Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Assessment

[edit] Article assessment

Welcome to the article assessment page for WikiProject Lebanon! This page is meant to serve as a guideline for project members for assessing the quality and importance of articles that are covered by our project. Assessment is currently our topmost priority, because it will help us determine which areas require the most attention. The grading schemes used for the purposes of assessment are listed below. If you would like to review articles, be sure to read Instructions for reviewing an article.

Lebanon articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA				1		1
	GA	1	2	1	1	1	6
	B	2	15	45	25	1	88
	Start	5	12	95	134	18	264
	Stub		1	23	516	22	562
	List			8	15	3	26
	Assessed	8	30	172	692	45	947
	Unassessed				2	127	129
	Total	8	30	172	694	172	1076

[edit] Assessment criteria

Articles are assessed for both quality and importance. The criteria for each form of assessment are listed here.

[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 additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.	Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
FL {{FL-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.	FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
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 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.	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 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.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or 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}}	Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. 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, 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.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and 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] Importance scale

[edit] Instructions for reviewing an article

Assessing an article is very simple. Just follow these steps:

1. Read the article carefully.
2. Using the criteria listed above, decide on a covenient rating, for either quality, importance, or both.
3. Add your rating to the WikiProject Lebanon template, which should be located on the article's talk page. The markup should look like this:

{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=your quality rating|importance=your importance rating}}

[edit] Assessments

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Lebanon articles by quality/1 (493 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Lebanon articles by quality/2 (459 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Lebanon articles by quality/3 (124 articles)

[edit] Assessment Log

Expand

[edit] Assessment categories

[edit] Quality-based categories

• FA-Class Lebanon articles
• A-Class Lebanon articles
• GA-Class Lebanon articles
• B-Class Lebanon articles
• Start-Class Lebanon articles
• Stub-Class Lebanon articles
• Unassessed Lebanon articles

[edit] Importance-based categories

• Top-importance Lebanon articles
• High-importance Lebanon articles
• Mid-importance Lebanon articles
• Low-importance Lebanon articles
• Unknown-importance Lebanon articles

[edit] Other

• Non-article Lebanon pages