Wikipedia:WikiProject Sussex/Request assessment

I am not a member of this project and do not wish to be, but would ask that the article Wealden iron industry be reassessed and rerated following its recent revision. Peterkingiron 14:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashurst Wood - I've done a lot of editing to this article and it's currently rated as a stub. It definitely needs reassessing and as I've made a large set of changes it would be more appropriate if somebody else assessed it. Thanks ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston near Lewes has been assessed on the UK Geography Wikiproject, but not Wikiproject Sussex. Would it be a good candidate? Autarch (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollingbury has been expanded and images added since it was last rated as a stub. Please could you reassess. Hzv5wk (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hassocks is currently unassessed and having a particular interest in the village I would be grateful if someone could have a look at it for me. Many thanks. Paste (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burgess Hill has not been rated in a fairly long time and it would seem that most of the things of the to do list have been done, if not fully to a notably greater extent. Please could you reassess. Curtis31992 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cowdray House I've just put a significant amount of history into this article, I don't think it is still a stub, as such would be grateful for someone to re-assess it. I've removed the stub assessment so it's currently unassessed. JonEastham (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has been assessed C. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could Littlehampton Redoubt and Shoreham Redoubt please be reassessed? I have added headings, text, images, references and a bibliography to both pages. Are they still stubs? Thank you. Kinnerton (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just merged three articles into Trotton with Chithurst (the merger was proposed 3 years ago, I thought someone should actually do it!). Can someone please reassess that article to account for the additional content? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's now Start class. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a member of the wikiproject but would like you to assess whether Jerwood Gallery in Hastings (http://www.jerwoodgallery.org/about/the-gallery) is notable enough to warrant an article. 72.244.206.38 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this, Sussex is rated as start class with a notice saying that it lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations, yet has 137 inline citations and has multiple, detailed sections. Could this be reassessed? Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 19:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone look at Fulking - I think it's moved beyond a stub, and is now perhaps a 'B'. Topo122 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's now C-class. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History of Sussex is currently listed as C-class, but I feel like it should be much higher than that - what do others think? Seagull123 Φ 19:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]