = Annem Gurava Reddy CPI(M)


SARPANCH Election Result

Winner = Maddineni ?? (INC) , Runner = Annem Gurava Reddy CPI(M)


DISTRICT WISE BEST BI-VOLTINE FARMER AWARD ON THE EVE OF SANKRANTHI 2007 in Sericulture Sri. M.HanimiReddy


DISTRICT WISE BEST MULTI-VOLTINE FARMER AWARD ON THE EVE OF SANKRANTHI 2007 Sri. Gopireddy Rami Reddy

FREEDOM FIGHTERS 1) Linga Reddy Yarabolu (S/o Atchi Reddy) , 2) Rami Reddy Sareddy (S/o Obul Reddy )



Please enclose if you have any additional information.

Bye Hanimi R Mortala

Atlanta

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Of_Madhapuram_Khammam" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanimi m (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of India

I have edited the Constitution of India article significantly. I am currently running low on material and ideas. I am inviting and requesting help from anyone who can help expanding this article. Thanks. Sumanch (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think expanding part would be a nice idea. There could be an introduction to each of them atleast and depending on user contribution, each can be detailed and expanded. In fact I notice that for some of these parts there is no wiki reference at all. Priority can be given to those. Cheers. Tarun2k (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment needed

Ramakrishna Mission Vidyamandira and Ramakrishna Mission Residential College, this two articles need assessment. Nobody is objecting there.--NAHID 10:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessed them without comments. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)