Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to the article assessment page for WikiProject Lebanon! This page is meant to serve as a guideline for project members for assessing the quality and importance of articles that are covered by our project. Assessment is currently our topmost priority, because it will help us determine which areas require the most attention. The grading schemes used for the purposes of assessment are listed below. If you would like to review articles, be sure to read Instructions for reviewing an article.

Contents

[edit] Assessment criteria

Articls are assessed for both quality and importance. The criteria for each form of assessment are listed here.

[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, 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 scale

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about Lebanon. A reader who is not involved in Lebanon 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. Lebanon
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding specific topics about Lebanon or general topics about parts of Lebanon Most readers will have some knowledge of the subject Articles at this level cover particular issues related to Lebanon, specific terms are used to detail the topic Lebanese civil war
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in Lebanon. 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 Lebanon. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text.
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Lebanon, but may cover topics related to Lebanon. Few readers outside of Lebanon 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 Lebanon, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Arnoun

[edit] Instructions for reviewing an article

Assessing an article is very simple. Just follow these steps:

  1. Read the article carefully.
  2. Using the criteria listed above, decide on a covenient rating, for either quality, importance, or both.
  3. Add your rating to the WikiProject Lebanon template, which should be located on the article's talk page. The markup should look like this:
{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=your quality rating|importance=your importance rating}}

[edit] Assessment categories

[edit] Quality-based categories

[edit] Importance-based categories

[edit] Other

  • Non-article Lebanon pages
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Lebanon_Assessment_c1a7.html"