Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cetacean articles		Importance
Cetacean articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	5	1	2	1	1	10
	A
	GA	1		1		1	3
	B	6	10	2	1	3	22
	Start	1	1	4	2	63	71
	Stub			4	3	6	13
	Assessed	13	12	13	7	74	119
	Unassessed	0	0	0	0	3	3
	Total	13	12	13	7	77	122

Article assessment is the process by which cetacean articles are sorted into different qualities. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles.

1 Assessment scale
- 1.1 Specific requirements
2 Assessment guidelines
- 2.1 Importance
3 Assessment process
4 Article assessments

[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, 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)
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)

These criteria apply to general-content articles. Cetacean 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 cetacean article has its assessment included inside the {{CetaTalk}} template, such as {{CetaTalk|class=B}}. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's discussion page for more information.

[edit] Specific requirements

Articles about a species has the following requirements:

A taxobox - Folowing 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
Distribution map
References - A references section at the end, preferably with inline sourcing throughout the article

[edit] Assessment guidelines

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 {{CetaTalk}} 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.