Wikipedia:WikiProject Post-hardcore/Assessment: Difference between revisions
→Requesting an assessment: done these |
Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
<!-- Add your assessment request here --> |
<!-- Add your assessment request here --> |
||
# {{la|Kicker (EP)}} Expanded from a redirect [[User:Rwiggum|<span style="color: #4B5320;">Rwiggum</span>]] (<sup>[[User talk:Rwiggum|<font color="Black"><b>Talk</b></font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rwiggum|<font color="Black"><b>Contrib</b></font>]]</sub>) 04:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Assessment log == |
== Assessment log == |
Revision as of 04:30, 7 July 2022
Post-hardcore articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
4 | 4 | |||||
![]() |
3 | 3 | |||||
![]() |
4 | 7 | 13 | 31 | 55 | ||
B | 9 | 5 | 11 | 37 | 62 | ||
C | 6 | 10 | 48 | 182 | 246 | ||
Start | 5 | 15 | 53 | 838 | 3 | 914 | |
Stub | 8 | 31 | 849 | 888 | |||
List | 3 | 1 | 4 | 63 | 71 | ||
Category | 520 | 520 | |||||
Disambig | 3 | 3 | |||||
File | 803 | 803 | |||||
Project | 27 | 27 | |||||
Redirect | 3 | 629 | 632 | ||||
Template | 98 | 98 | |||||
Other | 2 | 2 | |||||
Assessed | 31 | 46 | 160 | 2,006 | 2,082 | 3 | 4,328 |
Total | 31 | 46 | 160 | 2,006 | 2,082 | 3 | 4,328 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 11,178 | Ω = 5.15 |
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Post-hardcore! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's post-hardcore-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 Post-hardcore}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Post-hardcore articles by quality and Category:Post-hardcore articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Frequently asked questions
- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of WikiProject Post-hardcore 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?
- 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.
- 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.
Instructions
Quality assessments
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Post-hardcore}} banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Post-hardcore| ... | class=??? | ...}}
- class
This optional parameter records the Project quality assessment rating currently assigned to the particular article on whose talkpage the project banner appears.
If unassigned, or an invalid value is given, the parameter defaults to "unassigned" and the template places the talkpage into Category:Unassessed Post-hardcore 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. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.
Valid values for this parameter, their associated meanings and categories are given in the table below. Values should be typed as shown (e.g. |class=GA ):
Value | Use for | Adds article to the category | What it looks like |
---|---|---|---|
For articles | |||
FA | Featured articles | FA-Class Post-hardcore articles | ![]() |
FL | Featured lists | FL-Class Post-hardcore articles | ![]() |
GA | Good articles | GA-Class Post-hardcore articles | ![]() |
B | B-class articles | B-Class Post-hardcore articles | B |
C | C-class articles | C-Class Post-hardcore articles | C |
Start | Start-class articles | Start-Class Post-hardcore articles | Start |
Stub | Stub-class articles | Stub-Class Post-hardcore articles | Stub |
List | List-class articles | List-Class Post-hardcore articles | List |
For non-article pages | |||
Category or Cat | Categories | Category-Class Post-hardcore articles | Category |
Disambig or Dab | Disambiguation pages | Disambig-Class Post-hardcore articles | Disambig |
File | Image, sound, and other media files | File-Class Post-hardcore articles | File |
Portal | Pages that are part of the Post-hardcore Portal namespace. | Portal-Class Post-hardcore articles | Portal |
Project | Pages that are part of WikiProject Post-hardcore namespace. | Project-Class Post-hardcore articles | Project |
Redirect | Pages that exist only as redirects. | Redirect-Class Post-hardcore articles | Redirect |
Template | Templates that are part of the project and portal. | Template-Class Post-hardcore articles | Template |
NA | Any other pages that are not articles or where assessment is unnecessary. | NA-Class Post-hardcore articles | NA |
Quality scale
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's 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.
|
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. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
![]() |
The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
|
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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
![]() |
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject 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:Article development. 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 would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) |
![]() |
The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria
A good article is:
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | 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. | Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019) |
B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
|
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 be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
|
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. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
|
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. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may 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. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 literary movements |
Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Post-hardcore}} banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Post-hardcore| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
If unassigned, or an invalid value is given, or the class parameter is set to "NA", the parameter defaults to "unassigned" and the template places the talkpage into Category:Unknown-importance Post-hardcore articles.
Value | Use for | Adds article to the category | What it looks like |
---|---|---|---|
For articles | |||
Top | Articles about core topics related to post-hardcore. | Top-importance Post-hardcore articles | Top |
High | Articles about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Post-hardcore . | High-importance Post-hardcore articles | High |
Mid | Articles about topics within pot-hardcore that may or may not be commonly known outside the community of rock music. | Mid-importance Post-hardcore articles | Mid |
Low | Aticles about topics that are highly specialized within post-hardcore and are not generally common knowledge outside the post-hardcore community. | Low-importance Post-hardcore articles | Low |
For non-article pages | |||
NA | Non-article pages such as templates and project pages. | NA-importance Post-hardcore articles | NA |
Importance scale
Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
Top {{Top-importance}} |
The article is one of the core topics about post-hardcore. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main post-hardcore article. These are the articles with the highest potential for being elevated to featured article status. | A reader who is not a fan of post-hardcore will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Only a handful of the most culturally significant musicians, albums, songs, etc. will be assessed with Top importance, as these are the most likely to have large amounts of reliable secondary sources available to reference the article. | Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. | Rites of Spring |
High {{High-importance}} |
The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding post-hardcore. These articles have a high potential to be elevated to featured article status. | Most readers will have some knowledge of the subject. Famous musicians, albums, record labels, etc. may have High importance, as it is likely that a good number of reliable secondary sources exist that could be used to reference the article. | Articles at this level cover particular issues related to post-hardcore, specific terms are used to detail the topic. | The Get Up Kids |
Mid {{Mid-importance}} |
The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of post-hardcore. They may still have the potential to reach good article or featured article status with work. | Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Moderately well-known musicians, albums, etc. will be marked with Mid importance, as it is unlikely that many reliable secondary sources exist that cover these topics. | Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand post-hardcore. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most topics familiar only to the community of rock music will be rated in this level. | Christie Front Drive |
Low {{Low-importance}} |
The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of post-hardcore, though they may still have the potential to be elevated to either good article or featured article status. | Few readers outside the rock music community or who are not post-hardcore fans may be familiar with the subject matter. It is unlikely that the typical reader knows anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Lesser known musicians, albums, songs, etc. might be listed with Low importance, as is its likely that fewer reliable secondary sources exist that cover these topics. | Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of the subject, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include obscure performers or subgenres, minor releases, aspects of fashion, etc. | One, Two, Three, Four |
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.
- Kicker (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Expanded from a redirect Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 04:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Assessment log
- The logs in this section are generated automatically (every 3-5 days); please don't add entries to them by hand.
August 21, 2024
Assessed
- For 100 We Try Harder (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
August 20, 2024
Reassessed
- Never Hungover Again (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- Ramadan (album) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
August 19, 2024
Assessed
- The Wicked Farleys (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
August 18, 2024
Reassessed
- MSPAINT (band) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)