Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Index · Statistics · Log
Texas
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 4 10 14 29
Featured list FL 2 2 4
A 1 2 2 1 6
Good article GA 2 4 20 30 3 59
B 20 73 205 411 29 738
Start 23 160 1183 5740 125 7231
Stub 34 481 5532 198 6245
List 10 18 113 141
Assessed 47 289 1919 11843 355 14453
Unassessed 1 4 5
Total 47 289 1919 11844 359 14458

This is the WikiProject Texas assessment summary page. See WP:1.0 and WP:WVWP for more information. For Texas articles, see Category:Texas or Category:Texas-related lists. For Texas stubs, see Category:Texas stubs.

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

Contents


[edit] FAQ

1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject Texas}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
2. Someone put a {{WikiProject Texas}} template on an article, but it's not a Texas related topic. 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). If User:WatchlistBot did it, you can add it to the exclusion list for the project (User:WatchlistBot/Texas to make sure that it will not be retagged again.
3. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 
The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
4. How can I get an article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
5. Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Texas WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
6. 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. 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.
9. 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!
10. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? 
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
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 any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Texas}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Texas| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}
Featured article FA
Featured list FL
A
Good article GA
B
Start
Stub

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

List
Template
Disambig
Category
Image
Portal
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 Texas 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.

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

[edit] Grading scheme

[edit] Quality scale

Quality descriptors
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

Importance descriptors

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


"DRAFT" WikiProject Texas importance scale: The article's importance, regardless of its quality, particularly in terms of Texas geography, history, demographics, cities and towns, law and government, economy, transportation, education, and professional sports.

Rate articles on overall importance. Use the basic descriptions, guided by the general examples when available. Always give the highest rating suggested by general examples at different levels.

Top Subject is a must-have for Category:Texas
  • State government
  • Major geological formations and geographic regions
  • Cities over 100,000 and major metropolitan areas
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
  • Micropolitan areas
  • State and national parks
  • Major universities, charities and foundations
  • Federal highways and waterways
  • Military battles, wars and skirmishes
  • Cities 50,000 - 99,999
  • Sitting Federal and statewide politicians
Mid Subject fills in more minor details
  • Unique notable cultural, sport and entertainment traditions and celebrations
  • Folklore
  • Minor geographic and geological sites
  • Major architectural landmarks
  • Cities/Towns 10,000 - 49,999
  • Former federal and statewide politicians; sitting mayors
Low Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial
  • Non-suburb populations under 10,000
  • Famous or notable native or resident biographies
  • Local politicians with constituents fewer than 100,000
  • City neighborhoods, parks and events
  • Individual sporting events
  • Minor architectural structures
  • Lists and galleries

[edit] Assessment log (updated by bot)

Automatically-updated log; do not modify directly 


Contact with WP Texas
See also: assessed article categories. Last update: June 11, 2008

[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.

  • William S. Livingston - New article. Needs a little work on POV and a some more information from non-UT sources. Cheers, CP 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Capital MetroRail, I completely redid the entire article, expanded it from stub-class to start-class and added several graphics and important information/stats.Guanako512 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • U-Drop Inn, I've rated to start but after extensive clean up, expansion, and sourcing, I believe it may be at a higher class. Collectonian (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, Start/Low Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Lee Horsley - The article was never rated. I added more information regarding his career and life.
Was done, Start/low Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • University of Houston This is the third-largest university in Texas by enrollment. This article has never been rated. Please feel free to do so. Thanks! Brianreading 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Borderfest I made this article since its an importaint part of south texas history. It is well known in south texas and has even reached National recognition as one of the fastest and biggest cultural music festivals with visits from many major artist. I belive this article deserves at the least a Mid importance in scale. Maverick423 20:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Done Joe I 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Butthole Surfers: never rated on Wiki Texas, but recently received GA ratings on the Biography & Alternative Music Wikis. The Haiku Master 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. I gave it an A, it should be real close to FA. Joe I 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Done Joe I 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pearl Brewing Company: could use a review, not complete but getting there. --Brownings 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is not really a review, although I would do one when you finish with it. Anyways, I gave it a start class, mainly cause of the sections that are not filled in yet. When you get these done, you may up it to a "B" class, then let me know, I'll give it a review so we can get it to GA, it shouldn't be to hard.  :) Joe I 05:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Charles Albright - I added a ton more information to the Charles Albright section, and I think that it should be rated above a start class. I know that I need more citations, but I almost tripeled what what there with facts. Let me know. Thanks! Bryse 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Bryse
    Yeah, you did add alot, but I would leave it at start for now because of short intro, few wikilinks, no inline refs, no "see also", and really overall, it's still alittle short. Fix those, add alittle more if you can, and we'll try again. Joe I 04:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Midland, Texas - It has been a long time since this article was last assessed and I'm looking for some validation for the changes/additions/enhancements that have been made over the past several months. I'm hoping it has moved past the B class that it currently resides in. Thanks. Fuhreeus 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
GA is the next step up, and must approved by the GA process. Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
After a quick look, the only thing I can think of is alittle more history pre 1955, alittle more about the students, and alittle more on the campuses, such as construction, environmentalism, future plans. You may try a better review process, Wikipedia:Peer review. Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Llano, Texas - I understand that this little town isn't super-high on the importance scale, but I've added more information than most of the other Wikipedia pages of small Texas towns. Can someone give me some tips on how to improve this page and get a higher rating? Reba d 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Done, see talk page. Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Glenn W. Smith - the article has been flagged as COI, but there are some other flags about this project. Please Review. Thanks. User:Chrisjx
    • Done, Start, Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • San Antonio Springs - Not yet rated. Recent cleanup and additions have really made the article a lot better. --Brownings 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Done, Start Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Katy High School - Not yet rated, have recently added and cleaned up article.
    • Done, Start Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Arlen, Texas - Not yet rated.
    • Done, Start Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Richard King(Texas) - Needs to be reviewed. It's very incomplete for something I consider to be of high importance. If reviewed could someone look into the Menger Hotel ghost haunting? The place where he died? Pigman5 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Done, Start Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • METRO Houston - I added in a ton of information. Before, the section was mediocre at best, and was clearly laughable. I have added in information on METRO's bus, lift, HOV, light rail, and future commuter rail service. Go and check it out. XxTrillvillexX9 7:52 PM, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Done, B Mid Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Done, stub/low Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Done, start/low Jacksinterweb (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)