Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|||||||||||
| Louisville articles |
Importance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
| Quality | |||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 12 | |||
| B | 7 | 19 | 28 | 7 | 61 | ||
| C | 11 | 28 | 15 | 54 | |||
| Start | 13 | 112 | 270 | 298 | 18 | 711 | |
| Stub | 27 | 181 | 538 | 40 | 786 | ||
| List | 1 | 4 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 24 | |
| Assessed | 24 | 174 | 530 | 862 | 60 | 1650 | |
| Unassessed | 1 | 60 | 61 | ||||
| Total | 24 | 174 | 530 | 863 | 120 | 1711 | |
This is the WikiProject Louisville Assessment department, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Louisville related 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Louisville articles by quality and Category:Louisville articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Contents |
[edit] Frequently asked questions
- How can I get my article rated?
- If it is a new article, place the {{WikiProject Louisville}} banner on its talk page (if it's not there already) and the article will automatically be listed under Category:Unassessed Louisville articles; someone in the project will attend to its assessment shortly. On the other hand, if it is an article you changed since its last assessment and want it to be reassessed, then specify the reassess parameter in the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner on its talk page.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of WikiProject Louisville is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- 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.
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- Request a reassessment for the article as described above. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again. Also, don't forget that you can reassess the article yourself if you are a project member.
- 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.
[edit] Instructions
[edit] Quality assessment
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Louisville| ... | class=??? | ...}}
| B |
| Start |
| Stub |
| Needed |
| Unassessed |
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Louisville articles)
- FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Louisville articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Louisville articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Louisville articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Louisville articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Louisville articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Louisville articles)
- Needed (for articles that do not yet exist but have been identified as subjects that should be covered; adds articles to Category:Needed-Class Louisville articles)
- Unassessed (for articles that have not yet been assessed; adds articles to Category:Unassessed Louisville articles)
| Category |
| Disambig |
| Template |
| List |
| File |
| Portal |
| Redirect |
| NA |
| ??? |
For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:
- Cat or Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Louisville articles)
- Dab or Disambig (for disambiguation pages; add pages to Category:Disambig-Class Louisville articles)
- Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Louisville articles)
- List (for lists; adds pages to Category:List-Class Louisville articles)
- Image or File (for images and other files; adds pages to Category:Image-Class Louisville articles)
- Portal (for portals; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Louisville articles)
- Redirect (for redirect pages; add pages to Category:Redirect-Class Louisville articles)
- NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Louisville articles)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Louisville articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Louisville articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.
[edit] Quality scale
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The article has attained featured article status.
|
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. | Tourette Syndrome (as of March 2009) |
|||
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
|
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. | Batman (1989 film) (as of October 2008) |
|||
The article has attained good article status.
|
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 May 2009) |
|||
| B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|
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, and expert knowledge is increasingly 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. | Jammu and Kashmir (as of September 2007) |
||
| C | 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 | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|
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.
|
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. | Cuthwine (as of August 2008) |
||
The article has attained featured list status.
|
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) |
[edit] Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Louisville| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance Louisville articles
- High - adds articles to Category:High-importance Louisville articles
- Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Louisville articles
- Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance Louisville articles
[edit] Importance scale
| Label | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Top | Core topics about Louisville. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main Louisville article, vital for the understanding of Louisville or extremely notable to people outside of Louisville. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members. Biographies should be limited to the top one or two Louisvillians in a particular field or persons of the greatest historical importance | |
| High | Topics that are very notable within Louisville, and well-known outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia. | |
| Mid | Topics that are reasonably notable on a local level within Louisville without necessarily being famous or very notable outside of Louisville. | |
| Low | Topics of mostly local interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial topics or topics that have only a limited connection to Louisville |
[edit] Requesting an assessment
If you have just created an article and want it to be assessed, place the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner on its talk page, and it will automatically be listed in Category:Unassessed Louisville articles. This will alert others that the article needs to be assessed, and it should be assessed in a timely manner.
If you have made significant changes to an article since its last assessment, request a reassessment for it by specifying the reassess parameter in the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Louisville| ... | reassess=yes | ...}}
[edit] Assessment log
| Louisville articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
- The assessment log and other pages on the right are generated automatically on a daily basis; please don't add entries to them by hand.

