Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   Main    


   Participants    


   Templates    


   Categories    


   Assessment    


   Archives      
Mythology Portal
Mythology
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1 2 4
A 5 5
Good article GA 1 2 4 2 7 16
B 2 46 49 4 38 139
Start 1 57 190 215 220 683
Stub 7 159 560 240 966
Assessed 4 118 403 781 507 1813
Unassessed 125 125
Total 4 118 403 781 632 1938

Welcome to the assessment department of the Mythology WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's mythology related 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WP Mythology}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Mythology articles by quality and Category:Mythology articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Mythology WikiProject 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.
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, 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 discussion page for this department.

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Mythology}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WP Mythology| ... | class=??? | ...}}
Featured article FA
A
Good article GA
B
Start
Stub
???
Needed

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:


Template
Disambig
Category
NA

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

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

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Mythology articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criterion Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article 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 June 2008)
Featured list 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)
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 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 extensive 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 assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WP Mythology}} banner on its talk page:

{{WP Mythology| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

[edit] Importance scale

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about mythology. A reader who is not involved in the field of mythology will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. Mythology
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding mythology.
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of mythology. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand religion, such as specific aspects of mythology. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in mythology will be rated in this level.
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of mythology. Few readers outside the mythology field may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of mythology, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of mythology.

Given the number and variety of articles with which this project shall be dealing, I believe that we should devote a good deal of attention in the short run to determining which of the articles we consider to be of greatest importance to the project. We now have a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Assessment/Top-importance articles where we can discuss which articles should receive top-importance ranking. Any and all input is more than welcome.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

[edit] assessment request (Dames, Tanfana & Frauen)

Would a team member have time to assess the 3 articles I added recently?

[edit] Cúchulainn

The article on Cúchulainn has not yet received an assessment. He's a significant mythological figure and I think the article is a pretty good one, although since I wrote a substantial amount of it I'm not the person to assess it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment log

Mythology articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


Archive This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.


[edit] June 15, 2008

[edit] June 11, 2008

[edit] June 8, 2008

[edit] June 4, 2008

[edit] June 1, 2008

[edit] May 28, 2008

[edit] May 25, 2008

[edit] May 21, 2008

[edit] May 18, 2008

[edit] May 14, 2008

[edit] May 11, 2008

[edit] May 4, 2008

[edit] April 21, 2008

[edit] April 15, 2008

[edit] April 6, 2008

[edit] April 2, 2008

  • Enheduanna (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) renamed to En-hedu-ana
  • Oceanid reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)

[edit] March 30, 2008

[edit] March 26, 2008

[edit] March 22, 2008

[edit] March 18, 2008

[edit] March 15, 2008

[edit] March 11, 2008

[edit] March 9, 2008

[edit] March 3, 2008

[edit] February 27, 2008

[edit] February 24, 2008

[edit] February 18, 2008

[edit] February 14, 2008

[edit] February 10, 2008

[edit] February 6, 2008

  • Eros (mythology) reassessed from B-Class (Mid-Class) to Start-Class (Mid-Class)
  • Nyx (mythology) reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Mid-Class)
  • Telephus (talk) Start-Class (Mid-Class) added.
  • Aether (mythology) reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)
  • Chaos (mythology) reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)
  • Hecatonchires reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)
  • Iapetus (mythology) reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)
  • Lachesis (mythology) reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)
  • Momus reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)
  • Tethys (mythology) reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)
  • Themis reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)
  • Tisiphone (talk) Start-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Crius reassessed from Start-Class (Mid-Class) to Stub-Class (Mid-Class)
  • Hesperus reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Mid-Class)
  • Hyperion (mythology) reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Mid-Class)
  • Alecto (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Amechania (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Ananke (mythology) (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Auge (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Chronos reassessed from Start-Class (Mid-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)
  • Coeus reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)
  • Dike (mythology) (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Eucleia (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Eupheme (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Eurybia (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Euthenia (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Hemera (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Megaera (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Penia (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Phanes (mythology) reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)
  • Philophrosyne (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Phthonus reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)
  • Pontus (mythology) reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)
  • Porus (mythology) reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)
  • Ptocheia (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Theia reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)
  • Theomachy (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
  • Zelus reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)

[edit] February 2, 2008

[edit] January 26, 2008