Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:ORE Our blog • About us • Talk • Participants • Subprojects • Info Boxes • Templates • Assessment • DYKs

Welcome to the assessment page of the WikiProject Oregon, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Oregon related articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 programme.

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

Number of articles on WikiProject Oregon's radar, 2007-2008. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin for the data behind this chart.
Number of articles on WikiProject Oregon's radar, 2007-2008. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin for the data behind this chart.

Contents

[edit] FAQ

See also the general assessment FAQ.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Oregon}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Oregon}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Oregon is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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.
8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
People at Wikipedia:Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page.
9. 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.
10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
11. What if I have a question not listed here?
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Wikiproject Oregon}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{Wikiproject Oregon | class=??? | importance=??? }}

The following values for the class parameter may be used:

The following values for the importance parameter may be used:

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

[edit] Quality scale

The quality "class" an article receives should follow Wikipedia's regular guidelines for quality found below.

Articles which have not been formerly evaluated, or which have failed a good article review, should not be assigned a quality rating higher than B class. Above that an article needs to go through a formal review process.
Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria 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.
Exploding whale

As of 05-19-2007
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.
List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon

As of 03-13-2008
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.
Oregon State Capitol

As of 08-06-2007
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.
Oregon Supreme Court

As of 05-16-2007
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.
Oregon

As of 05-19-2007
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.
Wallace P. Carson, Jr.

As of 05-19-2007
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.
Oregon Spectator

As of 05-19-2007


[edit] Importance scale

Status Meaning of Status
Top This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
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.

[edit] Notes on importance to WikiProject Oregon

This is only for assessment of articles that fall within the Oregon WikiProject.

For determining the Importance rating (Low, Mid, High, Top) please keep the following in mind:

  • Keep a historical perspective.
  • Keep a geographical perspective.
  • Every item in the Project is already important and notable, otherwise it would not be on Wikipedia.
  • Approximate breakdown of the percentage of articles in each category as a goal.
    • Low=55%
    • Mid=30%
    • High=15%
    • Top=1%

[edit] People

  • Governors should automatically be in the mid category. If they also served in the federal government (i.e. Hatfield, Goldschmidt) or some other major accomplishments/contributions (McCall) then they should move up to High, and up to Top if they did something else special.
  • U.S. Congress people should be in the Low category unless they served in a leadership role (minority/majority leader, committee chair, etc.).
  • State level politicians (supreme court judges, members of the house/senate, mayors, secretary of state, etc.) should remain in the Low category unless they served in multiple places (Paulus in both legislature and sec. of state, or had a leadership role in their branch (Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, etc.) then up to Mid. If they did more then they probably served in Congress or as governor and would fall under those guidelines. If they served in a leadership role, and won another state wide position, and had some other major accomplishment then High.
  • Pioneers should remain in the Low category unless they have a major state-wide historical significance or received national attention (Meek, the Whitmans), then to Mid. If they helped to found a town still in existence and served in the state government (Lovejoy) then also to Mid. If more, then to High (Young as the impetus for the prov government, and Top if more significant (John McLoughlin who is designated as the Father of Oregon by the state).
  • Athletes also should remain as Low, unless they are a member of the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame then to Mid. If they are also a member of a national sports hall of fame and spent most of their career in Oregon then High. Someone like Steve Prefontaine who attained national prominence and has an event named after him would justify a Top.
  • Other people: Local significance only then Low. State-wide impact then Mid. National prominence then High. All of these and long-term impact then Top.

[edit] Geography

  • Cities/communities should go into the Low category unless they are the county seat then Mid. If they are one of the ten most populous cities, then High. If the most populous city or the state capitol then Top.
  • Physical geography articles should go into the Low category unless they cover multiple counties, then Mid (Northern Oregon Coast Range). If they affect a large number of counties, then High (Willamette River, Eastern Oregon). If they tend to be what people know about the state and affect many counties then Top (Oregon Coast, Cascade Mountains).

[edit] Entities

  • Articles on companies/organizations/governmental bodies should go into the Low category, unless they have an impact beyond the local level then Mid.
  • For instance a company in the Fortune 1000 should go into Mid (Lithia Motors), Fortune 500 into High (Nike), and the state’s largest employer into Top.
  • Organizations such as museums or libraries would move to Mid if they have a regional impact (Oregon Historical Society), and High if they are of a national stature (OMSI).
  • Government institutions with large operations throughout the state would be Mid (Oregon State Police), while the heads of the three branches of government would be High (Governor of Oregon).

[edit] Events

  • Event articles should go into the Low category unless it had a long-term impact over a significant region (as in more than just one county) or a statewide impact over a short period, then Mid (Columbus Day Storm of 1962). If it had statewide and long term impact then High (Oregon Bottle Bill). If it has a statewide, long-term impact and receives national attention then Top (Oregon Constitutional Convention).

[edit] Other items

  • For everything else, the default should be Low. Then if there is some sort of significant reason to move it up to Mid do so if the item had more than just a local (city, county) plus a lasting effect of more than a year or so. If the effects are larger or longer term then High. If it helps to define what Oregon is to people, then Top.

[edit] Statistics

Oregon
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 7 2 10
Featured list FL 1 1
A 1 1
Good article GA 6 8 9 6 29
B 16 33 96 105 250
Start 32 118 642 1340 2132
Stub 9 426 3117 3552
List 76 76
Assessed 55 168 1180 4572 76 6051
Unassessed 4 4
Total 55 168 1180 4572 80 6055

[edit] Requests for 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 Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

Add new requests above

[edit] A Class assessment

If you feel that an article meets the criteria listed above for A Class status, please list it below. A minimum of two uninvolved editors will review the article based on the A Class criteria (see chart above) and determine if the article passes or fails. In the event of a tie, the article will not be promoted to A Class. Reviewers will use the GA quick fail criteria as a screening process. Caution: this process may take several weeks.

  • Add A Class requests below
  • Reviewers: After selecting an article, remove it from the above list and place it on the A class assessment page at: Under Review.

[edit] Log

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.