Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa/Assessment

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

The assessment department of WikiProject Iowa focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Iowa articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Iowa}} (or {{Project Iowa}}) project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Iowa articles by quality and Category:Iowa articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist (Index · Statistics · Log)

Frequently ask questions[edit]

See also the general assessment FAQ
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject Iowa}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Iowa}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. 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 project talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Iowa WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article? 
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
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.
7. What if I don't agree with a rating? 
You can ask any member of the project to rate the article again. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
8. Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!

Instructions[edit]

Quality assessment[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Iowa|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 Iowa articles) Featured article FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Iowa articles) A-Class article A 
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Iowa articles)  GA 
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Iowa articles) B-Class article B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Iowa articles) C-Class article C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Iowa articles) Start-Class article Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Iowa articles) Stub-Class article Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Iowa articles) Featured list FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Iowa 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 Iowa articles) Wikipedia Book Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Iowa articles) Category page Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Iowa articles) Disambiguation page Disambig 
FM (for files; adds pages to Category:FM-Class Iowa articles) Featured media FM 
File (for files; adds pages to Category:File-Class Iowa articles)  File 
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Iowa articles) Redirect page Redirect 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Iowa articles)  Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Iowa articles)  Project 
Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Iowa articles)  Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Iowa articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Iowa articles)  ??? 

Quality scale[edit]

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Iowa class battleship
A-Class article A
{{A-Class}}
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article as as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. 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 the "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 as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. 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. Davenport, Iowa
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 being a Good article 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. Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad
B
{{B-Class}}
The article meets the following five criteria:
  1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
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. Iowa
C
{{C-Class}}
The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. 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. Exeter Cathedral
(as of June 2008)
Start
{{Start-Class}}
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. Add example. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly useful picture or graphic
  • multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. Bob Vander Plaats
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. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Black Hawk State Park
NA
{{NA-Class}}
The is a non-article page, but relates to WikiProject Iowa.      

Importance assessment[edit]

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

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

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

Importance scale[edit]

Importance must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the biography falls under. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority 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).

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top High probability that those not particularly interested in Iowa would look this up. Must have been highly influential. Des Moines, Iowa
High Must have been influential. Tom Harkin
Mid Important. Union Pacific Railroad
Low Notable, but relatively unimportant. PrISUm

Log[edit]

November 20, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

November 19, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 18, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

November 17, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • KKOT (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

November 15, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • KMZN (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Mary Mosiman (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

November 15, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • KMZN (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Mary Mosiman (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

November 14, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

November 13, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

November 12, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Peggy Wilson (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).