Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Airports
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
 → Article requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → Infobox talk
 → New articles talk
 → Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Peer review talk
edit · changes
Shortcut:
WP:AIRPORT/A
WP:AIRPORTS/A

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

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{AirportProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Airport articles by quality and Category:Airport articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{AirportProject}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Airports WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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? 
The Status requester can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? 
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.

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 {{AirportProject}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

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

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

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
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Examples
Featured article 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 necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Montréal-Mirabel International Airport
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 the "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. Sydney
Good article 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 being a Good article 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. San Francisco International Airport
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, NPOV or 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. John F. Kennedy International Airport.
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. 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
 Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. London Southend Airport
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. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Barra Airport, Arcola Airport
Needed
{{Needed-Class}}		 The article does not exist and needs to be created.      

[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, airports with greater popular notability may be rated higher than airports which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of a certain geographical area.

Exceptions to typical categorical importance rating schemes often occur. The examples given below are in no way set in stone — that is, airports can not always be rated on the importance scale as shown below.

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.

Airport
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Class
Featured article FA 1 1
A 2 2
Good article GA 2 1 3
B 28 12 5 3 48
Start 43 52 59 16 17 187
Stub 14 34 185 649 2090 2972
Unassessed 1 2 1686 1689
Total 91 101 249 668 3793 4902
Status Template Examples
Top {{Top-Class}} Very large airports with international airline service:
• JFK Intl, London Heathrow, Sydney Intl and Kansai Intl.
Major active duty or highly historic military installations:
• Andrews AFB, RAF Fairford and RNZAF Base Ohakea.
Airport sites of major/famous aviation accidents/incidents:
• Los Rodeos (Tenerife disaster), Jorge Newbery (LAPA 3142),
• Sioux Gateway (United 232) and Entebbe Intl (Operation Entebbe).
High {{High-Class}} Large airports with scheduled airline service:
• Sacramento Intl, London Luton and Canberra Intl.
Medium active duty or somewhat historic military installations:
• Nellis AFB, RAF Croughton and RNZAF Base Woodbourne.
Closed or abandoned military or civillian airports of high historical significance:
• Meigs Field and Croydon Airport.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} Medium airports (with or without scheduled services),
 airports with only regional service, and small airports with scheduled services:
• Van Nuys, Teterboro, London Southend and Scatsta.
Minor active duty or minor historic military installations:
• McClellan AFB, RAF Sculthorpe, Torrejon AFB and Alert Airport/CFS Alert.
Closed or abandoned military or civillian airports of moderate historical significance:
• Aérodrome Saint-Louis
Notable airports red linked from other articles.
Low {{Low-Class}} Small general aviation airports without scheduled service:
• Placerville Airport, Tingwall Airport and Goulburn Airport.
Non-military, private-use airports:
• Majors Airport (California), Bonny Doon Village Airport and Amargosa Airport.
Closed or abandoned military or civillian airports without historical significance:
• Redvers Airport and Grand Central Airport (California).
??? None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It has not yet been rated.
If you want to lend a hand, feel free to browse the complete listing of unassessed articles.

[edit] Importance standards

To be filled later

[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 peer review department instead.

[edit] Participants

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. Thadius856 (talk • contribs) - California airports especially, but most U.S. airports as well.
  2. DB (talk)
  3. User:Korenyuk — Norwegian/Swedish/Finnish/Ukrainian airports and others if interesting for me in a way or another, depending on places I get to (for reports).

[edit] Example assessments

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.

Quality

  • {{AirportProject|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{AirportProject|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{AirportProject|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{AirportProject|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{AirportProject|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{AirportProject|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{AirportProject}} - to leave the article un-assessed.

Importance

  • {{AirportProject|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{AirportProject|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{AirportProject|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{AirportProject|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance


[edit] Assessment log (updated by bot)

The log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

Automatically-updated list of all articles, sorted by class in descending order — DO NOT MODIFY MANUALLY!


Contact with WP Airport
See also: assessed article categories. Last update: December 16, 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Airports_Assessment_26ac.html"