Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Assessment

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

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

Ratings are performed using the {{Fishproject}} 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:Fishes articles by quality and Category:Fishes 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 Fishes? 
Just add {{Fishproject}} 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 over 7,000 unassessed Fishes 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.

How to assess articles[edit]

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

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

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

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.

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 Fishes.

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 analysed.

Requesting an assessment[edit]

WikiProject Fishes's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Fishes-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Fishes-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.

Instructions

  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.

Example

===={{la|article}}====
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.

Alcolapia grahami (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

I really think this article should be of mid importance, as this is one of the few obligate ureotelic teleosts. This has meant it has been largely studied by people interested in urea transport. The article (mainly written by myself) is not very complete and lacks hyperlinks and stuff. A Zoologist. 46.64.94.20 (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Poromitra crassiceps (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

I wrote this article, but I'm not a biologist or an expert by any stretch, I just read some papers on the subject. I was hoping a biologist would take a look at it. My guess is that the assessment is stub/low-importance. 0x0077BE (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ictalurus catus (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)[edit]

Can it be assessed for the first time? Monkeyfox (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved the page as the species name isn't supposed to be capitalisedDrew Smith What I've done 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

September 2008[edit]

Can Australian bass please be re-assessed. It has been significantly improved since its last assessment.

Cepola macrophthalma: B yet?


Participants[edit]

Active[edit]

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

  1. Tkinias (talk · contribs) - Initiated WikiProject Fishes
  2. Dzhastin (talk · contribs) - I loves the fishes!
  3. Esoxid (talk · contribs) - Works in marine biology/ecology, benthic ecology.
  4. SCMurphy (talk · contribs) - Fisheries biologist (22 years), MS in Fisheries Management.

Inactive[edit]

Example assessments[edit]

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

Quality

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


Importance

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

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.