Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:BIGBRO/A

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Big Brother! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Big Brother articles. 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.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Big Brother project}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Big Brother articles by quality and Category:Big Brother articles by importance.

Contents

[edit] Statistics

Big Brother
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
B 6 19 14 39
Start 14 36 74 5 129
Stub 23 19 47 4 2 95
Assessed 43 74 135 9 2 263
Unassessed 9 9
Total 43 74 135 9 11 272

The categories have been used to generate statistics on the number of articles in each class. The table is udated automatically by a bot, so please do not edit it.

[edit] See also

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{Big Brother project}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it on the WikiProject talk page.
Who can assess articles? 
Anyone 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.
Where can I get more comments about my article? 
You can ask on the WikiProject talk page.
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
You can ask any member of the project to rate the article again or ask on the WikiProject talk page.
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!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the WikiProject talk page.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Big Brother project}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Big Brother project | 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 Big Brother 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

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Examples
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. None
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 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. None
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 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. None
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, 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. Big Brother 2006 (UK)
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 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. Celebrity Big Brother Australia
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. 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. Rocío Cárdenas
Needed
{{Needed-Class}}		 The article does not exist and needs to be created.      

[edit] Importance scale

Articles should be rated on the importance scale based on their notability as specified in the 'Notability' column. If this is unclear then the 'Examples' column also gives a general guide on what the importance of an article should be, but bear in mind that articles with exceptionally high or low notabiliy may be classified into a different class depending on this notability.

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, articles with greater popular notability may be rated higher than articles which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to people of a certain geographical area.

When interpreting the examples column, as a general rule of thumb, articles should be classified into the class below whatever article could be considered their 'parent article'. If an article could be classified under two different classes (e.g. Bree Amer was both a contestant and Big Brother presenter) then the higher class should be used.

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 Notability Examples
Top {{Top-Class}} Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. The main article for Big Brother worldwide

Country-specific articles
High {{High-Class}} Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Articles relating to Big Brother worldwide

Articles relating to Big Brother in a certain country, e.g. presenters and spin-off shows

Series-specific articles
Mid {{Mid-Class}} Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Articles relating to a series of Big Brother

Big Brother housemates, unless they also come under High class.
Low {{Low-Class}} Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Any articles split from or relating to Mid-Class articles
  • George Galloway's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother, Blazin' Squad
??? None This article is of unknown notability. This article is of unknown importance to this project. It has not yet been rated.
If you want to lend a hand, feel free to browse the complete listing of unassessed articles.

[edit] Example assessments

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

Quality

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

Importance

  • {{Big Brother project|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{Big Brother project|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{Big Brother project|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{Big Brother project|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance