Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to the Assessment Department of the Architecture WikiProject. This group focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's architecture articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program.

Assessment is done in a distributed system (with many people and automated "bots") when values are included for the two "parameters" in the {{Architecture}} project banner template, as described in the syntax below. The different values cause the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Architecture articles by quality and Category:Architecture articles by importance.

Shortcut:
WP:ARCHA

Contents
Architecture
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 8 10 19 37
A 7 2 4 13
Good article GA 3 10 21 6 1 41
B 163 144 111 11 4 433
Start 173 425 685 98 38 1419
Stub 31 89 242 102 1397 1861
Assessed 385 680 1082 217 1440 3804
Unassessed 2 2 4 0 2390 2398
Total 387 682 1086 217 3830 6202

[edit] FAQ

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{Architecture}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{Architecture}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do? 
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Architecture WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article? 
Check the article grading scheme and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article? 
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
8. Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
9. What if I have a question not listed here? 
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, leave a message on the talk page.

[edit] Assessment instructions

The {{Architecture}} template may already exist on the talk page of an article, and anyone can add the template to a talk page. There are two values that can be used in the template for rating an article. Remember that these ratings are not absolute and can be changed at any time. The quality and importance of a topic is to be considered in the wide context of Architecture in all regions of the world throughout all of recorded history. The main criteria are suitability of the topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia and complete citation of source information.

[edit] Quality assessment

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Architecture}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

Basic template syntax

{{Architecture | class=Stub | ...}}

  • The word "class" to start with a lowercase c. Values can be Stub, stub or STUB, for example

The following values for "class= " may be used:

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

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, 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. Supernova (as of February 2007)
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 March 2007)
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. International Space Station (as of February 2007)
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. 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

Basic syntax

{{Architecture| class=stub | importance=Low}}

  • The word "importance" to start with a lowercase i. Values start with Uppercase, eg. Low

Need: The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality

Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia Regional and historic styles, world famous architects and works of architecture; "Most famous or beautiful, ancient or preserved, etc." may appear in the text; article that covers several topics
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge Very important buildings and noteworthy architects
Mid Subject fills in more minor details Interesting buildings and architectural elements
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest Other buildings and narrow topics
None Unassessed Unassessed-importance Architecture articles


Addtional guidelines from the National Register of Historic Places:

Distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction

For more information, refer to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic

[edit] Related projects

Two other templates can be used to replace {{Architecture}}, as appropriate:

{{Planning}}
Portal:Planning
 Planning Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the WikiProject: Urban studies and planning, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. You may also be interested in contributing to the Portal:Planning
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale.
{{Landscape}}
 This article covers subjects relevant to Landscape architecture

[edit] Participants

[edit] Requests for 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. Chicago Board of Trade Building: on National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks list, recently featured in Did You Know, strong content, 20+ notations, multiple graphics, a recent WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the Week ChicagoPimp 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. Done. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Arch of Hadrian --Nefasdicere 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. Done --Mcginnly | Natter 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Golubac fortress - There are still gaps and questions about a few parts, but I doubt that'll change any time soon. While I know it's not start class anymore, I'm not really sure what it would be, though I'm guessing it's at the level of needing an actual peer review-assessment. Which one should I be going for? -Bbik 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. Done --Mcginnly | Natter 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for A-Class status

If you have made significant changes to a B-class or GA-class article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please list it at Wikiproject Architecture Peer Review stating in the introduction you would like the article reviewed to see if it is A-class.

  1. World Trade Center -- I've assessed it as a B-class article since it has not had a review, but believe it to be an A-class article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Upholder (talk • contribs).
    1. As above - you need to submit to WP:ARCHPR for review of B-class articles. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Architecture_Assessment_a22d.html"