[edit] Consistency

There is a slight problem here with regards to this {{AfricaProject}} template. Compared with the {{Football}} template, there seems to be a red-link in the Cat section of the Africa template. However, in the football template, there is no such red-link and the Cat is spelled Category. Does anyone know how to fix the Africa template, so that it would be similar to the football template? For a good example, please view this page. Notice the difference between the two templates. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Football does not supply a category parameter to the xxx-Class template it invokes, while Template:AfricaProject does. This makes the links for the GA, FA, etc. class football articles (which aren't categories) go to the generic categories for this class of article, e.g. Category:GA-Class_articles rather than Category:GA-Class football articles, although the page is actually added to the football specific category. Any category class page tagged with template:Football is put in the default category, i.e. Category:Unassessed football articles but the table on the page does not provide a link (see Category talk:Football (soccer) clubs for an example). I suspect rather than "fix" this template, we should actually fix template:Football. I'll bring this up at template talk:Football. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the {{AfricaProject}} template to be similar with the {{football}} template. This is to achieve greater consistency between the two templates. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this going the wrong direction? The link to the xxx-class category from the table sure seems like it should go the category the article is placed in, rather than the generic category. I'm working on adding a category parameter for the football template and will partially revert the change to this template so they end up consistent. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More important than templating for improving quality

...would be to help each other with peer review of Africa-related articles.

Case in point: last November, after adding a good chunk of material to Iyasu V of Ethiopia, I felt that it was at least a strong B-quality article & listed it at WP:GA to get some feedback & ideas to make the article even better. I didn't expect an immediate response, but 6 weeks passed before anyone took a look at it, by which time I was busy with other things and couldn't attend to the issues raised in a meaningful way. Now a few more months might pass before I can get back to it, & I am trying to use this article to work my way into improving more important articles like Menelik II of Ethiopia and Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. (I've gathered the material, so I believe this is doable.)

At the moment, WikiProject Ethiopia is asleep, so asking for help there is not very useful.

What I would like to see is for other African specialists to help each other. We know the material better than other Wikipedians, so we ought to be able to share useful comments that will produce GA-, A- & FA-quality articles. Relying on whoever happens to be contributing at Wikipedia:Peer Review and related centers is beginning to look too much like a crapshoot. In fact, I'm willing to extend an offer: do a peer review on an Ethiopia-related article, & I'll return the favor on one of yours. Heck, contact me about one of your Africa-related articles, & I'll take the time to offer a critique. Let's work together, & promote more of our articles to the top! -- llywrch (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)