|
Welcome to the Aircraft division of the assessment department of the Aviation WikiProject! This division focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's aircraft articles. While much of the work is (may in the future be) 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 {{WPAVIATION}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Aircraft articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The running totals for aircraft assessments are shown in the table below, also found here, and the overall project is found atWikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index.
See also: Unofficial benchmarks.
[edit] Frequently asked questions
- How can I get my article rated?
- As a member of the WikiProject Aircraft, you can do it yourself. If you're unsure, list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Aircraft 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.
- Where can I get more comments about my article?
- Contact a Project member who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- Relist it as a request or contact a Project member who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.
- 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 parameter in the {{WPAVIATION}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):
{{WPAVIATION
|class=
|Aircraft-project=
}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed aircraft articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
[edit] Quality scale
| Class |
Criteria |
Formal process |
Example |
 FA |
Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review. |
Featured article candidates |
Battle of Edson's Ridge (as of January 2007) |
| A |
Reserved for articles that have received A-Class status after review by the project. Such articles are expected to largely meet the featured article criteria, and must be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written; however, they may require some further copyediting. |
Requests for A-Class status |
Operation Linebacker II (as of January 2007) |
 GA |
Reserved for articles that meet the good article criteria and have received good article status. |
Good article nominations |
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (as of January 2007) |
| B |
The article meets the following five criteria:
- It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
- It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
- It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
- It is free from major grammatical errors.
- It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
|
May be assigned by any reviewer
A checklist is available through {{WPAVIATION}} to track the criteria (see the project banner instructions for more details); the checklist generates Category:B-Class aviation articles needing review (for current B-Class articles that may not meet all the criteria) and Category:Potential B-Class aviation articles (for below-B-Class articles that meet all five)
|
Rise of the Islamic Courts Union (2006) (as of January 2007) |
| Start |
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it 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
|
May be assigned by any reviewer |
1st Battalion 2nd Marines (as of January 2007) |
| Stub |
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 assigned by any reviewer |
16th Infantry Regiment (South Korea) (as of January 2007) |
[edit] Statistics
[edit] Current stats
Aircraft
articles |
Importance |
| None |
Total |
| Quality |
| FA |
2 |
2 |
| A |
4 |
4 |
| GA |
3 |
3 |
| B |
352 |
352 |
| Start |
763 |
763 |
| Stub |
541 |
541 |
| Assessed |
1665 |
1665 |
| Unassessed |
936 |
936 |
| Total |
2601 |
2601 |
[edit] Historical counts
All figures given for the end of each month
|
July 2006 |
August 2006 |
September 2006 |
October 2006 |
November 2006 |
December 2006 |
| FA |
3 |
1.96 % |
3 |
0.54 % |
4 |
0.32 % |
4 |
0.30 % |
2 |
0.14 % |
2 |
0.08 % |
| A |
4 |
2.61 % |
6 |
1.08 % |
8 |
0.65 % |
8 |
0.60 % |
9 |
0.62 % |
3 |
0.12 % |
| GA |
1 |
0.65 % |
1 |
0.18 % |
2 |
0.16 % |
2 |
0.15 % |
2 |
0.14 % |
3 |
0.12 % |
| B |
9 |
5.88 % |
65 |
11.69 % |
128 |
10.32 % |
135 |
10.07 % |
148 |
10.26 % |
208 |
8.55 % |
| Start |
11 |
7.19 % |
88 |
15.83 % |
195 |
15.73 % |
208 |
15.52 % |
246 |
17.05 % |
430 |
17.68 % |
| Stub |
1 |
0.65 % |
46 |
8.27 % |
126 |
10.16 % |
138 |
10.30 % |
192 |
13.31 % |
361 |
14.84 % |
| Unassessed |
124 |
81.05 % |
347 |
62.4 % |
777 |
62.66 % |
845 |
63.06 % |
844 |
58.49 % |
1,425 |
58.59 % |
| Total |
153 |
556 |
1,240 |
1,340 |
1,443 |
2,432 |
|
|
January 2007 |
February 2007 |
| FA |
2 |
0.07 % |
x |
x % |
| A |
3 |
0.11 % |
x |
x % |
| GA |
4 |
0.15 % |
x |
x % |
| B |
255 |
9.26 % |
x |
x % |
| Start |
573 |
20.81 % |
x |
x % |
| Stub |
457 |
16.59 % |
x |
x % |
| Unassessed |
1,460 |
53.01 % |
x |
x % |
| Total |
2,754 |
x |
[edit] Monthly changes
Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class.
