Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Treefingers1206 (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 15 February 2010 (→‎Requesting an assessment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPVirginia Sidebar

Welcome to the assessment department of the Virginia WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Virginia or the people of Virginia. 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 Virginia}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Virginia articles by quality, 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 the Virginia WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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

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

{{WikiProject Virginia
|class  =
|importance =
|attention =
|collaboration-candidate =
|past-collaboration =
|peer-review =
|old-peer-review =
|needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Virginia 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 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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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. 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. 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. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. 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:
  • 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. 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

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.

Roanoke Region

I moved Roanoke Region of Virginia to Roanoke Region and expanded a great deal on its geographical area. Decently sourced, could use help but would love a rating.Treefingers1206 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agnewville, Virginia

I have expanded this from a stub article. This is my first major edit. I welcome any comments.--Chuck369 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tysons Corner, Virginia

This page is really good, far better than stub-class. Informative, well-written, well-sourced. Please assess. Sjb0926 (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Virginia Land Trust

This article is new and has not yet been rated. Nedyost (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has since been rated as Start-class. --TommyBoy (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bland Lee I

Seems as though this should get a rating above stub. Have made many additions and modifications to it including a much more extensive discussion of Lee's farming operation and political career. Corrected some misinformation on his time in Congress. Added another portrait of him and added an infobox. More information on his congressional career needs to be added.--Sonofkenny (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a content perspective, I'd call this a solid B class article at this point. The only thing that made me hesitate to rate it as B class is that it's quite light on referencing. If you want to take it to WP:GAR, the primary need is to cite additional sources with inline references, and you are right that more ought to be said as to his time in congress. However, the prose is good, and it's definitely progressed nicely.--Kubigula (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown High School (Williamsburg, Virginia)

This article could use another review. Last time that it was rated, it was called a stub, but I don't feel that it is even close to that anymore.Mynameisnotpj (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely been solid expansion, and I changed the rating to start. It's close to a B quality article — it just needs some more referencing and a bit more about the history of the school. Keep it up!--Kubigula (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Dominion University

Many approvements have been made and really needs a reassesment --Occasio (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely making progress, with a good general flow and nice images. However, I'd have to say that it's still start class for an article about a prominent university. The two biggest needs are a section on the history of the school and a section on academics — what programs are offered, how does the school rank nationally etc. The article needs sections on these two topics to get up to B class. To get to good article class, it would need that plus more referencing. Keep up the good work!--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Appalachia College of Pharmacy

I was just curious to the rating of the article. Thank you! Chrisfortier 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assessed the article up to B-level. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

Grundy, Virginia

I have done some work and wanted to know how it rates. Chrisfortier 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the article; I have re-assessed it as B class, which is as high as it can go without a peer review process. I see you are also pursuing peer review, and I will add my thoughts on that later.--Kubigula (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia)

Myself, and mostly another dedicated editor have been working on this for almost 2 years now. I haved wanted it to be assessed for sometime, but by morbid coincidence, Westfield also happens to be the school of Cho Seung-hui, the shooter of the Virginia Tech Massacre, two of the Massacre's victims, as well as another, unrelated murderer, Michael Kennedy. Since Monday's trajedy, a great deal of action has taken place on the article, some good and some bad, and for this I would like it to be assessed, and suggestions made to improve it. Thank you. Zidel333 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed it at B for now. It looks good and you can probably push it higher without too much work. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian School of Law

This article passed the GA review. Is it GA or A? Chrisfortier 14:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'd leave it at GA. Apply more of the suggestions from the FA review and it should at least make it to A level.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reston, Virginia

This article has undergone a lot of changes since it was last reviewed, and I'd like to know what more needs to be done to make it an A. Thanks Signed - Joshua Davis (articnomad) 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already rated as a "B", which is as high as we can go without taking it to WP:GAC. If you want to take it to GAC, I'll be happy to take a look and give some feedback?--Kubigula (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangier, Virginia

I have done some cleanup and would like to see if it rates higher now. ~~Elaine 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming along nicely, and I just did a bit of organization myself. Content wise, it's a B class article. However, it really needs some referencing to be upgraded. Let me know if you need any help.--Kubigula (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poquoson High School

What are your thoughts? Chrisfortier 02:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not bad, I'd say its Start class. Good work with the referencing. If you want an idea of a Good Article status high school then take a look at Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia). T Rex | talk 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably have rated it a B myself, but I'm a bit laxer than Rex. In any event, it's a solid start with a nice infobox and good references. In my opinion, the main need is to add a history section.--Kubigula (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia)

