Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Volcanoes
WikiProject Volcanoes
/Assessment /History
/Bibliography /Images
Category:WikiProject Volcanoes
Portal:Volcanoes Portal:Volcanoes

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Volcanoes! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment 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 {{Volcano}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:WikiProject Volcanoes articles by quality and Category:WikiProject Volcanoes articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

WikiProject Volcanoes
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 6 6 3 15
A 1 1 2 4
Good article GA 7 9 2 1 1 20
B 29 47 64 23 2 165
Start 24 182 354 149 59 768
Stub 63 498 642 169 1372
Assessed 67 308 923 815 231 2344
Unassessed 37 37
Total 67 308 923 815 268 2381

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 WikiProject Volcanoes is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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 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!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Volcano}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Volcano | class= | importance= }}

The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below. The following values may be used for the class parameter:


The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below. The following values may be used for importance parameter:


[edit] Quality scale

This table is transcluded here, and is identical to the one at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.

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 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 volcanologists and others working within the field.

This table has been written specifically for WikiProject Volcanoes, please read it carefully prior to making assessments of importance. It is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION, please revise it as needed.

Label Criteria Examples
Top The article is about one of the core topics in volcanology, or an extremely important and famed volcano. Includes volcanoes of great historical importance, or eruptions with the most devastating consequences. Probably most Decade Volcanoes should be in this category, with a few rated "high" instead. The most important types of volcanoes should be here, as we need to develop good articles about them. The most important igneous rocks should be in this category. Volcano, Volcanology, Mount St. Helens, Mount Pinatubo, Stratovolcano, Shield volcano, Basalt, Andesite
High The article is about a very important topic in volcanology, or a very important and noted volcano. Any volcano with eruptions that have killed numerous people or produced large-scale environmental consequences (i.e. most VEI 6+ eruptions) should be no lower than this level. Moderately-important types of volcanoes should be here. Somewhat important or interesting igneous rocks should go here. Articles about people or places notable for their association with a volcano or eruption should be placed no higher than this category. Biographies of the most important volcanologists, those who made crucial advances to the field, should probably be rated here. Volcano prediction, Volcanic gas, Mount Baker, Mount Taranaki, Pompeii, Lava dome, Dacite, Rhyolite, Carbonatite, Obsidian
Mid The article is about a fairly important topic in volcanology, or a moderately important and notable volcano. Any volcanoes which are very active (or among the most active in their region) should also be rated no lower than this. Most articles in Category:Volcanologists should probably be here, as most of those who would rate "low" importance do not actually have biography articles yet. Less important igneous rocks should go here. Articles about most volcanic protected areas (such as national parks) should go here. Most extraterrestrial volcanoes should probably be rated no lower than this, since only the most important of them even have Wikipedia articles. Many of the very high, but obscure, 6000+ m volcanoes in Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina should probably be here instead of "low", simply because their elevation puts them among the highest volcanoes on earth. Acamarachi, Agrihan, Basanite, Rhyodacite, Ascraeus Mons, Dense-Rock Equivalent
Low The article is about a highly specific or minor topic in volcanology, or a somewhat obscure and generally unknown volcano. Many of the volcanoes in this category would be unfamiliar even to those with a broad knowledge of volcanology and of worldwide volcanoes. Obscure igneous rocks fall into here. Articles where the volcanic component is but a minor part (such as some articles about islands of volcanic origin, etc.) should also be in this category, since they are of low importance to this WikiProject. A few of the current articles in Category:Volcanologists definitely belong here. Abu (volcano), Aegina, Andaman Islands

[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.


WikiProject Volcanoes
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 6 6 3 15
A 1 1 2 4
Good article GA 7 9 2 1 1 20
B 29 47 64 23 2 165
Start 24 182 354 149 59 768
Stub 63 498 642 169 1372
Assessed 67 308 923 815 231 2344
Unassessed 37 37
Total 67 308 923 815 268 2381

Types of volcanic eruptions Phreatomagmatic eruption

[edit] Assessment log

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Volcanoes articles by quality log

[edit] Articles in need of expansion and cleanup

Now that initial assessments have been completed, the most crtitical articles to attend to are those marked with "Top" importance, but only "Start" class (there are no "Stub"s in this category at this time). The most important such article is Volcanology, which is one of the two flagship articles of this WikiProject (along with Volcano) and is sorely in need of comprehensive expansion.

In the "High" importance category, over 20% of the articles are only "Stub" class and another 60% are "Start" class, so these also require attention and expansion.

In general, "B" class articles which are "Mid" importance or higher should be polished up and nominated as good articles.

The easiest way to find articles which fall within a particular intersection of quality and importance categories is to use the Worklist below, which is transcluded from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Volcanoes articles by quality.

[edit] Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.



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


[edit] See also

Languages