Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment

WikiProject LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
→ Project talk page
Watchlist	talk
Members
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ Collaboration	talk
→ Community	talk
→ Core topics	talk
→ Jumpaclass	talk
→ Newsletter
→ Peer review	talk
→ Person task force	talk
→ Translation	talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines	talk
Notice board	talk
Sexuality and gender deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
LGBT portal
Transgender portal

One of the main tasks of the LGBT WikiProject is to assess the quality of Wikipedia's LGBT articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to help in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. They also play a role in the WP:1.0 program, which the WikiProject uses to help automate some of the assessing process.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:LGBT articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. WP:1.0 also produces a statistics page, and a log of articles assessed.

How to assess an article

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class LGBT articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class LGBT articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class LGBT articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class LGBT articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class LGBT articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class LGBT articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class LGBT articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class LGBT articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class LGBT articles)		List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class LGBT articles)		Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class LGBT articles)		Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class LGBT articles)		Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class LGBT articles)		File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class LGBT articles)		Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class LGBT articles)		Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class LGBT articles)		Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class LGBT articles)		Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class LGBT articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed LGBT articles)		???

Where to find unassessed articles

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed LGBT articles. The criteria for the different classes is below.

Articles which are in LGBT categories (possibly inappropriately - watch out for vandalism!) but which don't yet have an LGBT template are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Cat Search 4 New Pages.

Quality scale

WikiProject LGBT Studies uses the same criteria for grading articles as set out by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you are not sure what class an article falls under, leave a note on the WikiProject's talkpage, and someone will help you out.

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images 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 and uses summary style where appropriate.	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.	Same-sex marriage in Spain (as of September 2010)
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: 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) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) 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. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A (as of September 2010)
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.	Matthew Shepard (as of September 2010)
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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial 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 media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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.	Harisu (as of September 2010)
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 The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, 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. 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 be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Gay icon (as of September 2010)
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.	Trans woman (as of September 2010)
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: A 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	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.	Boystown, Chicago (as of September 2010)
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.	Radio Q (as of December 2007)
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 LGBT events (as of September 2010)
Category	Any category falls under this class.	Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area.	Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized.	Category:LGBT

Importance

An importance parameter has not been added to the project tag for talk pages, though this has been proposed. Currently "core" articles are being identified at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Core topics.

Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article.

If you assess an article, please add the {{done}} template, that shows a green check mark and the bolded word "Done", immediately after the entry so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Add new requests to the bottom of this list.

• Katharine Cornell -- Added greatly to the article, so I'm hoping for an upgrade. Randy 23:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Done - C as of 3Apr10
• Ursula Martinez -- Added to article, including bunch of references. request assessment. Bdixon 15april2010 Done - Much better, but assessed as still class=Stub - Becksguy (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mister Leather Europe - Added references, titleholders, contest informations. Request Assessment. F.cioni - 2010-05-22
• Miss Foozie - Created the entire article myself today, looking to eventually get it to featured status. Taric25 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Done - Assessed as class=C - Becksguy (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Proposition Infinity - Worked on the article recently, fleshing out its content, adding refs, and cleaning up some errors. Looking to get it GA'd.Luminum (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Done - GA as of 10Aug10
• Heterosexuality - requesting assessment. I'm not as familiar with article assessment guidelines or I'd do it myself. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Joel Burns (politician) -- New article on Fort Worth, Texas city councilman whose plea to LGBT youths contemplating suicide have gone internationally viral. Fortguy (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)  Done
• Douglas Ousterhout -- There used to be a lot of peacock words, no references and poor see also and external links sections. There was nothing good about it. But I've done some work and so has Chaos5023. I don't think there's a lot that has to be said to make for a complete and sufficient article on this topic and I think we're getting close. I hope you'll agree it's time for a new assessment. Msnicki (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC) DoneAdamCaputo (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Troughman is or was a Sydneysider locally noted for the manner of his public practice of urophilia. I created the article, because I wanted to refer off-wiki to his practice in a short-hand manner, but didn't find an article about, or mentioning, him. Given that I mostly do review based editing, I felt I ought to contribute some content. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• The Mpowerment Project - Added information on the project. Hamiga 14.55, March 2011 (UTC)
• Suicide among LGBT youth - Added new research and a section on frequently-proposed policy options. Also did quite a bit of grammatical editing. lamerika  Done C-class, review at talk. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• User:Stephenjamesx/Lady Gaga as gay icon - I plan for this article to be in the main space when and if possible as Gaga is increasingly becoming THE gay icon. I just wanted someone else's opinion on it. Highlight some positives and/or negatives, please? :) xo - Stephenjamesx (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Jerold Krieger I greatly expanded this article based on extensive research of available Internet sources. It is approved for DYK but is not yet in the queue ("Did you know that Judge Jerold Krieger was a co-founder of the first lesbian and gay synagogue"). I believe it is close to if not above class B. It is currently listed as Start (which was generous).RichardMathews (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Jon-Henri Damski All of the issues raised in 2009 and 2010 have been addressed in the Talk page, with the exception of the closeness of the subject to the main editor (1 of 4 contributors). These were: (a) Conflict of Interest (Interests stated clearly in Talk) (b) References/Single Source (80 sources, 50 third-party publications, 10 authors; are LGBTQ weekly publications not considered as "reputable sources"?) (c) Essay Style (pointers, please.) Might the SA rating be revised, or more specific instructions for revision be made? Thank-you!
• Challengers (manga) - hasn't been assessed in years. Please reassess. KudouUsagi (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Mike Nichols- partially expanded and rewritten.--206.188.55.235 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

