Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lithuania
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
New articles talk
New sub-stubs talk
Conflict resolution talk
Project banner talk
Top 10 tips talk
Project navigation talk
Project userbox talk
Project category talk
Articles to expand
Sub-stubs talk
General stubs talk
Geography stubs talk
People stubs talk
History stubs talk
Assessment
Summary talk
1.0 Editorial Team talk
Articles by quality talk
Automated log talk
Assessment statistics talk
Assessment category talk

Welcome to the assessment department of the Lithuania WikiProject!

The goal of this department is to accurately rate the quality and relative importance of Lithuania-related articles on Wikipedia. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. The ratings are modeled after the WP:1.0 program guidelines and are expected to play a role in it.

The assessment is done by entering relevant parameters in the {{WikiProject Lithuania}}, the project banner; this causes the articles to be automatically placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Lithuania articles by quality and Category:Lithuania articles by importance.

Contents

[edit] FAQ

1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject Lithuania}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else. However, we would certainly appreciate if you could rate the article according to the guidelines below and leave a short summary of your rationale on the talk page.
2. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles we are interested in and helps to prioritize work. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
3. How can I get an article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
4. Who can assess articles? 
Any Wikipedian, who has familiarized himself/herself with the guidelines below, is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
5. 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.
6. 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 raise your objectins on the article talk page.
7. Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are subjective, especially concerning importance. However, it's the best system we've been able to devise. And it works pretty well for many different WikiProjects. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
8. What if I have a question not listed here? 
Ask questions on the talk page.

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Quality

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Lithuania}}. See the template page for more detailed instructions.

{{WikiProject Lithuania| ... | class=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used:

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

[edit] Importance

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Lithuania}}. See the template page for more detailed instructions.

{{WikiProject Lithuania| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used:

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

[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

We recognize that importance is a relative term. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another. Any importance ratings applied by this project, only reflect the perceived importance to this project. The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather it should serve as a guideline for project participants to determine which article should receive more attention.


Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Definition: Subject is a must-have for a concise print encyclopedia or other reference work on Lithuania. High probability that non-Lithuanians would look this up.

Practical tip: these subjects just pops into your head when you think about Lithuania and a specific field

 Economy of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus, Kaunas
High Definition: Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the encyclopaedia. Is reasonably expected to be included into more comphrehensive printed encyclopeadia.

Practical tip: you know the subject and most likely would be able to recall it without looking at any sources

 Cepelinai, Rasa Polikevičiūtė, Pakruojis
Mid Definition: Subject fills in more minor details, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Could only be included in a multi-volume encyclopeadia.

Practical tip: most likely you will recognize the subject if someone mentions it to you

 Three Crosses, Nijolė Sabaitė, Palūšė
Low Definition: Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial.

Practical tip: most likely you will not recognize the subject

 Tyzenhaus Palace, Pranė Dundulienė, Stripeikiai

[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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Lithuania_Assessment_8522.html"