Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

WikiProject Australia

General information
Main project page talk
Project participants talk
Noticeboard talk
 → Article requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Australia Portal talk

Departments
Assessment talk
 → Requests talk
 → Disputes talk
Cartography talk
Collaboration talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Photography talk

Australian WikiProjects
Australian crime talk
Australian law talk
Australian military talk
Australian places talk
 → Adelaide talk
 → Brisbane talk
 → Canberra talk
 → Geelong talk
 → Hobart talk
 → Lake Macquarie talk
 → Melbourne talk
 → Perth talk
 → Sydney talk
 → Gold Coast talk
Australian politics talk
Australian history talk
 → Maritime history talk
Australian sports talk
 → Australian rules talk
 → Football (soccer) talk
 → Rugby league talk
 → Basketball talk
 → Motorsport talk
Banksia genus talk
Australian biota talk
edit · changes
Australia
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Class
Featured article FA 4 8 9 9 7 37
A 2 2 3 1 8
Good article GA 2 6 3 2 8 21
B 27 57 57 24 63 228
Start 29 61 208 216 724 1238
Stub 1 23 283 251 4274 4832
Unassessed 1 7 8 30 6979 7025
Total 66 164 571 532 12056 13389


Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Australia! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia 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 {{WP Australia}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Australia articles by quality and Category:Australia 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 {{WP Australia}} 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 editor 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 peer review department 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 {{WP Australia}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WP Australia| ... | 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 Australia 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. Australia (as of July 6 2006), Emu (as of 21 September 2006), Eric Bana (as of 21 September 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 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. Uluru
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. Boomerang.
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. Jimmy Barnes
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. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)
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, 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 Australia.

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.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

[edit] Article importance standards

  • Capital cities - Generally classed as top to high importance.
  • Cities - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Companies - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Places - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Schools - Generally classed as mid to low importance.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

[edit] Jacana, Victoria

Surely deserves a high ranking

Start and Low. Suburbs generally get Low importance, small cities Medium, Capital Cities High, and States Top. Start class because it lacks photographs, inline references. Nice info, though. Iorek85 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Howard

I reckon this article should be put up as a featured article candidate. I don't see why it's only B-class. subst:unsigned|Atlantis Hawk}}

A quick read, lead is to short(see WP:LEAD), section "Success failur success" has only 1 reference thats for a quote on gay marriage, the other 5-6 paragraphs are unreferenced. Theres a tag saying that some information is out of date and needs to be updated. B-c;ass is a fair assessment. Gnangarra 06:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Opera House

Sydney Opera House is one of the most famous buildings in the world, and certainly Australia. It doesn't have a rating on quality or importance. I wouldn't feel justified giving such an important article ratings, but hopefully someone more experienced can. For quality, I would probably put it as a weak B or strong Start class as there is much, much more information that can be said about this architecture masterpiece. As for importance, I'm guessing between High and Top, but a true Aussie (I'm Canadian) should place a rating. Thanks. Bobo is soft 04:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is OK, but has a few unsubstantiated assertions and the opening paragraph doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view.Paddington62 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gave it a B and a High. Iorek85 09:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to do a bit of rewriting to make the English expression flow more smoothly, as such a magnificent work of architecture warrants. --Amandajm 15:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paddington tram depot fire

I think I've got this article as well developed as it can be. I wouldn't mind other's comments on it. Not many Brisbane articles seem to have been rated as yet. Importance of course is subjective - in the scheme of importance for Australia it's relatively minor, but the fire's impact on Brisbane, by accelerating the closure of the tram system has ongoing impact on Brisbane's public transport system and thus the city's spacial layout. Paddington62 09:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

detailed explaination on the article page, generally well covered and presented, I gave it a B/class and Mid/importance but if you can drop it to low if you prefer. minor POV statements need a direct inline cite. Suggested some other possible sources they might have some information to expand the article. Gnangarra 11:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament House, Canberra

Needs assesment. A bit of constructive critasisim would really help. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 23:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

a Quick look, needs a lead see WP:LEAD, theres no references. Gnangarra 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane

