Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment

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

Welcome to the article assessment department of WikiProject Australia. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia articles.

Ratings are performed using the {{WP Australia}} project banner with additional parameters according to the quality of the article. When a parameter is used, the articles is placed into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Australia articles by quality and Category:Australia articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

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 recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.


Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I add an article to WikiProject Australia? 
Just add {{WP Australia}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated? 
There is currently a backlog of unassessed Australia articles. Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any editor is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article? 
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? 
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.


Current status[edit]

How to assess articles[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Australia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Australia|class=???}}

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

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

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

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

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Australia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Australia|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Australia articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Australia articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Australia articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Australia articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Australia articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Australia articles)  ??? 

The importance parameter should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance scale[edit]

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Article importance standards[edit]

  • Capital cities - Generally classed as top to high importance.
  • Cities - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Companies - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Places - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Schools - Generally classed as mid to low importance.



Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. 1fairywren (talk · contribs)
  2. 99of9 (talk · contribs)
  3. Abb401 (talk · contribs)
  4. Akitora (talk · contribs) - military history, politics, Canberra, other stuff
  5. Amandaaa99 (talk · contribs) - Melbourne, ecology, literature
  6. Arnzy (talk · contribs)
  7. Bezza84 (talk · contribs)
  8. Blacklord (talk · contribs) - maritime history (Sydney only)
  9. Callanecc (talk · contribs) central west NSW, military, politics, government
  10. CamV8 (talk · contribs)
  11. Candyman0000 (talk · contribs)
  12. Cdlw93 (talk · contribs)
  13. Ciaran106 (talk · contribs) - Sport predominately Football (Soccer)
  14. CJ (talk · contribs)
  15. Comte0 (talk · contribs)
  16. Daniel99091 (talk · contribs)
  17. Frickeg (talk · contribs) - politics
  18. Geez-oz (talk · contribs) - places, NSW, rail, aviation
  19. Gnangarra (talk · contribs)
  20. Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) science, government departments, technology, also looking at requests,
  21. grahamec (talk · contribs)
  22. groovybill (talk · contribs)
  23. Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs)
  24. haydo0911 (talk · contribs) central west expert
  25. HB4026 (talk · contribs)
  26. Jamessugrono (talk · contribs) Education in Australia
  27. JRG (talk · contribs)
  28. KittyLover (talk · contribs)
  29. Longhair (talk · contribs)
  30. LukeNE (talk · contribs) - South Australia, Roads & Rail, Geography
  31. Mattwashdc (talk · contribs) - military law
  32. MelbourneStar1 (talk · contribs) - Architecture, Geography, Geology, Law, Animals.
  33. PConlon (talk · contribs)
  34. Rm w a vu (talk · contribs) - Australian Music and Literature
  35. RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)
  36. Ryan 868 (talk · contribs)
  37. SatuSuro (talk · contribs)
  38. Teraplane (talk · contribs) - Environment, transport, politics
  39. Thuringowacityrep (talk · contribs) - Thuringowa city and related pages
  40. VirtualSteve (talk · contribs)
  41. Sheepunderscore (talk · contribs)
  42. RoryReloaded (talk · contribs) - anything, I LIV' 'ERE
  43. Wallie (talk · contribs)
  44. Yahya Abdal-Aziz (talk · contribs) - a little of a lot ... music, maths, science etc.
  45. SwiftyPeep (talk · contribs) - assessing political articles
  46. ChocolateTrain (talk · contribs)


  1. Amandajm (talk · contribs)
  2. Ansell (talk · contribs)
  3. Ansett (talk · contribs)
  4. Atlantis Hawk (talk · contribs)
  5. bradelle2619 (talk · contribs)- Australian places, South Coast
  6. Crocodile Punter (talk · contribs)
  7. Cuda918 (talk · contribs)
  8. darcyj (talk · contribs) - cricket, political history, Canberra
  9. darkliight (talk · contribs)
  10. Garglebutt (talk · contribs)
  11. Golden Wattle (talk · contribs)
  12. Iorek85 (talk · contribs)
  13. LiquidGhoul (talk · contribs)
  14. LordRobert (talk · contribs)
  15. Mcgrath50 (talk · contribs)
  16. Paddington62 (talk · contribs)
  17. SauliH (talk · contribs) - WP:AH
  18. Shadow007 (talk · contribs)
  19. Tim.andrews (talk · contribs)
  20. Todd661 (talk · contribs) - Central Coast articles
  21. Xtra (talk · contribs)

Requesting an assessment[edit]

WikiProject Australia's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Australia-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.


  1. Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
  2. Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
  3. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
  4. Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.


Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~

Please place new requests at the top of each section.

This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section.

Current requests for assessment[edit]

Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.

