Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Members Showcase Taxonomy & resources Tools To do Assessment


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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{BirdTalk}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
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 Birds WikiProject 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 Status requester 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.

Instructions[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{BirdTalk}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{BirdTalk| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed bird articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below:

Quality grading scheme[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 ornithology.

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.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Importance standards[edit]

To be filled later

Requesting an assessment[edit]

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 the peer review department instead.

  • Black-shouldered Kite Rated C Class, recent editing makes it fairly complete in terms of published material on the species. Marj (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Easy B. Maias (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, a few people have been working on it lately. Marj (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Black Honeyeater Currently rated as a stub, substantial referenced information has been added. Marj (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I assess the article as a good C class, and low importance as a species article. It needs a little copy-editing and wikifying, and would not take a lot of work to make B class. Good to see someone improving the stub to this level. Maias (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for reviewing. C Class implies missing content - any hints on what needs to be added? Marj (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There was some rejigging of honeyeater taxonomy that I will check and get back to you. A nice expansion and not too far off a GA nom really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated. The Info box gave a different binominal from C & B so I wasn't sure what the current taxonomy was. Marj (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have access to HANZAB 5, published 2001, it gives you a good idea of the relevant scientific literature published up to 2000 or so, as well as indicating what bits could be expanded or added. 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Maias, that's where I got the refs I used. Marj (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The HANZABs are a fantastic place to really punt aust. bird articles into or close to GA territory I have found. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, and I have access to The Emu which is one of HANZAB's most often cited sources. 134.148.4.20 (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reassessed the article as now B-class (and of mid importance, as it now in a monotypic genus). It would be nice to take it further, but you might have to scratch around for more content - it is not one of the best known species. Maias (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would say high importance for this iconic species with important conservation implications. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds fine to me - I was being conservative in my upgrading and was dithering between mid and high. High is ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Mid at best. It is not more endangered than some other species. And not really any more iconic than any other albatross. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Construct a lead and I reckon it creeps into B-class territory :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed this article to a B-class because it has good information, but it seems a little choppy and is, at least to me, hard to understand at parts. Barn Owl 444 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about so many at once, I have been OCD'ing on entering entries and was unaware of the assessment process. speednat (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say B class, or very close, with great potential for being worked up further. Maias (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Saint Croix Macaw is currently GA. Was improved considerably during FAC, but was withdrawn because of an image. Wonder if it is now up to A class because of the improvements. I am not intending to bring the article back to FA because of the image.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • American White Ibis Rated Start Class, I recently edited and updated the article. I included a lot of information based on published Journal Articles on the species. Benongyx (talk) 15:05, 24 Apr 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it was very complete and didn't leave anything to be wanted in my opinion. I suggest peer review before giving it GA status, just to get more opinions than mine. Chris (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks so much for the assessment and the advice. It was really helpful. I have about 15 more journal articles which details more behavior of the white ibis. I intend to add them in first before requesting for a peer review. Cheers. Benongyx (talk) 20:40, 24 Apr 2011 (UTC)
        • Chris, by giving this an A rating, you've actually ranked it higher than a GA article. Normally, that's reserved for articles that are better than a GA, but not quite an FA. It should probably be marked a B until it goes through its GA process. Benongyx, I'd suggest you greatly expand the lead before you take this to GA; it should be a summary of the entire article. It's also pretty US-centric at the moment. Be sure to expand any information that's appropriate for other countries too; you've got information about it being the mascot for a couple of US colleges, for example, but no info on folklore about it in Central/South America, where it's far more common. (Perhaps there's nothing available, but you should expect to be asked about that in GA.) And, in order to conform with WP:BIRD style, all references to the bird's name should be "White Ibis", not "white ibis". MeegsC | Talk 03:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Thank you for the clarification, MeegsC. I fixed the quality on the page to a B-class article. Sorry about the mistake. Chris (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
            • hi. thank you for all your advice. it was really helpful. i am still compiling and writing more information on the american white ibis. i have much more information with me that i have yet to update in yet. i will definitely expand the lead once i am done. right now, i am focusing on using published journal articles to write about the white ibis's behavior and scientific research done on it. with regards to the culture. it was written by someone else when it was just a start. i just adjusted the information and added a fact or two. Benongyx (talk) 06:45, 03 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Turacoverdin Created this today and would appreciate a rating. It's not a big article, but I think it adequately covers the available literature on the topic. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • African Fish Eagle I did some work on improving the article and adding inline citations. I think this article is better as a B or a C rated article rather than a Start-class. Regards Drakenwolf (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it looks like a good solid B except two things: all but one of the references should be put into the correct format, and the majority of the Reproduction section probably needs a reference. I cleaned up some minor CE stuff. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Cool - I can help with some more stuff, so it'll end up a B or possibly a GA nominee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Red-headed Honeyeater I think I have exhausted available sources. Ready for re-assessment. Marj (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Oooh, I think that's a 'B' - will give it a copyedit etc. GAN soon I guess? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • African Penguin I have added some information and a number of references where possible and done some cleaning up. I would appreaciate a re-rating of the article. Many thanks for your time! Regards Drakenwolf (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Rated as B-class. Maias (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Passenger pigeon Reformatted. Added citations, references. Fixed all citations as to form, and added links. Currently rated as a "C", but should be a "B". 