|
August 2006 |
September 2006 |
October 2006 |
November 2006 |
December 2006 |
January 2007 |
| FA |
+0 |
+0 % |
+1 |
+33 % |
+0 |
+0 % |
-2 |
-50 % |
+0 |
+0 % |
+0 |
+0 % |
| A |
+2 |
+50 % |
+2 |
+33 % |
+0 |
+0 % |
+1 |
+12.5 % |
-6 |
-66.7 % |
+0 |
+0 % |
| GA |
+0 |
+0 % |
+1 |
+100 % |
+0 |
+0 % |
+0 |
+0 % |
+1 |
+50 % |
+1 |
+33.3 % |
| B |
+56 |
+622 % |
+63 |
+97 % |
+7 |
+5.4 % |
+13 |
+9.6 % |
+60 |
+40.5 % |
+47 |
+22.6 % |
| Start |
+77 |
+700 % |
+107 |
+122 % |
+13 |
+6.7 % |
+38 |
+18.3 % |
+184 |
+74.8 % |
+142 |
+33.0 % |
| Stub |
+45 |
+450 % |
+80 |
+174 % |
+12 |
+9.5 % |
+54 |
+39.1 % |
+169 |
+88.0 % |
+95 |
+26.3 % |
| Unassessed |
+223 |
+180 % |
+430 |
+124 % |
+68 |
+8.8 % |
-1 |
-0.1 % |
+581 |
+68.8 % |
+33 |
+2.3 % |
| Total |
+403 (+263 %) |
+684 (+123 %) |
+100 (+8.0 %) |
+103 (+7.7 %) |
+989 (+68.5 %) |
+318 (+13.1 %) |
|
|
February 2007 |
| FA |
x |
x % |
| A |
x |
x % |
| GA |
x |
x % |
| B |
x |
x % |
| Start |
x |
x % |
| Stub |
x |
x % |
| Unassessed |
x |
x % |
| Total |
x |
[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 WikiProject Aviation review department instead.
Columbia 400 - This seems to be a clear B-class article, as it contains infobox, photo, and aircraft description. For some reason, it has been classified as stub, which doesn't appear to meet the assessment criteria listed.
- As the original rater, I have upgraded it to a start, because I feel that the paucity of text doesn't justify a B rating. I welcome any further comments on my rating. Ingoolemo talk 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, it's a start. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Cozy MK IV - Initial assessment request, looks like possible 'start' classification is appropriate.
- Now rated. Ingoolemo talk 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Bell 206 - Looks like a B class, and I think being the most recognisable helicopter in the world gets it a Top in importance.
- Now rated. Ingoolemo talk 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Alpha 2000. Cannot be "low" importance by the definition found here. Low needs to be re-thought. Paul Beardsell 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I rated it of low importance. I have no objection to the rating being changed but suggest an explanation to justify the change is required - was the word "here" supposed to link somewhere?, (for readers unfamilar with the type, the Alpha 2000 is a conventional aero club two seat trainer / tourer developed by some modest changes from a similar French machine. It has just entered production in New Zealand, against orders for, from memory, 18 aircraft). Winstonwolfe 04:41, 15 #September 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, there are only nine orders; the other 9 are just options. I am inclined to agree with Winstonwolfe: it is a low-priority article. Consider it rated.
