User talk:Tony1/GAC revised application form
- Running scores against PEG criteria and strategic priorities.
This scoring table is work in progress. I'd like to know later whether you think it's useful, and soon if you think any of the scores are unfair at this juncture. The general idea is that both scores and certainties should change (hopefully upwards!) as the application and talkpage develop.
Key:
- 1 = very weak or no alignment
- 3 = weak alignment
- 5 = passable alignment; room for significant improvement
- 7 = reasonably good alignment
- 10 = excellent alignment
| Criterion | Running score | Certainty level of scoring | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) High-quality content: Potential for increase at WMF sites (e.g. Spanish Wikipedia, Commons). | |||
| (b) High-level participation: Potential for increase at WMF sites. | |||
| (c) Volunteers: Their availability, readiness, and skill-base for implementing the activities. Are the scale and scope of the activities commensurate with this? | |||
| (d) Measures of success: Are they realistic and actually measurable in context? | |||
| (e) Budget: Matches scale and scope? Strategic justification for labour and materials? Responsible growth/investment? | |||
| (f) Sustainability of impact and increase in reach (new partnerships, public awareness of WMF sites). Would the work keep on giving? | |||
| (g) Community engagement/support (could include promotion of diversity in the WM movement). |
- Interim scores against PEG criteria and strategic priorities.
Key:
- 1 = very weak or no alignment
- 3 = weak alignment
- 5 = passable alignment; room for significant improvement
- 7 = reasonably good alignment
- 10 = excellent alignment
| Criterion | Running score | My certainty level of scoring | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) High-quality content: Potential for increase at WMF sites (e.g. Spanish Wikipedia, Commons). | 7 | Medium | Could be higher if I were sure of the quality and linguistic accessibility of the guidelines for producing quality files. Slight concern about the utility of files in this theme as adjuncts for articles in WMF sites. But I do love the theme all the same: imaginative. |
| (b) High-level participation: Potential for increase at WMF sites. | 7 | Medium | It's hard to assess longer-term increases, even for Commons. Prizes for article writing that uses the files would increase my confidence and rating here. |
| (c) Volunteers: Their availability, readiness, and skill-base for implementing the activities. Are the scale and scope of the activities commensurate with this? | 9 | Medium-high | Early success looks very promising. Organisation has experience and networks for this. |
| (d) Measures of success: Are they realistic and actually measurable in context? | 4 | High | I'm sure the 4 will rise significantly when applicant edits it. |
| (e) Budget: Matches scale and scope? Strategic justification for labour and materials? Responsible growth/investment? | 5 | Medium-high | Could we know what the other $25K will be paying for? Alex (staff) will almost certainly ask for more details here. |
| (f) Sustainability of impact and increase in reach (new partnerships, public awareness of WMF sites). Would the work keep on giving? | 10 | Medium | It's an exciting project, but hard to know at this stage. Track-record of organisation is important here. Examples? |
| (g) Community engagement/support (could include promotion of diversity in the WM movement). | 7 | Medium | CNOs, continental spread, look great. How embedded are they in their local communities, though? I think I see women's names among the "Endorsement" list: excellent. |