Added references, new text, and infobox. Still needs footnotes and more history. VirginiaProp 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice little article with good references. I would say that if you could throw in even a brief history section, it would be a B class article.--Kubigula (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will try to find some more source materials. I have only found sporadic materials so far. VirginiaProp 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Holley, III

I'm new to article creation, just like to get some feedback on how I'm doing! Not to mention drum up a little notice so others can help improve the article. Thanks! :) Faithlessthewonderboy 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's stub class at this point, though it's a good beginning and a much better stub than most. It just needs a little more fleshing out. Keep up the good work.--Kubigula (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement! :) I've done a bit more work on the article, added additional info and sources and added an infobox. However I am helplessly inept when it comes to images. If anyone out there has the time and ability, please add a picture to the article! There are plenty available on the net, a simple Gsearch shows a ton, but I fear they're all copyrighted, and I don't understand the image policy at all. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately they are all non free images and can't be used under fair use because a free alternative could be created (you taking the picture yourself). T Rex | talk 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Montague

I've done some work on this article and would like to reassess it. However, as I did the revising, I don't think I should do the reassessing. Could someone else do the honors? Thanks--Kubigula (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksburg, Virginia

I have done quite a bit of work to this and relating articles. I would appreciate it if someone could reassess the town page for me. While indirectly related, the article on Thomas M. Price that I worked on needs an assessment as well. Pmcginty (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some nice work on the article. However, it's already assessed as B class, which is as high as it can go without going through good article review. While the article is coming along, I don't think it's ready for good article review yet. Looks to me like the sections on history (1798-present), economy and geography are all a bit thin. In addition, to pass GAR, the article would probably need sections on government and education, and possibly one on culture. If you keep working on it and want to go for GA, feel free to drop me a note if you want someone to take a look at it first.--Kubigula (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually assessed it myself after waiting a day or two. You have given some good suggestions nonetheless and I will keep them in mind. Pmcginty (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah — I missed that. Well, I concur with the B class assessment based on the development of the article, and I encourage you to keep working on it for GA.--Kubigula (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Big Bethel

I have made extensive revisions of this article and it should be re-rated somewhere above Start class. As the first (or second) land battle of the Civil War, it should be considered of some importance. I've added footnotes and additional references, including links to the units and officers involved (many of whom would distinguish themselves later in the War). Texas Whitt (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. It could use a little more content, but what's there is solid. I'd call it B class at this point. You may want to ask the military wikiproject to reassess as well.--Kubigula (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Mountains

There are a handful of changes that I've made to this entry in the past ~four months, since it was initially rated at "stub" level—a photo, an infobox, geocoding, and footnotes. I've taken the liberty of moving it up to "start," but I'd like somebody more familiar with the rest of the entries under the WikiProject Virginia umbrella to assess it, ideally providing some specific recommendations for what sort of information should be added to move this article up to C class, or up to Start class if it's judged to be at Stub level. Thanks!--WaldoJ (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a solid start to me. I made a couple more suggestions on the article talk page about what I think is needed, though I'm no mountain expert.--Kubigula (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosby Tavern

New article. I have a thought about where I'd assess it, but because I'm the primary author I'd prefer an assessment from someone else, along with general ideas for improvement. cmadler (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Let me do some more thinking as far as advice to give on specific ways to improve the article, but unless anyone else disagrees, I'm going to rate it a "B" class article. Good job, man. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it for about B-class, but I wanted someone else to say it. :-) Thx, cmadler (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's on the borderline between B & C, but no qualms with going with a B. The referencing is pretty solid. As far as improvement goes, I would say it needs some information about the residents of the house - that's the main thing I come away wondering about. Who was Benjamin Mosby, and were the Mosbys a family of significance in Powhatan history? Also, is there any information available about what happened after 1779 - was it immediately converted to a private residence? Otherwise, I echo Ks64q2 - a nice article.--Kubigula (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. The Mosbys were a family of some significance: several of the Mosby Tavern inhabitants served in various local and state elected offices, and John Singleton Mosby is about three generations descended from Benjamin Mosby's older brother. I'm actually working on an article on one of the inhabitants, General Littleberry Mosby Jr (and possibly others to follow) -- it's still in my sandbox because I'm not sure it adequately asserts notability yet. I've not found any information for Mosby Tavern nor any significant information (beyond geneology) for its inhabitants after about 1821 (death of Littleberry Jr), beyond the architectural discussion and minor mention of recent ownership (private home) in the NRHP listing. cmadler (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.


June 15, 2024

Assessed

June 14, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

June 13, 2024

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

June 12, 2024

Reassessed

  • William Lynch speech (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

Removed

June 11, 2024

Renamed

Assessed

June 10, 2024

Reassessed

  • WMQR (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

June 9, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Virginia/Assessment&oldid=344154553"