Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australia
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
Noticeboard
Collaboration of the Fortnight
Requested articles and todo talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Article assessment (Log) talk
 → Featured articles (105) talk
 → Good articles (151) talk
Outreach department talk
Automation department talk
Requested images
Statistics talk
Portal talk
edit · changes

Welcome to the article assessment department of WikiProject Australia. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia articles.

Ratings are performed using the {{WP Australia}} project banner with additional parameters according to the quality of the article. When a parameter is used, the articles is placed into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Australia articles by quality and Category:Australia articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist

While 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 recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

Australia
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 5 15 45 40 4 109
A 2 1 3 2 8
Good article GA 1 10 61 57 22 151
B 40 152 425 469 457 1543
Start 25 209 2078 9355 6513 18180
Stub 1 40 776 14153 19808 34778
Assessed 74 427 3388 24076 26804 54769
Unassessed 1 1 31 5174 5207
Total 74 428 3389 24107 31978 59976
How do I add an article to WikiProject Australia? 
Just add {{WP Australia}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated? 
There is currently a backlog of over 7,000 unassessed Australia articles. Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any editor is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article? 
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 we've 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. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

[edit] How to assess articles

Project Unassessed
Biota 37
Banksia 0
Crime 0
Education 1
Law 39
Literature 4
History 1
Exploration 2
Maritime history 2
Military 16
Music 798
Crowded House 0
Powderfinger 0
Politics 50
Places 0
Sports 68
Television 39
Automatically assessed 2651

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

{{WP Australia| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

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

[edit] Quality scale

Class Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Examples
Featured article FA Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Australia (as of July 6 2006), Emu (as of 21 September 2006), Eric Bana (as of 21 September 2006)
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 the "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. Flora of Australia
Good article GA 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 being a Good article 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. Uluru
B 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, NPOV or 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. Boomerang.
Start The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. 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
 Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. Akubra
Stub 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. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Rebel Wilson (as of July 2005)

[edit] Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance 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 Australia.

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.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analysed.

[edit] Article importance standards

  • Capital cities - Generally classed as top to high importance.
  • Cities - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Companies - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Places - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Schools - Generally classed as mid to low importance.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

WikiProject Australia's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Australia-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Instructions

  1. Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
  2. Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
  3. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
  4. Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.

Example

===={{la|article}}====
Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~


Please place new requests at the top of each section.

This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section.

[edit] Current requests for assessment

Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.

[edit] May 2008

[edit] LGBT rights in Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I've made a number of additions and improvements to the structure. Could use a map, but should be beyond start class at this point. Ikzing (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Marsden Hope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hi - would just like some on advice on how I'd go about improving this article to take it up to B rating? Cheers. -- Akitora (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley College, Melbourne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article on Wesley College, Melbourne has been I believe it needs to be rerated as numerous changes and contributions have been made, can the reviewer please also leave some comments on the talk page so that further development of the article may be completed. Does it still deserve a B rating now? Thanks! 122.107.236.18 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

coming along nicely though still B, lead needs some meat sustainability section even after reading not sure, needs more sourcing some section dont have sources, also though there appears to be a lot of sources its substancially from one source just listing different page numbers. Also the school ranking section at the end whats the purpose, needs to explained/expanded or removed. Gnangarra 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that Gnanarra, we are now researching and updating the sources and citations needed, the school ranking listed below is inline with / also on all the other school pages listed, can you please update the discussion page to B class as it still says Start, can you also please rate the article on importance. Cheers58.175.152.210 (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

[edit] Chris Guccione (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I feel as though the article is very comprehensive on Chris Guccione. It deserves more than a start rating.121.210.116.130 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Ive added citations to the article. Does it still deserve a B rating?

