Wikipedia:WikiProject Greenland/Assessment
Greenland articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |||
B | 2 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 25 | |
C | 3 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 24 | |
Start | 7 | 15 | 60 | 56 | 36 | 174 | |
Stub | 2 | 14 | 21 | 137 | 169 | 343 | |
List | 1 | 6 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 35 |
NA | 1 | 1 | 2 | 222 | 226 | ||
Assessed | 18 | 48 | 109 | 214 | 224 | 219 | 832 |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | 322 | 324 | |||
Total | 18 | 49 | 109 | 215 | 224 | 541 | 1,156 |
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Greenland, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Greenland-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 Greenland}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Greenland articles by quality and Category:Greenland articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
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 Greenland}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Greenland}} 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 the Greenland WikiProject 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 and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Greenland}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):
- {{WikiProject Greenland| class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values for the class parameter may be used:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Greenland articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Greenland articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Greenland articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Greenland articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Greenland articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Greenland articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Greenland pages)
The following values for the importance parameter may be used:
- Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Greenland articles)
- High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Greenland articles)
- Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Greenland articles)
- Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Greenland articles)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Greenland articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Greenland articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
[edit] Quality scale
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FA | The article has attained featured article status.
|
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | L'incoronazione di Poppea (as of August 2010) |
||
A | The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
|
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help. | 102nd Intelligence Wing (as of March 2010) |
||
GA | The article has attained good article status.
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Usain Bolt (as of November 2009) |
||
B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. | A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | KV55 (as of November 2009) |
||
C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
|
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. | Architecture of Sweden (as of May 2009) |
||
Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources.
|
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Real analysis (as of November 2006) |
||
Stub | A very basic description of the topic.
|
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. | Geodia gibberosa (as of July 2009) |
||
FL | The article has attained featured list status.
|
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. | Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (as of February 2009) |
||
List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. | Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | List of aikidoka (as of June 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] 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.
- Reindeer hunting in Greenland -- Fyslee/talk 08:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Petermann Glacier
- Add new requests above
[edit] Log
Greenland articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.