Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghost towns/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Assessment
On going assessment at WikiProject Ghost towns, which you can join, is conducted on two separate levels. First the article is assessed for its "class." Stub or start? A or B? GA or FA? Class helps us keep track of where we are at and where we should go, as far as work wise. The second criteria an article is assessed on is its importance to the project. A table below helps explain. Essentially the article subject's historical value is assessed. Mid level importance having regional, state or local significance at a greater than county level. Top level importance being any article that no print encyclopedia could be without. The lowliest lows are for those run-of-the-mill abandoned town sites, the "just another abandoned towns."
[edit] Assessment instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Ghost towns}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):
- {{WikiProject Ghost towns|class=??? }}
The following values may be used:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Ghost town articles)
- should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured articles
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Ghost town articles)
- should only be used for articles that have A-Class status
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Ghost town articles)
- should only be used for articles that are currently listed as good articles
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Ghost town articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Ghost town articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Ghost town articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Ghost town pages)
In addition, non-article pages can be rated as well. Though for the list and category class it's better to use our templates because it adds them to the appropriate category in Category:WikiProject Ghost towns articles, which helps immensely with overall organization.
The following values may be used, capitalization, however, is irrelavant:
- Dab (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class Ghost towns pages)
- should be used on disambiguation pages related to WikiProject Ghost towns
- Image (adds articles to Category:Image-Class Ghost towns pages)
- should be used on image pages related to or in articles related to WikiProject Ghost towns
- Redirect (adds articles to Category:Redirect-Class Ghost towns pages)
- should be used on redirect pages related to articles in WikiProject Ghost towns
- Template (adds articles to Category:Template-Class Ghost towns pages)
- should be used on WikiProject Ghost towns template pages, such as an infobox or navigation box.
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Ghost town articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
[edit] Quality scale
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
 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 editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible. | Supernova (as of February 2007) |
| 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 "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. 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) |
 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 good. 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, 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}} |
Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/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. | Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & 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:
|
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 assessment
An article's assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Ghost towns}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):
- {{WikiProject Ghost towns|class=???|importance=??? }}
The following values may be used:
- Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Ghost town articles)
- should only be used for top-importance articles.
- High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Ghost town articles)
- should only be used for high-importance articles.
- Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Ghost town articles)
- should only be used for mid-importance articles.
- Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Ghost town articles)
- should only be used for low-importance articles.
- NA (for use on non-articles).
[edit] Quality scale
Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed-importance Ghost town articles. The importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
| Top | Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia | Famed ghost towns. Extreme historical importance. |
| High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge | Well known ghost towns. Very significant historically. |
| Mid | Subject fills in more minor details | Significant regional historical value |
| Low | Subject is mainly of specialist interest | One of many small towns to dissapear in U.S. History. |
| NA | Non-Article | Project pages |