HAL Tejas - Extensively reworked and added emphasis on this program's national importance as a vehicle for accelerating India's domestic aerospace technology base. Hopefully it will become a "lead in" article to encourage readers to learn more about Indian aviation. Please review for quality and suggest any needed improvements. Askari Mark | Talk 00:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Better but still needs a lot of work, including English, readability, NPOV, citations, no editorializing, etc. etc. etc. A strong B-class article. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri - This is my first article created from scratch. I'm hoping to establish a standard for aircraft engine articles, so please be specific with any thoughts for improvement. There aren't aircraft engine many right now and few are much worth reading. Askari Mark | Talk 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- As above. B class. Higher ratings require a formal review. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Beechcraft 1900 I have done a lot of work on this article over a period of 6 months. Others have contributed extensively, too. The 1900 is a significant development of the King Air and a commonly-used 19-seat airliner. Mikepurves 03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- B: Does not cite sources, does not adhere to WP:MOS. Good work, keep at it! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Polikarpov I-5 Don't know where to place it on the importance scale, a standard Soviet fighter but still relatively unknown to public. Probably a Starter. Comments? User:Uhu219
- - rated as start class -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Henschel Hs 123 Earlier rated as Stub, new rating needed affter expansion/revision. User:Uhu219
- rated as B class pretty good content, some formatting style issues and no inline cites. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Cessna 165 - I usually rate articles, however I was the orignial creator and main contributor and would rather let another editor rate my work. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Helicopters - Born2flie: Was rated as A-Class but downgraded to B-Class because there was no review. I didn't assess it or downgrade it, but want to recommend it for consideration for A-Class to see where it needs to be improved for further improvement. --16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I took a look at the article. Def a B article. I made a quick note on the talk page. has pretty good content but a horrible lack of sources and inline citations. Needs alot of work in that area before it could be an A rated article. I think the current rating of B is very appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- OH-58 Kiowa - Born2flie:This is my pet article, so I'd really like to see how to make this progress further along. --03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- BAE Systems - The project box was added to BAE Systems without importance assesment. I added top importance, however Trevor MacInnis has queried whether it should be mid importance at best. I think a wider discussion is the best option. Trevor argues that BAE's involvement in aviation is now just BAE Systems Regional Aircraft, however given that BAE is successor to all the major British aircraft companies, its central role in the Tornado, Typhoon and UK UAVs, and given its stake in the F-35, I think it should be high at least. BAE Systems Inc. also makes avionics, engine controls, data links etc. Mark83 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Svenska Aero Jaktfalken
- Done -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 - Homer Landskirty 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC): I think this article is of major importance, since it describes, a threat to airtraffic and people on the ground due to uncoordinated (and so possibly contradictious) safety measurements. This problem might be a generic problem (like loopholes in tax law), but in air traffic this problem should be solvable, since it is more important there. --Homer Landskirty
- Rated B. decent content but complete lack of inline citation. Rated importance at mid. (There have been many more significant aircraft disasters in my personal opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to object hereby (if possible): Since there is just one source (the official investigation report) we would have to refer in every sentence to the same reference, which sounds quite pointless. Is there anything else, we could do better? Maybe a chronological list of communication, FLs, sink rates, ... (or is that inappropriate?)? Furthermore I think, that the importance of this incident is higher than "Mid", because air traffic involves a lot of international intercourse with mostly national and uncoordinated regulation. --Homer Landskirty 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I responded on your talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Schweizer (Hughes) 300 - Still has items on its to do list, but running out of decent references. --Born2flie 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re-assessed to B quality, thanks to great improvement of the article. --MoRsE 10:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Fokker F.VII. Quite a historic aircraft, currently unassessed. I can't rate it myself since I started the article. FiggyBee 13:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I assessed the article as a starter with a high importance, since it is a very notable aircraft. There is probably a lot that could be written about this aircraft. MoRsE 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rolls-Royce RB211 - JCG33: I've done a bit to this and would like to know how much further it needs to go. --22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hawker Siddeley Harrier I beleive the harrier Gr1/3 is of much more importance than say the F-15, which is rated top. The F-15, didn't eactly revolutionize air combat as much as say the previous F-4 phantom, and it seems a little biased that uSAF aircraft are rated higher on importance athan non-us ones (e.g. harrier, although I welcome the top importance rating on the English Electric Lightning Obviously if the Harrier was given a higher importance scale it would briung more attention to it. I also notice none of the connecting artcles have received a dull or proper assesment either.--ArmedAndDangerous 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (all replies in my userpage if possible please
-
- In my opinion the article is of top importance, but a lot of information is still missing. MoRsE 19:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- therefore it requires top-importance as has been added now. Yay! --ArmedAndDangerous 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
BAE Sea HarrierAlso, would you mind assesing the Sea Harrier article aswell, that also needs assessing, it hasn't been assessed yet. It's role in the falklands war makes it quite important in my own opinion, although i could be completely wrong. --ArmedAndDangerous 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I rated it as medium-importance: a fairly important aircraft in a minor war. I could be wrong too. The Land 19:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
MFI-17 Mushshak - I've done a bit to this and would like to know how much further it needs to goUser talk:Yousaf465
- Done. As it stands there is basic reference information about it, so it's a Start. There must be a lot more that could be said about it, whether there are any detailed sources on which to base the article I don't know! The Land 19:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Fokker - This article is rated "start". In my opinion there is enough history and complete list of aircraft to rate it "B". If not, why not? How can the article be improved? -- P199 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to current standards, I would call that one a "B" --MoRsE 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Link Trainer I've done a bit of work on it and I'd be interested in knowing where it stands at the moment. --RichardH 11:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM
[edit] Assessment log (updated by bot)
Automatically-updated log; do not modify directly
|
