Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Assessment

Aircraft articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class
	FA	1	1				2
	A	4	2	3			9
	GA		2				2
	B	38	35	35	15	30	153
	Start	6	15	56	92	81	250
	Stub		4	11	78	103	196
	Unassessed	6	13	13	10	933	975
	Total	55	72	118	195	1147	1587

Welcome to the assessment department of the Aircraft WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's aircraft articles. While much of the work is (may in the future be) done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{AircraftProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Aircraft articles by quality and Category:Aircraft articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The running totals for aircraft assments are shown in the table to the right, also found here, and the overall project is found atWikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index.

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 

As a member of the WikiProject Aircraft, you can do it yourself. If you're unsure, list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles? 

Any member of the Aircraft WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? 

Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.

Where can I get more comments about my article? 

Contact a Project member who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.

What if I don't agree with a rating? 

Relist it as a request or contact a Project member who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.

Aren't the ratings subjective? 

Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{AircraftProject}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{AircraftProject|class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class aircraft articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class aircraft articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class aircraft articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class aircraft articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class aircraft articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class aircraft articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article aircraft articles)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed aircraft articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

• Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance aircraft articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance aircraft articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance aircraft articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance aircraft articles)

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible.	Sikhism (as of August 2006)
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.	Durian (as of June 2006)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.	Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.	Agriculture (as of June 2006)
B {{B-Class}}	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.	Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.	Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & references.
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.	Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

[edit] Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of aircraft. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

1. Columbia 400 - This seems to be a clear B-class article, as it contains infobox, photo, and aircraft description. For some reason, it has been classified as stub, which doesn't appear to meet the assessment criteria listed.

   As the original rater, I have upgraded it to a start, because I feel that the paucity of text doesn't justify a B rating. I welcome any further comments on my rating. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   Agree, it's a start. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Cozy MK IV - Initial assessment request, looks like possible 'start' classification is appropriate.

   Now rated. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Bell 206 - Looks like a B class, and I think being the most recognisable helicopter in the world gets it a Top in importance.

   Now rated. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Alpha 2000. Cannot be "low" importance by the definition found here. Low needs to be re-thought. Paul Beardsell 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   I rated it of low importance. I have no objection to the rating being changed but suggest an explanation to justify the change is required - was the word "here" supposed to link somewhere?, (for readers unfamilar with the type, the Alpha 2000 is a conventional aero club two seat trainer / tourer developed by some modest changes from a similar French machine. It has just entered production in New Zealand, against orders for, from memory, 18 aircraft). Winstonwolfe 04:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

   In fact, there are only nine orders; the other 9 are just options. I am inclined to agree with Winstonwolfe: it is a low-priority article. Consider it rated.

5. HAL Tejas - Extensively reworked and added emphasis on this program's national importance as a vehicle for accelerating India's domestic aerospace technology base. Hopefully it will become a "lead in" article to encourage readers to learn more about Indian aviation. Please review for quality and suggest any needed improvements. Askari Mark | Talk 00:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   Better but still needs a lot of work, including English, readability, NPOV, citations, no editorializing, etc. etc. etc. A strong B-class article. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

6. GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri - This is my first article created from scratch. I'm hoping to establish a standard for aircraft engine articles, so please be specific with any thoughts for improvement. There aren't aircraft engine many right now and few are much worth reading. Askari Mark | Talk 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

   As above. B class. Higher ratings require a formal review. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Beechcraft 1900 I have done a lot of work on this article over a period of 6 months. Others have contributed extensively, too. The 1900 is a significant development of the King Air and a commonly-used 19-seat airliner. Mikepurves 03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

   B: Does not cite sources, does not adhere to WP:MOS. Good work, keep at it! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM

[edit] Assessment log (updated by bot)