Wikipedia:WikiProject Spooks/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spooks WikiProject
Information
Project page	talk
Members	talk
→ Article (pattern template)	talk
→ Char. Article (pattern template)	talk
→ Spooks infobox (pattern)	talk
Current discussions
General discussion forum	talk
Work in progress
Main work list	talk
Articles needed	talk
→ Announcements (template)	talk
Departments
Assessment	talk
Tools
Main Article Template	talk
Episode Infobox Template	talk
Userboxes
Project Userbox	talk
edit · changes

Spooks articles		Importance
Spooks articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	Total
Quality
	FA
	A
	GA
	B	1		1		2
	Start		5	12	7	24
	Stub	3	11	16	7	37
	Assessed	4	16	29	14	63
	Unassessed	0	0	0	0	0
	Total	4	16	29	14	63

Welcome to the assessment department of the Spooks WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's novel and related articles. 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

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

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the WikiProject?: Just add {{SpooksWikiProject}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
Someone put a {{SpooksWikiProject}} template on an article, but it's not a Spooks related article. What should I do?: 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).
How can I get my article rated?: Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?: Any member of the Spooks WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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.
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 WP:1.0 have 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.
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, you can ask them on the main project general forum page, or contact one of the other members directly.

[edit] Instructions

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

{{SpooksWikiProject| ... | class=??? | priority=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Spooks articles)
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Spooks articles)
GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Spooks articles)
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Spooks articles)
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Spooks articles)
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Spooks articles)
NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Spooks pages)

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-priority Spooks articles)
High (adds articles to Category:High-priority Spooks articles)
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-priority Spooks articles)
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-priority Spooks articles)

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

[edit] Quality scale

**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)

[edit] Priorityscale

The criteria used for rating article priority 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 literature.

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.

**Article importance grading scheme**
Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Subject is a "core" topic for Spooks, or is highly notable to people other than students of Spooks.	Spooks Harry Pearce Adam Carter
High	Subject is more notable or significant within the field of Spooks and outside it.	Series 5 Episode 1 (Spooks) The Possibility of a Mole
Mid	Subject is notable or significant within the field of Spooks, but not necessarily outside it.	Raza Jaffrey Thames House Keeley Hawes
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Spooks, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of a programme or other notable subject.	United Grand Lodge of England Hugh Laurie

[edit] Requesting an 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.

article - article request for assessment

[edit] Log

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.

Currently it is of modest size and can be transcluded directly.

This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.