Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject Australia

General information
Main project page talk
Project participants talk
Noticeboard
 → To-do talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Australia Portal talk
Future changes talk

Departments
Assessment talk
 → Requests talk
 → Disputes talk
Automation talk
Cartography talk
Collaboration talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Photography talk

Australian WikiProjects
Australian crime talk
Australian law talk
Australian military talk
Australian places talk
 → Adelaide talk
 → Brisbane talk
  → Gold Coast talk
  → Townsville talk
 → Canberra talk
 → Lake Macquarie talk
 → Sydney talk
 → Tasmania talk
 → Western Australia talk
  → Perth talk
 → Victoria talk
  → Melbourne talk
  → Geelong talk
Australian politics talk
Australian history talk
 → Maritime history talk
 → Exploration talk
Australian sports talk
 → Australian rules talk
 → Baseball talk
 → Football (soccer) talk
 → Gridiron talk
 → Rugby league talk
 → Basketball talk
 → Motorsport talk
Australian television talk
Australian biota talk
 → Banksia talk
edit · changes
Australia
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 4 11 16 14 1 46
A 4 2 5 5 16
Good article GA 3 7 10 7 8 35
B 35 109 170 152 155 621
Start 30 113 648 1848 1221 3860
Stub 3 38 419 2950 5340 8750
Assessed 79 280 1268 4976 6725 13328
Unassessed 0 6 12 103 10896 11017
Total 79 286 1280 5079 17621 24345


Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown

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

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

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WP Australia}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any editor is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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? 
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? 
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.

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 {{WP Australia}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WP Australia| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Examples
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 necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Australia (as of July 6 2006), Emu (as of 21 September 2006), Eric Bana (as of 21 September 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 the "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. Sydney
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 being a Good article 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. Uluru
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, NPOV or 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. Boomerang.
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. 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
 Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. Jimmy Barnes
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. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)
Needed
{{Needed-Class}}		 The article does not exist and needs to be created.      

[edit] Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

[edit] Article importance standards

  • Capital cities - Generally classed as top to high importance.
  • Cities - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Companies - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Places - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Schools - Generally classed as mid to low importance.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

WikiProject Australia's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Australia-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Instructions

  1. Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
  2. Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
  3. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
  4. Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.

Example

===={{la|article}}====

Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~


Please place new requests at the top of each section.

This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section.

[edit] Current requests for assessment

Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.

[edit] April 2007

[edit] Steven Pringle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User:Rebecca has assessed this article as A-Class, 1. I don't think she should assess an article of which she wrote the majority and 2. I don't think it is of A-Class standard, it hasn't even passed a GA review so how can it go straight to A? Alec -(answering machine) 15:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cory Bernardi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I think this is a comprehensive information piece on one of Australia's newest politicians and rising star within the Liberal Party. It needs a first review143.238.204.75 06:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Australian Handball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The page needs to be rated according to importance and quality. I think the article is on the lower end of the importence scale however, it is extremely well written. talk to symode09's or Reveiw Me! 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane Broncos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Needs a re-assessing of quality and a assessing of importance. 202.83.118.27 06:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

[edit] Active

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. 99of9 (talk • contribs)
  2. Amandajm (talk • contribs)
  3. Ansell (talk • contribs)
  4. Ansett (talk • contribs)
  5. Arnzy (talk • contribs)
  6. Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs)
  7. AYArktos (talk • contribs)
  8. bradelle2619 (talk • contribs)- Australian places, South Coast
  9. Crocodile Punter (talk • contribs)
  10. Cuda918 (talk • contribs)
  11. Cyberjunkie (talk • contribs)
  12. darcyj (talk • contribs) - cricket, political history, Canberra
  13. darkliight (talk • contribs)
  14. Frickeg (talk • contribs) - mammals, birds
  15. Garglebutt (talk • contribs)
  16. Ghostieguide (talk • contribs)
  17. Gnangarra (talk • contribs)
  18. grahamec (talk • contribs)
  19. Lincalinca (talk • contribs) - Australian Music and Literature
  20. LiquidGhoul (talk • contribs)
  21. Longhair (talk • contribs)
  22. Mcgrath50 (talk • contribs)
  23. Paddington62 (talk • contribs)
  24. SauliH (talk • contribs) - WP:AH
  25. ScottDavis (talk • contribs)
  26. Shadow007 (talk • contribs)
  27. Thuringowacityrep (talk • contribs) - Thuringowa city and related pages
  28. Xtra (talk • contribs)

[edit] Inactive

  1. Iorek85 (talk • contribs)
  2. JROBBO (talk • contribs)
  3. LordRobert (talk • contribs)
  4. Michael Jay Williams (talk • contribs) - Environment & Mammals
  5. Punk Boi 8 (talk • contribs)
  6. Tim.andrews (talk • contribs)
  7. Todd661 (talk • contribs) - Central Coast articles

[edit] Example assessments

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.

Quality

  • {{WP Australia|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{WP Australia}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


Importance

  • {{WP Australia|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance

[edit] Log

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Australia_Assessment_f786.html"