Somehow Brisbane is still lacking a Quality Scale rating. Some assistance in rating Brisbane on the Quality Scale would be appreciated so this article can move towards being a successful FA Candidate. Pursey 08:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be a little more smoothly written but it is still a very complete and useful article, so I rated it as an A-class article. Atlantis Hawk 08:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyline

I've made several changes to this FA. Please see here Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment for more info and any discussion. Or use the article talk page where I've tried to explain my changes and my concerns... Nil Einne 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mater Health Services

I recently noticed that the page I started had been included in WikiProject Australia and would love to have it assessed. Suggestions on improvement would also be appreciated. -- Alick Brown 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Commented there, some expansion of the History would be a good place to start. Ansell 11:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I have added a History section as well as other page elements as per your suggestion. Alick Brown 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Updated the comments section of the WP Australia tag there. The history section is a good stub section, now needs expansion.
Could someone else rate its importance. I am still not sure of how that is done around here. Ansell 11:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Harbour Bridge

I've tidied this article up a bit, put it in logical sections and rearranged the pics so they illustrate the written matter in an appropriate way. It's got some really great photos! I think that it is ready for assessment.

--Amandajm 09:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Commented there. Needs references. Ansell 11:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ricky Ponting

The captain of the Australian cricket team, and one of the top cricket players in the world. Article should have a high ranking based on the importance of the subject matter in Australian culture - not just sporting culture, because cricket (the national sport) impacts on the general culture. Note There are improvements to be made and I will work on it as time permits. Darcyj 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Landform Divisions

This has not been rated, is a very important topic and i believ you guys shoudl rate it. THE MILJAKINATOR 10:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs considerable work. If the topic is so important, then there should be at least three times as much information there. Also, I am not too certain of the accuracy of your article - looks like original research to me. Darcyj 11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, its not original research and i have added sources. I will remove the tag. THE MILJAKINATOR 06:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas College, Perth

This article needs an importance rating :) i know it is only a school, but hopefully all of the hours i have put into the article will give it an avg importance rating. thank you. Smbarnzy 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenelg, South Australia

This article is not yet rated. I believe it should be grated higher importance than a typical suburb as it is the oldest European settlement on mainland South Australia. I've worked on this considerably. I realise there's still plenty to do, but I'd like some feedback to keep me motivated and on the right path. --AtD 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

[edit] Active

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

  1. Amandajm (talk • contribs)
  2. Ansell (talk • contribs)
  3. Ansett (talk • contribs)
  4. Arnzy (talk • contribs)
  5. Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs)
  6. AYArktos (talk • contribs)
  7. Cyberjunkie (talk • contribs)
  8. darcyj (talk • contribs) - cricket, political history, Canberra
  9. darkliight (talk • contribs)
  10. Garglebutt (talk • contribs)
  11. Gnangarra (talk • contribs)
  12. Iorek85 (talk • contribs)
  13. Lincalinca (talk • contribs) - Australian Music and Literature
  14. LiquidGhoul (talk • contribs)
  15. Longhair (talk • contribs)
  16. LordRobert (talk • contribs)
  17. Michael Jay Williams (talk • contribs) - Environment & Mammals
  18. nathannoblet (talk • contribs)
  19. Paddington62 (talk • contribs)
  20. ScottDavis (talk • contribs)
  21. Shadow007 (talk • contribs)
  22. Todd661 (talk • contribs) - Central Coast articles
  23. Xtra (talk • contribs)

[edit] Inactive

  1. JROBBO (talk • contribs)

[edit] Example assessments

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

Quality

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


Importance

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

[edit] Log

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

[edit] Statistics

Updated manually. Last updated: August 14, 2006

Summary of Quality of Australian-related articles
Quality Australia Australian city WikiProjects
Adelaide Brisbane Canberra Geelong Hobart Lake Macquarie Melbourne Perth Sydney Gold Coast
Featured article FA 28 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
A 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Good article GA 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0
B 173 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Australia_Assessment_f786.html"