Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment

Puerto Rico articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	2	5	3	1			11
FL		2	2	2			6
GA		16	10	15			41
B	4	76	107	105			292
C	3	12	51	120			186
Start	6	68	180	877		26	1,157
Stub	1	15	129	1,113		82	1,340
List		5	17	46		3	71
Book	1						1
Category		23	51	62	400		536
Disambig				1			1
File				34	13		47
Portal					83		83
Template			1		45		46
NA				5	32		37
Assessed	17	222	551	2,381	573	111	3,855
Unassessed				4		445	449
Total	17	222	551	2,385	573	556	4,304

Welcome to the assessment section of the Puerto Rico WikiProject! This section focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Puerto Rico. 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 {{PuertoRicoproj}} template; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Puerto Rico articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

See also: 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 {{PuertoRicoproj}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a {{PuertoRicoproj}} 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 Puerto Rico 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. I recently rated an article, but the Puerto Rico assessment table wasn't updated. What gives? 

The table is automatically generated by a bot. Wait until the bot does its daily run around 3:00 AM (UTC), or visit this web form and run the bot right away. Once you set the bot please be patient, it takes several minutes to update the table.

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? 

You can obtain comments by contacting a project participant, posting your article in the article department of the project, or request a peer review.

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 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 page; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact a project member directly.

Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{PuertoRicoproj}} project banner on its talk page:

{{PuertoRicoproj|importance= |class= }}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Puerto Rico articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Puerto Rico articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Puerto Rico articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Puerto Rico articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Puerto Rico articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Puerto Rico articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Puerto Rico pages)

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

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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.	L'incoronazione di Poppea (as of August 2010)
A	The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).	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.	102nd Intelligence Wing (as of March 2010)
GA	The article has attained good article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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 November 2009)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	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. Expert knowledge may be 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.	KV55 (as of November 2009)
C	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	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.	Architecture of Sweden (as of May 2009)
Start	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	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. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	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.	Geodia gibberosa (as of July 2009)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	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)

Importance scale

Priority/importance can be a divisive issue in some subject areas, and may need to be handled carefully when established. Please read the following guidelines thoroughly before assessing. You may also want to read the project's talk page, as it might contain consensus on more specific issues.

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 related to the project and is highly visible both within and outside the Wikipedia community.
High	{{High-Class}}	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge or is highly notable.
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.

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 Puerto Rico.

Some examples:

• Articles about metropolitan areas in Puerto Rico may receive a higher assessment than other towns in the island because of their high notability, both locally and internationally. So currently, articles like San Juan might get a higher assessment than articles like Maunabo.
• Articles of highly notable persons or positions might receive a higher assessment than other notable persons, such as internationally renowned Puerto Rican artists versus artists who are equally popular but only at a local level.

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 local audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Importance scale conventions

The following is a list of conventions within WikiProject Puerto Rico for assessing the importance of Puerto Rico-related articles, for which any and all editors wishing to assess an article should adhere to. As discussed above, the importance of an article is completely subjective, based on the community's views on the subject. Therefore, these conventions may change just as consensus changes within the community. Note: These do not apply to assessing articles outside the scope of the project.

• Any editor can assess or re-assess an article. However, editors are encouraged to include a brief description of the reasons for assessing an article in either the edit summary or in the article's talk page.
• If a re-assessment is disputed, editors are encouraged to discuss the reasons for the dispute in the article's talk page or on this project's talk page. Please do not revert a good faith re-assessment without consulting with the editor or the community. Edit warring, or rather "assessment warring" will not be tolerated within the project.
• Top-importance is reserved for those articles which form the basis of all information related to the project and is highly visible both within and outside the Wikipedia community. Therefore, this assessment should be reserved for those unique articles that represent the core topics of Puerto Rico, including:
  • Puerto Rico - Since this is the main article of the project, forms the basis of all Puerto Rico-related articles, and is arguably the most notable, this article is always assessed as Top-importance.
• Articles that branch off directly from the Puerto Rico article using the {{main article}} template should be assessed as either Top or High importance. Those that branch off directly from the Puerto Rico article using the {{see also}} template should be assessed as either High or Mid importance. This does not necessarily apply to articles included in the See also section.
• Current event articles directly related to Puerto Rico are not automatically of Top or High importance, even while the event lasts. Although recent notability of an article both within and outside the project may merit added attention from experienced project editors, the duration of such notability is highly subjective, and the article should be assessed based on its lasting importance towards the project, and not its current status.

Assessment log of Puerto Rico articles

See main subpage at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Puerto Rico articles by quality log.

The WikiProject Puerto Rico and the WP:01 assessment team maintain a log of any and all changes made to articles within the project (i.e., articles whose talk pages are tagged with the {{PuertoRicoproj}} template). You may wish to review the page to see which articles were recently assessed or re-assessed. Unfortunately, due to the increasing size of the log, it cannot be directly transcluded here. It can, however, be viewed in its own subpage.

Requesting an assessment

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. Previous discussion are archived here.

• Nova y Jory
• Ramón Emeterio Betances - Assessed as B-class, High-importance (archived 12-Apr-2007)
• Arcángel (singer)
• University of Puerto Rico
• University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez
• Antonio Paoli - nominated to GA status
• PR-10 - I think should be rated 'High' cause it's the first new major highway project to cut thru the middle of the Island in the last 40 years. Maybe someone can take a look at this. >>>>Well, no comments after 1 week, so it's done. (by Mercy11)
• Phi Sigma Alpha - it is B but I nominated it once for GA and failed thou I think it is GA quality.
• Héctor Lavoe - I strongly believe the article does not deserve a FA rating any longer. Demf (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• José Ortiz - There is still work to do, but I think I did a major overhaul that warrants a new assessment. Thief12 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)