Current status

This is a transclusion of the table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/LGBT

LGBT pages by quality
Quality
	Total
FA	101
FL	35
GA	591
B	1,741
C	5,093
Start	12,314
Stub	5,144
List	665
Category	7,214
Disambig	32
File	311
Portal	58
Project	73
Redirect	1,737
Template	375
NA	5
Assessed	35,489
Unassessed	36
Total	35,525
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 119,214			Ω = 4.77

Historical counts

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment/Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month

2011	July		August		September		[ October]		[ November]		[ December]
FA	46	0.4 %	46	0.4 %	46	0.4 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
FL	14	0.1 %	14	0.1 %	14	0.1 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
A	2	0.0 %	2	0.0 %	1	0.0 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
GA	154	1.2 %	155	1.2 %	156	1.2 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
B	841	6.7 %	844	6.7 %	843	6.6 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
C	607	4.8 %	614	4.8 %	621	4.8 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
Start	4,731	37.6 %	4,746	37.5 %	4,769	37.6 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
Stub	4,724	37.6 %	4,704	37.2 %	4,697	37.0 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
List	203	1.6 %	201	1.6 %	204	1.6 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
Category	1,008	8.0 %	1,068	8.4 %	1,069	8.4 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
Template	63	0.5 %	63	0.5 %	63	0.5 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
Unassessed	55	0.4 %	75	0.6 %	79	0.6 %	-	- %	-	- %	-	- %
Total	12,578		12,662		12,691		-		-		-
2011	January		February		March		April		May		June
FA	44	0.4 %	44	0.4 %	44	0.4 %	46	0.4 %	46	0.4 %	46	0.4 %
FL	14	0.1 %	14	0.1 %	14	0.1 %	14	0.1 %	14	0.1 %	14	0.1 %
A	3	0.0 %	2	0.0 %	2	0.0 %	2	0.0 %	2	0.0 %	2	0.0 %
GA	137	1.1 %	140	1.1 %	144	1.2 %	147	1.2 %	152	1.2 %	153	1.2 %
B	853	6.9 %	847	6.9 %	846	6.8 %	849	6.8 %	847	6.8 %	845	6.8 %
C	509	4.1 %	528	4.3 %	552	4.5 %	560	4.5 %	579	4.6 %	591	4.7 %
Start	4,490	36.5 %	4,505	36.5 %	4,613	37.3 %	4,702	37.9 %	4,706	37.8 %	4,722	37.7 %
Stub	4,895	39.8 %	4,876	39.5 %	4,812	38.9 %	4,743	38.2 %	4,737	38.0 %	4,735	37.9 %
List	189	1.5 %	195	1.6 %	199	1.6 %	200	1.6 %	200	1.6 %	203	1.6 %
Category	968	7.9 %	969	7.8 %	968	7.8 %	969	7.8 %	969	7.8 %	975	7.8 %
Template	57	0.5 %	57	0.5 %	58	0.5 %	58	0.5 %	60	0.5 %	62	0.5 %
Unassessed	21	0.2 %	47	0.4 %	1	0.0 %	8	0.0 %	27	0.2 %	33	0.3 %
Total	12,293		12,338		12,369		12,418		12,463		12,509

Assessment log

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality log

Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.