Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Lighthouses! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles on Lighthouses. 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
Category:Lighthouses articles by quality and Category:Lighthouses articles by importance serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Lighthouse}} project banner. Filling in a rating in the class parameter of the {{Lighthouse}} template on the talk page of an article causes the name of that article to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Lighthouses articles by quality.
[edit] Requesting assessment or re-assessment
If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!
Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B', unless they are already rated as 'GA' by Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates.
To request a re-assessment of the importance category, please leave a note on the talk page.
[edit] Legend
Need: The article's importance, regardless of its quality
| Top | Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia |
| High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge |
| Mid | Subject fills in more minor details |
| Low | Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial |
Quality: current article quality
 FA |
Featured article |
| A | Article is well written, reasonably complete and referenced; possible featured article candidate. |
 GA |
This is a good article. |
| B | We have a decent article, but it needs further editing. |
| Start | Significant cleanup or expansion needed. |
| Stub | Article is either a very short, or rough. |
[edit] Grading Scheme
These are the detailed criteria per class/quality division, following the assessment scheme used by the Wikipedia V1.0 Editorial team.
| Label | Criterion | 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:
|
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) |
