Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Index · Statistics · Log
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas articles by quality statistics
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas articles by quality statistics
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.
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=??? | ...}}
 FA |
| A |
 GA |
| B |
| Start |
| Stub |
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Texas articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Texas articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Texas articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Texas articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Texas articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Texas articles)
| List |
| Template |
| Dab |
| Cat |
| Image |
| Portal |
| NA |
For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:
- List (for lists; adds pages to Category:List-Class Texas articles)
- Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Texas articles)
- Dab or Disambig (for disambiguation pages; add pages to Category:Disambig-Class Texas articles)
- Cat or Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Texas articles)
- Image (for images; adds pages to Category:Image-Class Texas articles)
- Portal (for portals; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Texas articles)
- NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Texas pages)
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:
- Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Texas articles)
- High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Texas articles)
- Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Texas articles)
- Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Texas articles)
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
| 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 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
|
| High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
|
| Mid | Subject fills in more minor details
|
| Low | Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial
|
[edit] Assessment log (updated by bot)
Automatically-updated log; do not modify directly
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas articles by quality
[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.
BorderfestI 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)
