Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering/Assessment: Difference between revisions
GregManninLB (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
== Requesting an assessment == |
== 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. |
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. |
||
*[[Space elevator]] - I dispute the GA assessment. Since the initial assessment it has been edited beyond recognition. It no longer meets the current Wikipedia standards or the criteria of "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia". It is way too technical for a general audience, it is loaded with either original research or unpunished synthesis, some of the claims are bordering on science fiction and some of the sources are of dubious reliability. Therefore it is of little use to "nearly all readers", there are multiple obvious problems and it does not even come close to the quality of a professional encyclopedia. The article needs to be reassessed by experts to check many of the claims and reassessed against current standards. As it stands it should at best warrant a C rating. [[Special:Contributions/59.167.37.230|59.167.37.230]] ([[User talk:59.167.37.230|talk]]) 13:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*(Your entry here) |
|||
==Assessments== |
==Assessments== |
Revision as of 13:43, 24 September 2008
WikiProject Engineering Navigation | |
---|---|
Main page | Discussions | Project templates | Assessment | Portal | |
Engineering articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 12 | ||
A | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 5 | 10 | 18 | 33 | |||
B | 19 | 29 | 62 | 131 | 42 | 283 | |
C | 17 | 115 | 211 | 749 | 361 | 1,453 | |
Start | 16 | 104 | 304 | 1,829 | 1,132 | 3,385 | |
Stub | 4 | 70 | 1,020 | 701 | 1,795 | ||
List | 6 | 7 | 6 | 152 | 34 | 205 | |
Category | 2,604 | 2,604 | |||||
Disambig | 1 | 29 | 30 | ||||
File | 36 | 36 | |||||
Portal | 81 | 81 | |||||
Project | 1 | 34 | 35 | ||||
Template | 2 | 125 | 127 | ||||
NA | 2 | 9 | 74 | 357 | 442 | ||
Other | 265 | 265 | |||||
Assessed | 59 | 269 | 678 | 3,980 | 3,531 | 2,270 | 10,787 |
Unassessed | 1 | 16 | 1 | 1,901 | 1,919 | ||
Total | 59 | 269 | 679 | 3,996 | 3,532 | 4,171 | 12,706 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 34,423 | Ω = 4.94 |
Welcome to the assessment page for WikiProject Engineering.
FAQs
- What is the purpose of article assessments?
- The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
- Are these ratings official?
- Not really; these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
- Who can assess articles?
- In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes.
- How do I assess an article?
- Consult the quality scale below; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use
|class=B
in the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless are currently designated as such.
- Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject'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 article's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
- 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!
- 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 the article is within this project's scope but doesn't have a project banner on its talk page?
- Due to the large number of articles we cover, not all articles within our scope can be tagged. However you can help increase the number of tagged articles by tagging the talk page of any untagged articles within our scope you come across with {{Engineering}}.
How to rate articles
Any member of Wikiproject Engineering are invited to rate articles for the project. Articles with unassessed quality can be found at Category:Unassessed-Class Engineering articles and articles with unassessed importance ratings can be found at Category:Unassessed-importance Engineering articles
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in any of the project banners found on article's talk page:
For example adding {{Engineering|class=B|importance=mid}} produces:
The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised. |
Engineering NA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
- {{Engineering| ... | class=??? | importance=??? ...}} is the general template.
- The following is a list of parameters for different quality ratings and importance ratings
FA |
A |
GA |
B |
Start |
Stub |
List |
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Engineering articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Engineering articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Engineering articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Engineering articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Engineering articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Engineering articles)
- List (for articles that are lists made up primarily of lists; adds pages to Category:List-Class Engineering articles)
Template |
Disambig |
Category |
Redirect |
File |
NA |
Portal |
For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:
- Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Engineering pages)
- Dab or Disambig (for disambiguation pages; add pages to Category:Disambig-Class Engineering pages)
- Cat or Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Engineering pages)
- Red or Redirect (for redirects; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Engineering pages)
- Img or Image (for images and other media; adds pages to Category:Image-Class Engineering pages)
- NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Engineering pages)
- Portal (for any pages related to the portal; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Engineering pages)
Top |
High |
Mid |
Low |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - The article is about one of the core topics of Engineering as listed in Core topics - Technology. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Engineering articles
- High - The article is about the basic technologies and infrastructures or the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Engineering. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Engineering articles
- Mid - The article is about a topic within Engineering that may or may not be commonly known outside the Engineering industry. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Engineering articles
- Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within Engineering and is not generally common knowledge outside the Engineering industry. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Engineering articles
Quality scale
This table is transcluded here, and is identical to the one at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
FA | 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) |
FL | 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) |
A | 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) |
GA | 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 scale
Label | Criteria | Examples |
---|---|---|
Top {{Top-Class}} |
Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. | |
High {{High-Class}} |
Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | |
Mid {{Mid-Class}} |
Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | |
Low {{Low-Class}} |
Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. |
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.
- Space elevator - I dispute the GA assessment. Since the initial assessment it has been edited beyond recognition. It no longer meets the current Wikipedia standards or the criteria of "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia". It is way too technical for a general audience, it is loaded with either original research or unpunished synthesis, some of the claims are bordering on science fiction and some of the sources are of dubious reliability. Therefore it is of little use to "nearly all readers", there are multiple obvious problems and it does not even come close to the quality of a professional encyclopedia. The article needs to be reassessed by experts to check many of the claims and reassessed against current standards. As it stands it should at best warrant a C rating. 59.167.37.230 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Assessments
Use this section for assessment discussions and comments:
Log
August 14, 2024
Reassessed
- Flying submarine (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
- Sun Zhiyang (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- 15 cm MRK L/35 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- 15 cm MRK L/40 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Coaming (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:International Space Elevator Consortium (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Category:Towers completed in 1627 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Virtual Element Method (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Removed
- Draft:Carl C. Koch (talk) removed.
- Draft:Fire Water Storage Tank (talk) removed.
- Draft:Shooting Star (spacecraft) (talk) removed.
August 13, 2024
Renamed
- Draft:National Engineering Robotics Contest NERC renamed to Draft:National Engineering Robotics Contest.
- Draft:Transmission-Based Train Control renamed to Transmission-based train control.
Reassessed
- Agde Round Lock (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
- Area of refuge (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
- Availability zone (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
- Bardenas Canal (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
- CDM Smith (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
- Compagnie française des métaux (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
- Comptoir Métallurgique de Longwy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
- Delbert Day (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Leonard Danilewicz (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
- Magnetization roasting technology (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
- Michał Łempicki (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
- Plastics engineering (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Porsche V8 engine (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- SkyBus International Airlines (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- Anglo Belgian Corporation (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Black Gold Tapestry (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Broadcast technician (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Catherine Rosenberg (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Demag (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Dorothy Smith (engineer) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Elif Uysal (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Funan Techo Canal (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:KMG Drilling & Services (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Kenneth Breuer (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mariesa Crow (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Mark Moore (engineer) (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:National Engineering Robotics Contest (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Ralph A. Hudson (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Rensselaer Society of Engineers (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Robert Dell (engineer) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Toothed belt (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Transmission-based train control (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Triangle Fraternity (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Unitree Robotics (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
Removed
- Faculty of Civil Engineering, Iași (talk) removed.
- Draft:IECEP-KSA-CRC (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 10th century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 1st century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 1st century BC (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 2nd century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 2nd century BC (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 3rd century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 3rd century BC (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 4th century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 5th century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 6th century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 7th century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 8th century (talk) removed.
- Category:Infrastructure completed in the 9th century (talk) removed.