Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Dogs WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Dogs or Dog-related subjects. 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

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

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

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 Dogs WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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, 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 {{WikiProject Dogs}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Dogs
|class=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [ v • d • e ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
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 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)
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 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 following values may be used for the importance parameter (they should be entered exactly as given):

Importance parameter values (Category:Dogs articles by importance)
Value Meaning Examples Category
Top "Key" articles, considered indispensable Dogs, Dog breed Top-importance Dogs articles
High High-priority topics and needed subtopics of "key" articles, often with a broad scope; needed to complement any general understanding of the field Companion dog, Dog food High-importance Dogs articles
Mid Mid-priority articles on more specialised (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarised in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding Canine distemper, Obedience school Mid-importance Dogs articles
Low While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles) Bamse the St Bernard, Dog-show judge Low-importance Dogs articles

The importance parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. If the importance parameter is not yet set, or contains an invalid value, the article will be assigned to Category:Unknown-importance Dogs articles.

[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.

Guard_dog (suspect it will be start class)...Mymazdatribute.

[edit] Assessment log

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.


Archive This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.


[edit] December 16, 2006

[edit] December 15, 2006

(No changes today)

[edit] December 14, 2006

[edit] December 13, 2006

[edit] December 12, 2006

[edit] December 11, 2006

(No changes today)

[edit] December 10, 2006

  • Hermit Ren (talk) removed, was in Unassessed

[edit] December 9, 2006

(No changes today)

[edit] December 8, 2006

  • Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home (talk) removed, was in Unassessed

[edit] December 7, 2006

[edit] December 3, 2006

[edit] December 1, 2006

[edit] November 28, 2006

[edit] November 27, 2006

[edit] November 26, 2006

[edit] November 25, 2006

[edit] November 24, 2006

(No changes today)

[edit] November 23, 2006

[edit] November 22, 2006

[edit] November 21, 2006

[edit] November 20, 2006

[edit] November 19, 2006

[edit] November 18, 2006

[edit] November 17, 2006

[edit] November 16, 2006

  • Animal Research Foundation (talk) removed, was in Stub-Class
  • Australian Kelpie moved from Start-Class (No-Class) to B-Class (No-Class)

[edit] November 14, 2006

(No changes today)

[edit] November 13, 2006

(No changes today)

[edit] November 12, 2006

[edit] November 11, 2006

(No changes today)

[edit] November 10, 2006

[edit] Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


↑ Index Assessment assessment table log, statistics →


Contact with WP Dogs/Assessment
See also: assessed article categories. Last update: December 16, 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Dogs_Assessment_cfb9.html"