Wikipedia:WikiProject Brisbane/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject
Brisbane
Main project page + talk
Noticeboard
Things to-do talk
Article assessment (Log) talk
 → Featured articles (2) talk
 → Good articles (2) talk
Categories talk
Templates talk
Policies
Participants
Sandbox
edit · changes

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

Ratings should be indicated via parameters in the {{WP Australia}} project banner which is posted to an article's talk page. Setting the Brisbane parameter to yes will include the article as part of this WikiProject, whilst setting the Brisbane-importance parameter will set an article's importance to this project independently of WP Australia.

An assessment parameter (FA, GA, B, Start, or Stub) causes the article to be rated and grouped into categories that serves as the basis for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] Frequently Asked Questions

Brisbane
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 2 2
Good article GA 1 1 2
B 2 10 10 2 7 31
Start 1 23 66 163 83 336
Stub 4 64 237 149 454
Assessed 6 38 140 402 239 825
Unassessed 1 1
Total 6 38 140 402 240 826
Assessment log - Worklist
How do I add an article to WikiProject Brisbane? 
Just add {{WP Australia}} to the talk page and set the brisbane parameter to yes. This will also include the article in WikiProject Australia
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 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

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 | Brisbane=yes | class=??? | importance=??? | Brisbane-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 and Brisbane-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 Meaning of Status Examples
Top This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information. Brisbane, Expo '88, Brisbane Cricket Ground
High This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. Brisbane Bullets, Brisbane Broncos
Mid This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. B105 FM
Low This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia. Balmoral, Queensland, Translink
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analysed. Not applicable