Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the article assessment department of WikiProject Australia. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia articles.

Ratings are performed using the {{WP Australia}} project banner with additional parameters according to the quality of the article. When a parameter is used, the articles is placed into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Australia articles by quality and Category:Australia articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I add an article to WikiProject Australia? 
Just add {{WP Australia}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated? 
There is currently a backlog of unassessed Australia articles. Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any editor is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article? 
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 (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!
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 statistics may be more accessible.

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


Current status[edit]

How to assess articles[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Australia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Australia|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Quality scale for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Australia articles) Featured article FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Australia articles) A-Class article A 
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Australia articles)  GA 
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Australia articles) B-Class article B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Australia articles) C-Class article C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Australia articles) Start-Class article Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Australia articles) Stub-Class article Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Australia articles) Featured list FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Australia articles)  List 

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Book (for Wikipedia books; adds pages to Category:Book-Class Australia articles) Wikipedia Book Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Australia articles) Category page Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Australia articles) Disambiguation page Disambig 
File (for files; adds pages to Category:File-Class Australia articles)  File 
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Australia articles) Redirect page Redirect 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Australia articles)  Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Australia articles)  Project 
Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Australia articles)  Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Australia articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Australia articles)  ??? 

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Australia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Australia|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Australia articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Australia articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Australia articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Australia articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Australia articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Australia articles  ??? 

The importance parameter should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance scale[edit]

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 students of Australia.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

WikiProject article importance scheme

Article importance standards[edit]

  • Capital cities - Generally classed as top to high importance.
  • Cities - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Companies - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Places - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Schools - Generally classed as mid to low importance.



Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. 99of9 (talk · contribs)
  2. Abb401 (talk · contribs)
  3. Akitora (talk · contribs) - military history, politics, Canberra, other stuff
  4. Amandaaa99 (talk · contribs) - Melbourne, ecology, literature
  5. Arnzy (talk · contribs)
  6. Blacklord (talk · contribs) - maritime history (Sydney only)
  7. Cdlw93 (talk · contribs)
  8. Ciaran106 (talk · contribs) - Sport predominately Football (Soccer)
  9. CJ (talk · contribs)
  10. Comte0 (talk · contribs)
  11. Daniel99091 (talk · contribs)
  12. Frickeg (talk · contribs) - politics
  13. Geez-oz (talk · contribs) - places, NSW, rail, aviation
  14. Gnangarra (talk · contribs)
  15. Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) science, government departments, technology, also looking at requests,
  16. grahamec (talk · contribs)
  17. groovybill (talk · contribs)
  18. Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs)
  19. HB4026 (talk · contribs)
  20. Jamessugrono (talk · contribs) Education in Australia
  21. JRG (talk · contribs)
  22. Rm w a vu (talk · contribs) - Australian Music and Literature
  23. Longhair (talk · contribs)
  24. LukeNE (talk · contribs) - South Australia, Roads & Rail, Geography
  25. MelbourneStar1 (talk · contribs) - Architecture, Geography, Geology, Law, Animals.
  26. PConlon (talk · contribs)
  27. SatuSuro (talk · contribs)
  28. RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)
  29. Thuringowacityrep (talk · contribs) - Thuringowa city and related pages
  30. VirtualSteve (talk · contribs)
  31. Mattwashdc (talk · contribs) - military law
  32. Sheepunderscore (talk · contribs)
  33. RoryReloaded (talk · contribs) - anything, I LIV' 'ERE
  34. Candyman0000 (talk · contribs)
  35. Wallie (talk · contribs)
  36. haydo0911 (talk · contribs) central west expert
  37. Callanecc (talk · contribs) central west NSW, military, politics, government
  38. Bezza84 (talk · contribs)
  39. 1fairywren (talk · contribs)
  40. CamV8 (talk · contribs)


  1. Amandajm (talk · contribs)
  2. Ansell (talk · contribs)
  3. Ansett (talk · contribs)
  4. Atlantis Hawk (talk · contribs)
  5. bradelle2619 (talk · contribs)- Australian places, South Coast
  6. Crocodile Punter (talk · contribs)
  7. Cuda918 (talk · contribs)
  8. darcyj (talk · contribs) - cricket, political history, Canberra
  9. darkliight (talk · contribs)
  10. Garglebutt (talk · contribs)
  11. Golden Wattle (talk · contribs)
  12. Iorek85 (talk · contribs)
  13. LiquidGhoul (talk · contribs)
  14. LordRobert (talk · contribs)
  15. Mcgrath50 (talk · contribs)
  16. Paddington62 (talk · contribs)
  17. SauliH (talk · contribs) - WP:AH
  18. Shadow007 (talk · contribs)
  19. Tim.andrews (talk · contribs)
  20. Todd661 (talk · contribs) - Central Coast articles
  21. Xtra (talk · contribs)

Requesting an assessment[edit]

WikiProject Australia's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Australia-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.


  1. Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
  2. Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
  3. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
  4. Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.


Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~

Please place new requests at the top of each section.

This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section.

Current requests for assessment[edit]

Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.

September 2014[edit]

Prince of Wales (ship) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

Currently rated "start" but substantially expanded since then. Wondering what more can be added. Euryalus (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

WIN Corporation (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

Please assess. Have dramatically fixed up article.

Sunraysia Television (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

Please assess. Have dramatically fixed up article.

June 2014[edit]

Clare O'Neil (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

Currently rated stub, but recently expanded substantially. Vivien Street (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • This is currently subject to conflicting edits. Hold off on assessment until it becomes stable. Innesw (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have rerated this C, although this is marginal, considering the need for objective assessment.--Grahame (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yea, Victoria (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

Please assess, as I've expanded it substantially. Innesw (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I have rerated this B.--Grahame (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamish Peacock (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

Please assess. Thanks :) NickGibson3900 (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • This has now been assessed.--Grahame (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

Requesting an assessment for this article, currently rated as Stub Class, following extensive editing and expansion. Thanks. Warrenjs1 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have rerated it C, but much of it is unreferenced.--Grahame (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please assess "Brotherband". Danjel101 (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Example assessments[edit]

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.


  • {{WP Australia|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{WP Australia}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


  • {{WP Australia|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance


The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.