Its getting closer a coupl eof issues, citations need to be inline as per WP:CITE#HOW, personal life is irrelevant it should be about him ie DOB, where he grew up, education family, marriage etc. not about what actor he likes and his favourite meal. Gnangarra 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Vines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article on the Australian garage band The Vines. Last few days I've been putting a lot of work into it, found many sources (and am still going). I think it deserves more than a Start rating! If it's not GA material yet, please let me know what I can do. Would love to get there and beyond. At least a B? Hah! Who knows ;) Narcissus1x (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Definate B class, need more sourcing especially for the sections on periods since 2004, need an image in the infobox the last one was deleted. Gnangarra 08:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Mueck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article on the Australian-born fine-art hyperrealist sculptor. I've added and described some additional works to the existing article. I think Mueck is an extremely important Australian artist, and would like the article assessed both for importance and quality under this project. --Drgrigg (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Start class article most of the points of interest are contained solely within the lead section, Gnangarra 08:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Johns (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article on the Australian American Idol finalist for 2008. This article was not written by me, however it is very indepth and I feel it should be a B-Class article. - Cheers, Vicer Userpage | Talk 10:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty good, but does not explain much about his own work eg a discography. So it is a start close to but not quite a B. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Pelion West (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hello, I am relatively new at this and have created the Mount Pelion West article from scratch and have got it to a point where I am relatively happy with it but wanted some external assessment.SJS (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • start class - some useful content for those that know nothing on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Statement of possible coi - I have harrassed this editor for better standards of articles -
  • (1) Very useful would be the names of the water catchments/adjacent ranges or other geographical features - too many tasmanian mountains seem to exist stand alone
  • (2) Nothing about the name, who named it or when - again lack of historical context would not consider start class without those components
  • (3) Look at the Frenchmans Cap article - by no means a good article - but maybe some clues

- SatuSuro 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crowthers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

G'day, I would like a reassessment on this article, I have updated the article with history of service and a new logo. I also moved it from BusLink to what it is now. I have tried to outline the whole bus company, not just the brand.- Cheers, Vicer Userpage | Talk 11:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • start class - some useful content for those that know nothing on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Kenny (2006 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I can't believe this does not have a rating on the importance scale, it's a very popular australian film. --Simpsons fan 66 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have whacked a low priority tag on it. Most films would rate a low. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

[edit] Mount St. Joseph Girls' College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I've done significant improvements to this artical, and I think it should be classified at least a "Start" class; it is no longer a stub. James Kanjo (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

yes you are correct it is a start class in my opinion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

[edit] Bonnyrigg White Eagles Football Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I've made significant changes over the last 6-12 months and would like to know where it currently stands with an eye for further improvement. It currently has no rating. Cheers batobatobato (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have given it a B class as there is quite a good coverage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, cheers batobatobato (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Williamstown, Victoria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article has been extensively updated and detailed. I believe it should no longer be rated as Start-class on the quality scale. Also, given the number of Australian "firsts" associated with Williamstown, it could be rated more highly on the importance scale. Craig Rowley (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I have upgraded it to a B. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revival Centres International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I would appreciate some feedback comment on how far it off GA Status. It needs a quality scale and importance scale. The article has currently been given some care and attention to deliver accurate information that is of special interest to many other "Pentecostal Denomination" groups. Topsaint (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry this is a long way off GA first thing I noticed is that only 12 of the 35 reference are in independent publications(some of those are duplicated). Why the US presidential seal, the British coat of arms and the Stone of Scone images they dont appear to be relevant to the article. Lead need to be broken into 3 paragraphs. Gnangarra 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok made more changes, added independent publications where possible but difficult to find sources in every section. rewritten the article sections to link it up to the images. I broke up the lead in into three paragraphs. At least a starter or B-classed at best? maybe low or mid-importance at best?Topsaint (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I gave it a B rating, but it is still a fair way from GA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gun politics in Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fairly large and well-structured article, but still has no importance ratingfrom the Australia Wikiproject. Would appreciate an importance rating. CeeWhy2 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

done as B/mid, mid was based on gun politics not having a long term consitant affect on australian politics unlike the US with the NRA. Gnangarra 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS Gothenburg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Would appreciate if someone on the Australian taskforce could assess and grade this article. Thanks. Spy007au (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

done b class/high also tag for QLD.NT and Aust Maritime, very interesting article I enjoyed the read Gnangarra 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoodoo Gurus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

