Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Trains WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's rail transport 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

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

Rail transport
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Class
Featured article FA 7 11 1 19
A
Good article GA 23 35 22 80
B 8 71 163 99 445 786
Start 4 108 376 715 3279 4482
Stub 15 151 562 1839 2567
Unassessed 13 13
Total 12 224 736 1399 5576 7947
The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
edit · changes

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 Trains 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.
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

[edit] Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:

{{TrainsWikiProject| ... | class=??? | ...}}
Featured article FA
A
Good article GA
B
Start
Stub
Needed

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:


Template
Dab
Cat
Image
NA

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

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

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Rail transport articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

[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 assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:

{{TrainsWikiProject| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

All articles that lack an importance rating are categorized in Category:Unknown-importance rail transport articles.

[edit] Importance scale

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics of rail transport. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on {{Train topics}} A reader who is not involved in rail transport will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. Train
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding the history or technology of rail transport. Most readers will at least be familiar with the topic being discussed. These articles describe the basics beyond the core topics about how trains work and the more significant historical events in rail transport history worldwide. Articles about the most basic topics in rail transport like rolling stock types, the largest railroad companies and the most historically and culturally significant topics are included in this level. Some technical terms can be used within articles in this range, but where they are used, they should be explained or at least link to articles that discuss the terms in more detail. First Transcontinental Railroad
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history or technology of rail transport. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand rail transport, such as main stations in secondary travel markets, former Class I railroads and more specialized types of equipment. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most railroad company executives will be rated in this level. Southern Pacific 4449
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of rail transport technology or history. Few readers outside the rail transport industry or that are not within the local area of the article's topic may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of rail transport, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most subway and local railway stations, short line railroad companies and limited or one-off productions of equipment or facilities that otherwise had no significant impact on the rail industry. Jordanhill railway station

[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.

  1. S26 (ZVV)
  2. Philippine National Railways
  3. Radio Electronic Token Block
  4. ALCO RSC-2
  5. Solana Beach (Amtrak station)
  6. MARTA
  7. South African Railways GL class Garratt
  8. Mount Lowe Railway (significantly revised and referenced)
  9. List of London railway stations (significantly revised, turned into table)
  10. List of closed railway stations in London (created from List of London railway stations, revised, made into table)
  11. Funeral train (brand new article)
  12. Thameslink Programme (significant expansion)
  13. St Pancras Thameslink railway station
  14. FS ALn 772 (significant reworking)

[edit] Assessment log

Rail transport articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


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

[edit] December 14, 2006

[edit] December 13, 2006

[edit] December 12, 2006

[edit] December 11, 2006

[edit] December 10, 2006

[edit] December 9, 2006

(No changes today)

[edit] December 8, 2006

[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

[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

[edit] November 14, 2006

[edit] November 13, 2006

[edit] November 12, 2006

[edit] November 11, 2006

[edit] November 8, 2006

[edit] November 7, 2006

[edit] November 5, 2006

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Trains_Assessment_f8c9.html"