June 2019[edit]

Palawa kani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This topic is of great importance to Aboriginal Tasmanians, and notable within Tasmania with an increase in dual named locations. I request a review of the article importance from Low to at least Mid. ReverendPete (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]

Parliament of Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Last assessed as C Class, hopefully it is a bit better now after significant expansion and overhaul. Vision Insider (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

November 2018[edit]

Punishment in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article was last assessed in 2011 as Start Class. Since then, there has been significant expansion. In the last week, myself and a few others did a significant overhaul, cleanup and expansion. A couple of sections still need expansion and references. Would like a review. Revoran (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Revoran: as you say it has been expanded & better than start class. It's a big jump from C to B however. Let me know if you would like some detailed feedback on where I think the article could be improved towards meeting the B-Class criteria. Find bruce (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Western Sydney Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

It's now been a while since the article launched, would like a review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day, nice work so far. There are still quite a few paragraphs that are unreferenced, though, and I suspect that more could be said about the design and construction (for instance the field dimensions are not mentioned in the body of the article, but are mentioned in the infobox) so I think it is currently correctly assessed as start class. It is very close to C class, though. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Central Australia Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article has had a major rewrite from its initial bare bones and discussion of other railway lines over the past since Feb 2017 and includes an extremely large train route table and purpose built links to interactive maps and hopefully all external references cited now. A review would be useful please Skillsy (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day, definitely getting there. There are still quite a few paragraphs or other areas that lack citations. There are a few maintenance tags that should be addressed, and some of the prose could do with a copy edit, so I would say it is a solid Start class article (very close to C class). Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]

David Ames (researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article has been expanded from a stub to a fully fledged article. Nestek (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Jan 2018[edit]

Rosie Batty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article has been expanded, and seems likely to be stable. A good time for a re-assessment to move it from stub class. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Updated to start class as the coverage and referencing probably aren't there yet for B class. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Cycling in Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

I'm not sure when the initial review occurred. I have been steadily improving this page for over 9 years. The page gets a steady flow of views and edits by other contributors. Links to public transport services, relevant government programs and policies have been kept up to date. Dead links are frequently removed. Ridership stats form the census have been added. I note that Cycling in Melbourne, a very similar page, has been rated a C class. Teraplane (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

Faradaya splendida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

I have put a bit of time into expanding this article a little bit. I'm not sure if it still counts as a stub. It clearly still needs more work but is more than just a definition now. Mrpalermo (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Nov 2017[edit]

William Henry Ogilvie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Article has changed significantly since previous review (a 350 word stub). Starts to place his importance within Australian poetry, which has been neglected for over fifty years. Please review the class. Thank you, Q8682 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reassessed as C class, articled is very detailed and well referenced. Teraplane (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WestConnex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Article has changed significantly since previous review. Could be a lot bigger and better, but I suggest that it should no longer be rated as 'Start-Class' or 'Low-importance'. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

Parliament of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Over the last few months I believe this article has been improved a lot. Is it really only a C rating? Superegz (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

Bunnaloo Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This may fall under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football, however their page doesn't exactly have a section for these entries. I created this page in October of 2016 and it has not been given a Quality or Importance (presumed 'Low') review, so I kindly request this. Many thanks ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day, tidy little article. I've assess as Start class, but it would be close to C class, IMO, if the table and the last sentence of the first paragraph in the History section could be referenced. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Luise Hercus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

I just noticed that the subject is rated Low-importance; however the subject is highly notable within its field (note the Festschrift) so should probably receive a Mid-importance rating or possibly higher. Please review. Thanks! yoyo (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Reassessed as C class, expanded references, but still some missing citations. Hard to gauge importance compared to all Australian academics, could you quote a citation index or some other measure of notability? Teraplane (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

MTN (TV station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Over the last few months I have added additional verification (some 30 references) and extra details which I believe have the article at a quality higher than Start. Forbesy 777 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Given it has been two months since I posted my request and the article is yet to be reassessed, can someone inform me as to whether this is still an active WikiProject. If not would I be better placing my request on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television page? Thanks, Forbesy 777 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Forbesy 777: G'day, sorry for the belated response. I can't comment on whether the Australia project is active as I am only a part time contributor over here, but regarding the article it appears to be accurately assessed as Start class at this stage, IMO. The maintenance tags need to be addressed and referencing improved for B class. Regardless, though, I can see a lot of work has been put into the article so far, so thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

the page brotherband has gone through significant changes over the last year and is quite comprehensive.

Reassessed. Comprehensive enough for "C" class but needs more references. The in-character section is also too long -- Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Big Bash League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

I think significant changes have been made to the above-mentioned article to improve its rating from C-Class to B-Class. Karyasuman (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessed as C class as there are a few uncited sentences. Otherwise, the article seems to be coming along well. Thanks for your efforts. Sorry for the belated response. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Mount Annan, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

My local suburb, I've been doing quite a bit to it. I've added a lot of references and more information. It's current rated Start-Class, I think it's due to bump it up? Let me know if changes need to be done, I'm happy to do more work if I know what's missing! :-) MarkehMe (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@MarkehMe: Sorry for the belated reply. I think Start class is an accurate assessment at the moment, but it would be very close to C-class. There are a few unreferenced areas, and I would suggest expanding the lead a little. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Example assessments[edit]

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.


  • {{WP Australia|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{WP Australia|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{WP Australia}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


  • {{WP Australia|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{WP Australia|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance


The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.