From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shark
articles |
Importance |
| Top |
High |
Mid |
Low |
Total |
| Class |
 FA |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
| A |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
 GA |
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
| B |
2 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
15 |
| Start |
|
8 |
45 |
30 |
83 |
| Stub |
|
2 |
11 |
25 |
38 |
| Unassessed |
|
|
|
|
|
| Total |
4 |
20 |
59 |
57 |
140 |
|
Article assessment is the process by which shark related articles are sorted into different qualities. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles.
[edit] Assessment scale
The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.
Official WikiPedia Grading Scheme
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) |
These criteria apply to general-content articles. Shark articles have additional criteria/guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for an article of each class; see the talk page for discussion of these.
Each shark related article has its assessment included inside the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk}} template, such as {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sharks/SharksTalk|class=B}}. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's discussion pagefor more information.
[edit] Specific requirements
An article about a species has the following requirements:
- A taxobox - Following the guidelines set out by the Tree of Life WikiProject
- A picture in the taxobox - Clearly identifiable image of the species
- Introduction - A short summary-like paragraph
- Naming - Why the species has that name, names in other languages, etc.
- Distribution - Information about where they are found - oceanic, reef, etc.
- Distribution map - Follow the guidelines on the template shark article to put a map at the bottom of the taxobox
- Anatomy - Body shape, respiration, life histories, etc.
- Diet - What they eat
- Behaviour - description of the behaviour exhibited by the species
- Reproduction - how the species mates and reproduces
- References - A references section at the end, preferably with inline sourcing throughout the article
[edit] Assessment guidelines
The following are specific assessment guidelines specifically for shark related articles.
- Stub class- No structure, only brief sentence or two - Use {{Stub-Class}}
- Start class- Some structure, brief paragraph - Use {{Start-Class}}
- B class- Decent structure, at least one paragraph for most required headers, inline sourcing, includes distribution map and at least one image - Use {{B-Class}}
- GA class- All required headers with good amount of text, a few relevant images. Should have pased GA - Use {{GA-Class}}
- A class- Everything is fully mentioned, sub-sections for larger headers, cite web formatting, should be nearly ready for FAC - Use {{A-Class}}
- FA class- Passed FAC - Use {{FA-Class}}
[edit] Importance
| Top |
Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia |
| High |
Subject contributes a depth of knowledge |
| Mid |
Subject fills in more minor details |
| Low |
Subject is mainly of specialist interest. |
[edit] Assessment process
To create a new assessment discussion here, add the article to be assessed in a level three (eg. ===[[Article name]]===) sub-section of the Article assessments section below. Give the article's exact name in the title with a wikilink. Finally, add the "assessed=yes" parameter to the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk}} template near the top of the article's talk page.
After the header add your comments in a table like this:
{|
| CLASS || IMPORTANCE ||REMARKS - ~~~~
|}
Substituting CLASS for what you think the class is, IMPORTANCE for what you think the importance is and REMARKS for any comments you have on the article and then sign off with four tildes (~~~~) after the REMARKS.
When filling in the CLASS use the class templates to colour the table cell:
- {{Stub-Class}}
- {{Start-Class}}
- {{B-Class}}
- {{GA-Class}}
- {{A-Class}}
- {{FA-Class}}
And for IMPORTANCE use the importance templates:
- {{Top-importance}}
- {{High-importance}}
- {{Mid-importance}}
- {{Low-importance}}
Current practice is that Stub-Start-B assessments are done by individual editors when looking at an article. Before upgrading to A-class the article should be discussed here to make sure everyone agrees. Once the article is A-class you should probably get general peer review on it and then follow the normal process for making the article a FA article. Peer review (PR) and FA candidates (FAC) should be announced here to get more specific comments from the editors.
[edit] Article assessments
Automatically updated list of shark articles and their status.
| Stub |
Low |
Have only taxobox and references Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B |
High |
Suggest submit for GA. Comments? Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B |
Top |
Good inline references, good headers. I think this could be submitted for GA. chris_huh 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B |
High |
Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B |
High |
Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Start |
High |
Only behaviour and intro section. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Start |
High |
Good start class, but a bit thin for B class. Stefan 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B |
Top |
Lacks inline references! Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B |
High |
Resonable content. Lacks inline references. Stefan 09:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
| FA |
High |
Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Start |
High |
Good start class, but a bit thin for B class. Stefan 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
| GA |
Top |
After collaboration of the week I nominated this for GA. Stefan 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Accepted. Stefan 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B |
High |
Submitted for GA 5 Sep. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Failed GA due to occasionally has a non-encyclopedic tone and to few references. Stefan 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
|
-
-
-
- COTF finished, what should we do now, reapply for GA or maybe get a peer-review, or just leave it for a bit? chris_huh 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should reapply, think the text is much better now, maybe we need some more references, I will continue to work on that for a while, but I have very little time for wiki for the next week or so! Stefan 09:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I nominated it again, lets see what happens. Stefan 08:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
| B |
Top |
Submitted for GA 5 Sep. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
