Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Computing. This project aims to assess articles under the scope of WikiProject Computing and help improving Wikipedia.
If you have encountered an article that you believe has been sufficiently improved, please list it here and a reviewer will reassess the article and leave comments, usually within a day or two.
Quality assessment procedures
- Until an article meets good article criteria and passes good article nomination, it can be reassessed according to the quality criteria to Stub-, Start-, C-, or B-Class. This can be done for improvement or decline, by any editor.
- To promote an article to GA-class, the article must pass review as a good article nominee. To demote an article from GA-class to B-class or below, the article must undergo good article reassessment.
- To promote an article to A-class, the article must undergo review on the talk page.
- To promote an article to FA-class, the article must be pass review as a featured article candidate. To demote an article from FA-class, the article must be undergo featured article review.
Some articles are of interest for both this project and WikiProject Computer Security. While assessing, please update both projects Quality and Importance, if you can.
- I noticed that in Talk:Fucking Machines that this unfortunate article has a Good Article status from this WikiProject. This status needs to be reconsidered and likely removed. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Rharner (talk · contribs) 01:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC) - requested by
- F (talk · contribs) 10:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — requested by
- ejl389 (talk · contribs) 18:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) — requested by
- Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk · contribs) 14:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC) — requested by
- coldacid (talk · contribs) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — requested by
- Kvng (talk · contribs) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC) - requested by
- Tama63 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC) - requested by
- Nczempin (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC): While there are a lot of references for little details such as when this or that product was released, there are numerous OR/POV issues, and overall it doesn't feel sufficiently complete to be on the brink of a GA. - requested by -
- Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 08:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC) - requested by
The following list is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_Security/Assessment#Open_requests of the related project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_Security, that recently has created the Assessment departement.
You can join that department, if you like,here.
Please, review them and update the transcluded page accordingly.
- Shadowjams (talk · contribs) 20:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — requested by
- AradiaSilverWheel (talk · contribs) 14:20, 15 June 2012 — requested by
- AradiaSilverWheel (talk · contribs) 13:07, 19 June 2012 — requested by
Recent assessment changes
How to assess an article
Anyone can assess a listed article.
- Study the quality guidelines. Carefully determine which class applies.
- Leave comments about your assessment on the talk page.
- Edit the
class=parameter on each relevant project banner.
- to remove the request.
- Include in the edit summary e.g.:
Assessed [[ArticleName]], changed from Start-class to C-class
|Class||Criteria||Reader's experience||Editing suggestions||Example|
|FA||The article has attained featured article status by passing an official review.
|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.||Microsoft
|A||The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
|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. Peer review may help.||
(as of June 2014)
|GA||The article has attained good article status by passing an official review.
|Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.||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.||Alan Turing
|B||The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|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 also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.||Endianness|
|C||The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
|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.||
(as of August 2014)
|Start||An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.
|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.||
(as of February 2014)
|Stub||A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.
|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.||
(as of February 2013)
|FL||The article has attained featured list status.
|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 convicted computer criminals
List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems
|List||Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 Java keywords
List of computer viruses
|Top||Essential network technology and protocols, major companies and people, and anything that forms the basis of all information||Computer network, Internet Protocol, Cisco|
|High||Popular protocols, architectures, or anything that covers a general area of knowledge||Firewall (computing)|
|Mid||Core networking components, or anything that fills in more specific information of certain areas||Ethernet physical layer|
|Low||Optional add-ons that are not fairly important, or anything that is an obscure piece of trivia||Gibson MaGIC, OmniPeek|
The statistics below are from the last time the assessment tool scanned the WikiProject Computing articles. To see the latest results, have the assessment tool update the data, then reload this page.
|Computing articles by quality and importance|
|WikiWork factors (?)||ω =129,462||Ω = 5.35|
Project participants interested in assessment
- -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Phillip A (talk)
- SOL Basic 00:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Message From Xenu (talk · contribs)
- Josemanimala (talk · contribs)
- Some Old Man (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- C21Ktalk 14:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Daydreamer302000 (talk · contribs) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- decltype (talk · contribs) 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Andy Chat c 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- --Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Airplaneman (talk · contribs) 7:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kvng (talk · contribs) --Kvng (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nullw0rm (Talk? - Contribs?) 18:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dexp (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- --Pastore Italy (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pnm (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jamesrules90 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- – ebraminiotalk 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Enfcer (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ankit Maity (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- --Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Cloud_computing
- Bardi1100 (talk)
- Diego (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- -- Trevj (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jarash (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Simon Bramfitt talk
- Enrique Villar 13:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (St. Paul's Fall)