|
The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history 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 {{WPMILHIST}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Military history articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for the automated assessment system.
- See also the general assessment FAQ and the project's B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ and A-Class review & criteria 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 {{WPMILHIST}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 3. Someone put a {{WPMILHIST}} 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 talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
- 4. Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Military history 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. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to?
- For the most part, yes—in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be made here), and A-Class promotion requires the consensus of multiple independent reviewers. However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.
- 6. 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.
- 7. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
- Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- 8. 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.
- 9. Where can I get more comments about an article?
- The peer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
- 10. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
- 11. 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!
- 12. What about lists?
- Lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status.
- 13. Does military history have its own stub tag?
- Yes, we have several; see the manual of style for more details.
- 14. What if I have a question not listed here?
- If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact the project coordinators directly.
[edit] Instructions
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WPMILHIST|class=???}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
The class parameter should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
The following classes may be used for non-article pages; many are automatically generated by the template when it is placed on a page of the corresponding type:
| Class |
Criteria |
Formal process |
Example |
 FA |
Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review. |
Featured article candidates |
USS Chesapeake
(as of June 2011) |
| FL |
Reserved for lists that meet the featured list criteria and have received featured list status after community review. |
Featured list candidates |
List of castles in Greater Manchester
(as of June 2011) |
 A |
The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets all five:
- A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
- A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
- A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
- A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
- A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
|
Military history A-Class review |
Lockheed D-21
(as of June 2011) |
 GA |
Reserved for articles that meet the good article criteria and have received good article status. |
Good article nominations |
Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith
(as of June 2011) |
| B |
The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets all five:
- B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
- B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
- B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
- B4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
- B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.
|
May be assigned by any reviewer
A checklist in {{WPMILHIST}} is used to track the criteria (see the project banner instructions for more details)
|
Battle of Guttstadt-Deppen
(as of June 2011) |
| C |
The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the remaining criteria:
- B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
- B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
- B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
- B4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
- B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.
|
May be assigned by any reviewer
A checklist in {{WPMILHIST}} is used to track the criteria (see the project banner instructions for more details)
|
Incident at Xuanwu Gate
(as of June 2011) |
| Start |
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it 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
|
May be assigned by any reviewer |
Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law
(as of June 2011) |
| List |
The article 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. |
May be assigned by any reviewer |
|
| Stub |
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 assigned by any reviewer |
Eagle Point National Cemetery
(as of June 2011) |
[edit] Requests
[edit] Requests for A-Class review
Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher • Reginald Pinney • John Francis Jackson • Battle of Milne Bay • ASM-A-1 Tarzon • Royal Artillery Memorial • Bardanes Tourkos • Priscus (general) • List of battleships of Greece • John Sherman Cooper • Battle of Bautzen (1945) • Jesse L. Brown • List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (E)
[edit] Requests for assessment
- Please also check Category:Unassessed military history articles for articles needing assessment.
 |
Please note that this section is a separate transcluded sub-page, which you might like to watchlist separately. Thanks! |
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. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. B-Class requests are assessed using the five B-class criteria(FAQ). Please consider entering articles you have worked on in the military history article writing contest.
- USS_San_Juan_(SSN-751) I overhauled this article and would like it assessed by a 3rd party. Thanks! ChadH (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Glad you worked on it, too bad you couldn't find sources for the info you eliminated; but only a Start class for now until more is found. Should we leave it "open" for now? LanceBarber (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Frederick Whirlpool: I've had a go at expanding this article on an individual who was the first soldier to receive a VC wearing an Australian uniform. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much information about this person's early life and what exists is contradictory in many regards. So far I haven't found any images that we can use, other than the VC image that is already in the article. If anyone has access to other sources, please feel free to add anything that I've missed but, to be honest, I think its as complete as I am able to make it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Nathaniel Gist - American Revolution. Please assess for B-class. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- John French, 1st Earl of Ypres Another Chief of the Imperial General Staff. Please update assessment. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Add new requests above this line
[edit] Assessment backlogs
Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:
[edit] Statistics
[edit] Task forces (general topics)
Military biography task force assessment statistics
| Biography (military) articles by quality and importance |
| Quality |
Importance |
| Top |
High |
Mid |
Low |
NA |
Other |
??? |
Total |
| FA |
1 |
13 |
21 |
20 |
|
53 |
67 |
175 |
| FL |
|
|
4 |
20 |
|
12 |
1 |
37 |
| A |
|
2 |
20 |
9 |
|
13 |
9 |
53 |
| GA |
10 |
10 |
41 |
101 |
|
81 |
165 |
408 |
| B |
6 |
50 |
136 |
379 |
|
488 |
890 |
1,949 |
| C |
12 |
34 |
118 |
229 |
|
874 |
689 |
1,956 |
| Start |
20 |
70 |
558 |
3,779 |
|
4,570 |
7,742 |
16,739 |
| Stub |
18 |
6 |
139 |
2,189 |
|
3,942 |
9,240 |
15,534 |
| List |
|
1 |
5 |
19 |
|
|
19 |
44 |
| Book |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
| Category |
|
|
|
|
2,598 |
|
|
2,598 |
| Disambig |
|
|
|
3 |
5 |
|
|
8 |
| Template |
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
9 |
| NA |
|
|
|
2 |
12 |
|
|
14 |
| Assessed |
67 |
187 |
1,042 |
6,750 |
2,626 |
10,033 |
18,822 |
39,527 |
| Unassessed |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
47 |
52 |
| Total |
67 |
187 |
1,042 |
6,755 |
2,626 |
10,033 |
18,869 |
39,579 |
log • category
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Task forces (national and regional)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States military history task force assessment statistics
| United States military history articles by quality and importance |
| Quality |
Importance |
| Top |
High |
Mid |
Low |
NA |
Other |
??? |
Total |
| FA |
|
1 |
6 |
7 |
|
160 |
|
174 |
| FL |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
32 |
|
34 |
| A |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
112 |
|
116 |
| GA |
|
|
|
3 |
|
490 |
|
493 |
| B |
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
|
2,157 |
1 |
2,163 |
| C |
|
1 |
|
3 |
1 |
5,115 |
7 |
5,127 |
| Start |
|
|
2 |
12 |
|
19,840 |
80 |
19,934 |
| Stub |
|
|
|
12 |
|
12,193 |
27 |
12,232 |
| Other |
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
1 |
6 |
| Assessed |
3 |
3 |
10 |
42 |
6 |
40,099 |
116 |
40,279 |
| Total |
3 |
3 |
10 |
42 |
6 |
40,099 |
116 |
40,279 |
log • category
|
|
[edit] Task forces (periods and conflicts)
American Civil War task force assessment statistics
| American Civil War articles by quality and importance |
| Quality |
Importance |
| Top |
High |
Low |
NA |
Other |
??? |
Total |
| FA |
|
2 |
1 |
|
21 |
|
24 |
| FL |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
| A |
1 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
14 |
| GA |
|
|
1 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
| B |
|
|
1 |
|
498 |
|
499 |
| C |
|
|
2 |
|
1,155 |
|
1,157 |
| Start |
|
|
3 |
|
3,745 |
1 |
3,749 |
| Stub |
|
|
2 |
|
2,139 |
|
2,141 |
| Other |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
| Assessed |
1 |
2 |
11 |
1 |
7,620 |
1 |
7,636 |
| Total |
1 |
2 |
11 |
1 |
7,620 |
1 |
7,636 |
log • category
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Special projects
A automatically generated log of assessment activity is available here.
|
