Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York City
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1 2 4
A 1 1
Good article GA 4 4 7 3 1 19
B 10 32 64 3 23 132
Start 29 151 40 71 291
Stub 192 41 69 302
List 1 1 2
Assessed 15 67 415 90 164 751
Unassessed 2 350 352
Total 15 67 417 90 514 1103
Assessment links

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject New York City! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's New York City 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 {{WikiProject New York City}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:New York City articles by quality, Category:New York City articles by importance, Category:New York City articles needing attention. The quality and importance ratings serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. There is also Category:Non-article New York City pages) for things like redirect pages, templates, categories, images, etc.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 
As a member of the WikiProject New York City, you can do it yourself. If you are unsure, list it in the requesting an assessment section below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of WikiProject New York City is free to add¿or change¿the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.
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? 
Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
Relist it as a request or contact Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.
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 discussion page for this department, or to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City directly.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject New York City}} project banner on its talk page. You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below.

This is the rating syntax (ratings and dates are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{WikiProject New York City}}
  • displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.
{{WikiProject New York City|class=FA|importance=Top}}
  • all assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in. Leaving the other parameters off does not hurt anything.
{{WikiProject New York City|class=Start|importance=Mid|attention=yes}}
  • if an article needs immediate attention, add the attention tag and please leave talk notes as to why. "yes" is the only valid parameter here. If it doesn't need attention, leave the parameter off.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class and/or importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed New York City 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

Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.

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 July 2007)
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 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

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 military history. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

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. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the prespective of someone from that region.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for New York City, or is generally notable to the public at large. History of New York City
High Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of New York City, but not necessarily outside it. Battle of Long Island
Mid Subject contributes to the total subject of the New York City WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous. Many articles will be in this class. Gowanus Canal
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of New York City, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. NYU residence halls

[edit] Requesting an assessment or re-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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.


  1. Zab Judah - Rvk41 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) The article has been completely rewritten and it needs a rating.
  2. Fordham University —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoreranger (talk • contribs)
  3. Transportation in New York City --Momos 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC), I've recently spent many hours updating this article with improved source links, revamped layout, new photos, the removal of weasel words, and the addition of new information.
    Now GA. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Culture of New York City --Momos 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC), This article has gone through a major overhaul since it was last rated. Major new content has been added, as well as links to sources. Please revisit this article for evaluation.
    Since these two are already at B-level, I'd suggest you check out the criteria for good articles. If they meet the criteria, list the articles at Wikipedia:Good article candidates. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. World Trade Center In the course of my assessment for good article status, I noticed major flaws in the article. It is currently assessed at A grade, and that needs to be reevaluated... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Now at B-grade. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Rossville, Staten Island - I believe that the article deserves better than a Start-Class quality scale rating, therefore I would like to request that this rating be re-evaluated and adjusted accordingly. Thank you. 24.168.42.143 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Now at B-grade. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Dominicans Don't Play --64.131.205.111 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC), needs improvement .
    Not in WPNYC. Claims regional importance, so therefore out of scope. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. St. John's University (New York City) wondering the rating . work was put in. YoSoyGuapo 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Downgraded to Start-class, needs work to be at B-class. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Requesting comments, suggestions, and input on Andrew Saul for FA-status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Saul. Thanks! MrPrada 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    Is this in-scope for WPNYC? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Requesting an assessment for the New York City Transit Police article that I have cleaned up extensively. Rebel3986 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    B-class. Could use a wider set of referenced sources. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Can someone give a looksee to Dyker Heights as it is all new and the rating should reflect the changes. Thanks! -Cjz208 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Michael Bloomberg. I would like to know what the importance is, Top or High? --Michael WhiteT·C 20:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Central Park Mall. I didn't write any of it, but it recently became splendid. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


edit this list