Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment

Automobile articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		1	3	3			7
GA		5	8	13			26
B	8	102	248	72		4	434
C	9	113	364	259		3	748
Start	12	113	1,272	778		413	2,588
Stub	2	15	262	943		2,705	3,927
List	1	20	46	30	13	8	118
Category		1		19	559		579
Disambig		1	1	3	24		29
File					1		1
Portal					1		1
Project					2		2
Template	5	6	44	6	111		172
NA		1		1	12		14
Assessed	37	378	2,248	2,127	723	3,133	8,646
Unassessed		1		8		672	681
Total	37	379	2,248	2,135	723	3,805	9,327

Welcome to the assessment department of the Automobiles WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about automobiles. 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Automobiles}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Automobile articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

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 the Automobiles WikiProject 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, 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.

Instructions

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

{{WikiProject Automobiles
|class=
|importance=
|attention=
|needs-infobox=
|portal=
|auto=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter, note capital letters are essential for proper categories!

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Automobile articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Automobile articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Automobile articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Automobile articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Automobile articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Automobile articles)
• Template (adds templates to Category:Template-Class Automobile articles)
• Cat (adds categories to Category:Category-Class Automobile articles)
• Dab (adds disambiguation pages to Category:Disambig-Class Automobile articles)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Automobile 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 Automobile articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Automobile articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Automobile articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Automobile articles)

Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Automobile articles. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

• Articles that require attention should be tagged with: attention=yes
• Articles that are a selected article at the cars portal should be tagged with: portal=yes
• Articles that are automatically tagged as stubs with the Kingbotk plugin for AWB should be tagged with: auto=yes

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).	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. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	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. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	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. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	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. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	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. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	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)

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 people reading the articles.

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

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.	Australia
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Manchester United F.C.
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	0.999...
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.	Defense of the Ancients
NA	Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.	Category:Palms
???	Subject importance has not yet been assessed.	United States Youth Council

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.

• I have done a major rewrite of the "Berkeley Cars" article and believe it is now much better than a "Start" article DOES ANYONE READ THIS, I MADE THIS REQUEST MONTHS AGO!!

• I wrote the Mercedes-Benz Viano and Mercedes-Benz Vaneo pages from scratch and with any luck now they should be good enough now to compare with other, more mainstream Mercedes models. CyanIsland (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please reassess the Jaguar S-Type (1963) article, it is now far better than "start" and has plenty of references.Steepwiki (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please assess the Jaguar 420 article, which is also well beyond "Start".Steepwiki (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Audi V8, Opel Omega, Mercedes-Benz R107 and C107, BMW E32 and Ford Mustang (first generation) articles were thoroughly reviewed, all unreferenced statements deleted and plenty of sourced information has been added since last rating SHAMAN 22:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Qvale Mangusta has been rewritten, and is now well beyond "Stub" quality. --ColinMB (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• TVR M Series is now substantial, and is well beyond "Stub" quality. --ColinMB (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Chevrolet Vega is currently B/Mid. Can I suggest its quality be demoted to C given the content disputes and clear issues with the article. I would like to request that its importance is promoted to high though, as a landmark model in the history of the auto industry in the USA, and one which still has a lasting legacy. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Under WP:BOLD I did it anyway and posted my justification to Talk:Chevrolet_Vega#Reassessment_for_Wikiproject_Automobiles --Biker Biker (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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. The log is very large and may take some time to load, especially on a dial-up connection so it is no longer substituted. You can see it here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Automobile articles by quality log.

Worklist

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

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.