Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Assessment Department of the Architecture WikiProject. This group focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's architecture articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program.

Assessment is done in a distributed system (with many people and automated "bots") when values are included for the two "parameters" in the {{Architecture}} project banner template, as described in the syntax below. The different values cause the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Architecture articles by quality and Category:Architecture articles by importance.

Shortcut:


FAQ[edit]

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{Architecture}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{Architecture}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project'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 talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles? 
Anyone, as long as you are prepared to defend your decision
5. How do I rate an article? 
Check the article grading scheme and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article? 
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
8. 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!
9. What if I have a question not listed here? 
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, leave a message on the talk page.

Assessment instructions[edit]

The {{Architecture}} template may already exist on the talk page of an article, and anyone can add the template to a talk page. There are two values that can be used in the template for rating an article. Remember that these ratings are not absolute and can be changed at any time. The quality and importance of a topic is to be considered in the wide context of Architecture in all regions of the world throughout all of recorded history. The main criteria are suitability of the topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia and complete citation of source information.

Quality assessment[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Architecture}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

Basic template syntax

{{Architecture | class=Stub | ...}}

  • The word "class" to start with a lowercase c. Values can be Stub, stub or STUB, for example

The following values for "class= " may be used:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Architecture articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance assessment[edit]

Basic syntax

{{Architecture| class=stub | importance=Low}}

  • The word "importance" to start with a lowercase i. Values start with Uppercase, eg. Low

Need: The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality

Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia Regional and historic styles, world famous architects and works of architecture; "Most famous or beautiful, ancient or preserved, etc." may appear in the text; article that covers several topics
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge Very important buildings and architects
Mid Subject fills in more minor details Interesting buildings and architectural elements
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest Other buildings and narrow topics
NA Not Applicable Used for lists
None Unassessed Unassessed-importance Architecture articles


Addtional guidelines from the National Register of Historic Places:

Distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction

For more information, refer to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic

Related projects[edit]

Two other templates can be used to replace {{Architecture}}, as appropriate:

{{Planning}}
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
{{Landscape}}


Requests for assessment[edit]

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 at the top:

  1. Abu Hanifa Mosque: I would appreciate if it gets assessed after lots of hard work that was devoted into it. Hashima20 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. History of Roman and Byzantine domes is currently rated as Start-class, but needs re-assessment. As the main editor who has contributed to it, I don't think I should rate it myself. AmateurEditor (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. I've added a sentence in the lede to Ronan Point. This virtually new building which partially collapsed in 1968, changed UK building regs and practices & I note features in 1968 world events. My instinct is to mark it as top importance but architecture isn't my area of expertise. I know it needs a lot more sources but could someone assess the importance. Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. I have added alot more details and information regarding an article I would like an assessment of importance on Endeavour House. It is a start class and would like an independent rating, thanks. Wrightie99 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. I Would like an assessment of the importance of St James' Church, Sydney which is a Featured Article? It appeared on the main page on 25 July 2014. Thanks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  6. La Luz del Mundo Church - Extensive cleanup and referencing. Article has been revised and expanded. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  7. Lululaund: I have added quite a bit of description , history and citations to this article. Its no longer a stub , would someone like to give it an independent rating. Lumos3 (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  8. Santa Fe Building (Chicago): Definitely not a stub anymore. Ibadibam (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    Rated start class, although is close to C. The architecture section is pretty good, but vertical circulation is not mentioned. The tenants section needs some work on the prose, and also appears less comprehensive. A good example of a comprehensive article about a similar building is Monadnock Building. --ELEKHHT 00:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  9. Rochester Cathedral: The article has changed significantly since its assessment in 2008 (byte count up from 9.5k to nearly 74k).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin of Sheffield (talkcontribs) 9 January 2013‎
    Raised to C, as is comprehensive and overall structured. But the text I find lengthy and difficult to follow. Suggest asking help from the Guild of Copy Editors. The lead needs to be more comprehensive per WP:LEAD. The architecture section is not well structured, being hard to follow the logic of the description. For more detailed feedback suggest listing it for peer-review. --ELEKHHT 11:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  10. Architecture of England: This article has been changed wholesale since last assement. An assement would also direct further development.Rupertjames (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    I think the current assessment as C-class is about right. There are at least three key issues to be improved for the article to come closer to GA: (1) the contemporary section needs to be prose; (2) the modern section needs to be expanded so that it gets due weight; and (3) many sections are currently lacking inline citations. --ELEKHHT 06:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  11. Market Gate of Miletus: I expanded this recently and I rated it as start but would like an outside opinion if it is C (or B) class. Chris857 (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    Done re-assessed and provided feedback on article talk page. -ELEKHHT 22:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  12. John Soane: I've been working on this article, currently at start level, would appreciate any help in getting it to at least B class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architon (talkcontribs) 14 May 2012
    Done re-assessed and provided feedback. --ELEKHHT 08:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  13. Colombo Lotus Tower - Dear administrator(s), Please consider rating the article as it's one of the unique towers which are under-construction on the world. It also signifies the development of Sri Lanka. Thank you. CoolGin (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    Done - looks like start class/mid importance at the moment, though verification of its claim to be a "tallest" tower would help. Sionk (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  14. Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad The architecture section has been completely restructured, with much additional information provided and sourced. I believe this is now a well written article reflecting a unique building. TheWilliamson (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  15. Achaemenid architecture this article took me two months and some 30 sources mostly books, 3 of which I had to read page to page, to make. The article is about Achaemenid architecture and description of its individual projects. 90% of sources are derived from renown architects/architectural hisotrians including James Fergusson, Ronald W. Ferrier, and Aedeen Cremin. Your input would be appreciated. Dr. Persi (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Requests for A-Class status[edit]

If you have made significant changes to a B-class or GA-class article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please list it at Wikiproject Architecture Peer Review stating in the introduction you would like the article reviewed to see if it is A-class.

  1. World Trade Center -- I've assessed it as a B-class article since it has not had a review, but believe it to be an A-class article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upholder (talkcontribs)
    1. As above - you need to submit to WP:ARCHPR for review of B-class articles. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)