How far away from a GA status do you think this article is? Dan arndt (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You need a fair use justification for the picture of the poster (Image:Stems-tour.jpg) being used on this page. Otherwise it stands a good chance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collingwood Football Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hey I'm nominating the Collingwood Football Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for assessment in regards to importance. I personally think it should be of mid-importance as one of Australia's premier and most sporting clubs but it currently does not have a rating so anything will do. Jabso (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

rated as mid nice article even if it is about collingwood, I remove some peacock terms out the lead. Gnangarra 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Fitzsimmons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

commisioner of the RFS for work since he the new man on the job in charge of one the states most succussful vulunteer networks.this article is a stub and really needs for to establish this as an article of a notable person.

rated as low aust added NSW=yes to tag. IMHO its struggling for notability more sourcing is needed especially independent ones. Gnangarra 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gough Whitlam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hi there, I've nominated Gough Whitlam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) as a Good Article. If you think you can help with the review, please do so! haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

has been review for GA already, needs to improve sourcing. Gnangarra 14:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

[edit] Six o'clock swill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A former ACOTF effort. I have recently put some effort into updating the reference format I would appreciate an assessment of the article's importance and whether it is still a start class. I have also requested a peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review/Six o'clock swill Matilda talk 00:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rated as B-class, Interestingly no mention of WA Gnangarra 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Participants

[edit] Active

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. Abb401 (talk · contribs)
  2. Akitora (talk · contribs) - military history, politics, Canberra, other stuff
  3. Arnzy (talk · contribs)
  4. Cdlw93 (talk · contribs)
  5. CJ (talk · contribs)
  6. Comte0 (talk · contribs)
  7. Daniel99091 (talk · contribs)
  8. Frickeg (talk · contribs) - mammals, birds
  9. Gnangarra (talk · contribs)
  10. Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) science, government departments, technology, also looking at requests,
  11. grahamec (talk · contribs)
  12. groovybill (talk · contribs)
  13. HB4026 (talk · contribs)
  14. Jamessugrono (talk · contribs) Education in Australia
  15. JRG (talk · contribs)
  16. Lincalinca (talk · contribs) - Australian Music and Literature
  17. Longhair (talk · contribs)
  18. PConlon (talk · contribs)
  19. SatuSuro (talk · contribs)
  20. RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)
  21. ScottDavis (talk · contribs)
  22. Thuringowacityrep (talk · contribs) - Thuringowa city and related pages
  23. VirtualSteve (talk · contribs)
  24. Mattwashdc (talk · contribs) - military law
  25. Sheepunderscore (talk · contribs)

[edit] Inactive

  1. 99of9 (talk · contribs)
  2. Amandajm (talk · contribs)
  3. Ansell (talk · contribs)
  4. Ansett (talk · contribs)
  5. Atlantis Hawk (talk · contribs)
  6. bradelle2619 (talk · contribs)- Australian places, South Coast
  7. Crocodile Punter (talk · contribs)
  8. Cuda918 (talk · contribs)
  9. darcyj (talk · contribs) - cricket, political history, Canberra
  10. darkliight (talk · contribs)
  11. Garglebutt (talk · contribs)
  12. Golden Wattle (talk · contribs)
  13. Iorek85 (talk · contribs)
  14. LiquidGhoul (talk · contribs)
  15. LordRobert (talk · contribs)
  16. Mcgrath50 (talk · contribs)
  17. Paddington62 (talk · contribs)
  18. SauliH (talk · contribs) - WP:AH
  19. Shadow007 (talk · contribs)
  20. Tim.andrews (talk · contribs)
  21. Todd661 (talk · contribs) - Central Coast articles
  22. Xtra (talk · contribs)

[edit] Example assessments

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.

Quality

  • {{WP Australia|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{WP Australia}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


Importance

  • {{WP Australia|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance

[edit] Log

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.