Wikipedia:WikiProject Stanford University/Assessment
The quality "class" an article receives should follow Wikipedia's regular guidelines for quality found below.
- Articles which have not been formerly evaluated, or which have failed a good article review, should not be assigned a quality rating higher than B class. Above that an article needs to go through a formal review process.
- See Wikipedia:Good article candidates
- See Wikipedia:Featured article review
- See Category:Wikipedia editorial validation
|Class||Criteria||Reader's experience||Editing suggestions||Example|
|FA||The article has attained featured article status by passing an official review.
|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.||
As of 10-11-2011
|A||The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this 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 would typically find nothing wanting.||Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. Peer review may help.||
(as of June 2014)
|GA||The article has attained good article status by passing an official review.
|Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but 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.||
As of 10-12-2011
|B||The article is mostly complete and without major problems, 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. 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.||
As of 11-14-2011
|C||The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems 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 solve cleanup problems.||
(as of August 2014)
|Start||An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.||Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.||
As of 10-05-2011
|Stub||A very basic description of the topic. However, very bad quality articles will fall into this category.
|Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers may probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and does not see how the features of the topic are significant.||Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.||
As of 02-19-2011
|FL||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.||
(as of April 2014)
|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.||
(as of January 2013)
|Status||Meaning of Status|
|Top||This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.|
|High||This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.|
|Mid||This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.|
|Low||This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.|
Notes on importance to WikiProject Stanford
This is only for assessment of articles that fall within the Stanford WikiProject.
For determining the Importance rating (Low, Mid, High, Top) please keep the following in mind:
- Keep a historical perspective.
- Every item in the Project is already important and notable, otherwise it would not be on Wikipedia. Low does not mean the subject is not important.
- The rating is in terms of the subject's importance to the Stanford project; Mark Hatfield, who served as Governor and U.S. Senator from Oregon is of High importance to that project, but since his affiliation with Stanford (a master's degree) is not significant, he is low for the Stanford project. Conversely, Donald Kennedy, a president of Stanford, is of High importance to our project but Low importance to the Biography project.
- Approximate breakdown of the percentage of articles in each category as a goal:
- Top - Probably no one but if one had to be chosen, it should start with a founder such as Jane Stanford (i.e., many volumes could be and might have been written about their influence upon Stanford)
- High - People who have had a profound influence upon Stanford. This includes the founders, major University presidents, and a few others (i.e., whole books could be written about their influence upon Stanford)
- Mid - People who have had a major influence upon Stanford as a whole or a profound influence upon a smaller portion of the university. Major football coaches, major Deans of Schools, donors/trustees prominent for being Stanford donors/trustees, major professors (i.e., several chapters)
- Low - People of less but not insignificant influence upon the university or who have been heavily influenced by the university (i.e., at least a few paragraphs could be written about their connection to the university within their Wikipedia article without seeming to be filler). I've added David Harris (protester) at the low level since he was a student leader during some of the protests in the late 60s.
- Should not be in the project - their only connection is attending/visiting/being employed with no significant influence upon the university. They can and should be in the list of Stanford Alumni (or other appropriate list).
- Buildings should go into the Low category unless they have some national or historical significance (Stanford Mausoleum)in which case they are Mid; if they are associated strongly with, and define Stanford (Hoover Tower) then High.
- Institutions or departments are generally Low; each of the schools (Stanford University School of Medicine) are Mid.
- Physical geography articles (Lake Lagunita) should go into the Low category.
- Event articles should go into the Low category. This includes athletic teams and seasons, except for those that brough prominence to Stanford, such as an undefeated football season (Mid) or national championship basketball team (High).
- For everything else, the default should be Low. Then if there is some sort of significant reason to move it up to Mid do so if the item had a lasting effect of more than a year or so. If the effects are larger or longer term then High. If it helps to define what Stanford is to people, then Top.
|Stanford University articles by quality and importance|
|WikiWork factors (?)||ω =2,221||Ω = 4.98|