7&6=thirteen () 13:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dear Casliber, Thank you for the prompt reassessment. I think we're getting close to a GA. I've been toiling at this (grunt work mainly), and not adding much text. It could use some bolstering, I think. It would be good to get a peer review, probably, as the history of this is something I can handle, but the taxonomy, for example, is beyond me. And the latter is the one last "cn" in the article. Someone with better scientific and environmental background might have a useful perspective, too. Because of the monumental size and unexpected precipitate nature of the extinction, I think the article is more important than its current rating. But that's just one writer's opinion, and I love my children. 7&6=thirteen () 20:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Black Baza was rated as a stub, but considering current content and references the article should probably be "C" class. Re-assessment would seem a good idea. -- Arjuno (talk 02:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. So done. Maias (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok C-class - nice skeleton, needs to be fleshed out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Since it is a list, I have assessed it as such. Looks fine to me. I didn't realise we had so many images of the different species. Maias (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
PS: If you want to take the list on to FL, see here. Maias (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Red Rail. Request a second opinion of my assessment of this article for Good Article status. This assessment discussion is here. I believe that FunkMonk's work on the article meets the GA criteria after a couple of minor tweaks. I'm looking for an opinion on format, specifically whether the {{quote}} template might make the article more readable than the current {{quotation}} template that surrounds the quotation with an outline and adds a pale background color. Thanks in advance to those who take a look and concur and/or add constructive comments. DocTree (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Samara. I have reassessed the article as Start only, because it is somewhat unbalanced and needs more info regarding description, distribution, habitat, feeding and conservation status. What you have done so far is great and, with a bit more all round information, it could advance to C and towards B quite quickly. Maias (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Rated B. Good luck with your GAN. Maias (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Blue Tit has rocketed in size, as in the size of the article, of course. Assessment requested for that reason so we know where we are and what needs to be done. Thanks! --Marianian(talk) 00:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
B class as of now. Other notes would be on talk page. Better still, nominate for Peer Review Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Upland Moa This article was recently expanded and needs a re-assessment of quality. Thanks!
Rated as C class, as probably not a huge amount known about it....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Tinamou I am still working on it; I should have it finished by tonight or tomorrow. If someone wants to go behind me and neaten up the writing, I am decidedly not the cleanest writer in the world. regardless, I am adding a lot of information to this article. This has always been one I felt needed some good loving care as it was such a small article for 47 species. speednat (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I am done. That was a lot of information. Now I need to go through all 47? or so species and expand each of those. I have been taking my break between classes and utilizing my school library and their vast expanse of journals to get all this info. Please give me pointers as well. I think I am eventually shooting for an FA, but I know it will need neatening up. speednat (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, it is into B class territory, and is within striking distance of GA. A couple of things - the prose should be combined into more solid paragraphs, and I am concerned about an overreliance on a tertiary source (Encyclopedia of Animals). I am thinking there'd be some other journal articles or even a monograph to use maybe...a few of us with university access can check out some fulltext. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I do have university access. Go Southern Utah University :) and will start pulling journals. If someone else wouldn't mind helping on any re-organization or even on the journal task, I won't say my toes are being stepped on.speednat (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Tinaminae rated as a stub, I am sure it gets start and maybe a "C", but if someone would not mind giving an objective look see. Thanks speednat (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This one lacks a lead, and is a bit more fragmented-looking, but is sustantive Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This one, I know is weaker, as I wast trying, whilst taking my notes, of pulling off sub-family specific data for these 2 Nothurinae as well. Thanks on both speednat (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Crypturellus I have done what I can on this one. I know there is a lot of duplicated information from Tinamou, but I think it works well. speednat (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Berlepsch's Tinamou This one is harder to work with, as there is very little information out there. Take notice all Ornithology/biology majors looking for a masters thesis to do. I did some pretty comprehensive searching on 360 premier a database of scientific journals through my university. I could find zero articles on this bird alone. Now does that mean there is not any info I missed, probably not, so if you have any specific info on this bird please please, post up. The final piece was the range map, and please critique it as I have not done one before and the instructions were rather vague. Thanks for your time speednat (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It is just a C I would say, borderline B but it does need expansion without ruining the overall structure and langauge. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • White-collared Starling - I have significantly expanded this stub, but I'm not sure how to assess it because it's not super extensive but it's at least decently sourced. 0x0077BE (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I rate it now as start class. The sources, structure and style are good. It needs more info, especially about habitat, ecology and behaviour, to bring it up to C. Maias (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Talking bird, currently rated as a stub. Has had some expansion and sources added over the past week. - Evad37 [talk] 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I rate it as start class now; it needs a fair amount of work to advance further. Maias (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pink-headed Warbler, currently rated 'Start class', appears to have outgrown its class and may need a reassessment. Arjuno (talk 22:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Good C, close to B. Maias (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:UKyou9292 Nice work - I made it a 'B' as it is well referenced. Will make further comments on the talk page as comments tend to get lost here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Participants[edit]

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

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs)
  2. Joelr31 (talk · contribs)
  3. Magalhães (talk · contribs)
  4. Maias (talk · contribs)
  5. MeegsC (talk · contribs)
  6. Mukkakukaku (talk · contribs)
  7. Rainbow Shifter (talk · contribs)
  8. Rawlife (talk · contribs)
  9. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk · contribs)
  10. Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs)

Example assessments[edit]

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

Quality

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

Importance

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

Statistics[edit]

Log[edit]

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.