User:Travellingcari/Museums Draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criteria adapted from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

Contents

[edit] Stubs

from Wikipedia:Stub: a stub should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon and adequate context is crucial.

On creation, a stub museum article should include the museums's basic information: -where it's located -what its focus is

This is enough to confirm existence but it's better to put as much as you can, such as opening dates, and anything else you can find to source from reliable sources. Museum stubs use the template {{museum-stub}}

Longer articles may be tagged as stubs if their content is such that it cannot be assessed at any higher level. In some cases, it is easier to take the article down to the basics and essentially start over. There are a number of museum articles whose content solely exists of the museum's 'about' page, and all efforts should be made to remove such text.

[edit] 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

Many museum articles fall into this category, although they have not been assessed as such. A brief overview of the project has shown me that we're weak on pictures in general, and this is something I hope to improve. I know WP:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan may help with the New York City based museums, but we need to figure out what members are located where and how we can get photos from the locals, or free pictures online that are usable per the image criteria.

Content wise, I've found Google News and Scholar to be good starting points for information about the museums' history and exhibits. While they're not comprehensive, they allow us to get basic information. Museums located in non-English speaking countries, or countries where English isn't dominant are problematic when the museum doesn't appear to receive much out of home press so recruiting members who read/write languages other than English will help us out significantly.

[edit] B

Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.

This is where I'd like to get all the museum articles, absent ones that are higher from their inclusion in previous projects. Even though they aren't perfect, I think they're something to strive for along the goals of improving coverage of museums in Wikipedia. Local knowledge helps a lot here because people are more familiar with the museums and may be able to better explain the information found in sources rather than simply regurgitation of facts. Avoiding POV is an issue.

[edit] Good

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 acceptable. 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.

[edit] A

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 reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). 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.

[edit] FA

Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.