Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Energy articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
Featured article FA 3 7 2 1 13
Featured list FL 1 2 3
GA 8 9 20 32 1 70
B 22 89 117 121 28 377
C 24 132 262 502 170 1,090
Start 4 200 666 4,002 9 780 5,661
Stub 20 191 3,963 78 1,517 5,769
List 1 64 72 209 7 81 434
Category 5,273 5,273
Disambig 1 21 22
File 46 46
Portal 2 2
Project 1 1
Template 1 3 7 17 195 223
NA 4 13 252 269
Other 1 1 2
Assessed 61 520 1,347 8,865 5,884 2,578 19,255
Unassessed 1 15 2,228 2,244
Total 61 520 1,348 8,880 5,884 4,806 21,499
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 68,713 Ω = 5.28

Welcome to the assessment department of the Energy WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Energy or the people of Energy. 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 Energy}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Energy articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

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 Energy 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[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Energy
|class=
|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 energy articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
Featured article 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 our 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; and
    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.
  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 either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—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.
 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)
A-Class article 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 has attained good article status having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article criteria:

A good article is—

  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, and the 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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor 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 fair 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 (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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of December 2017)
B-Class article B  The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the six B-Class 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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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 and 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. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, 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. The Hague
(as of June 2018)
C-Class article 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.
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; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.
 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-Class article Start  An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 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. Ring-tailed cardinalfish
(as of June 2018)
Stub-Class article Stub  A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.
 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. Crescent Falls
(as of June 2018)
Featured list FL  The article has attained featured list status.
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.
    • (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) 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.
  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)
 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 Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947
(as of June 2018)

Requesting an 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.

Assessment log[edit]

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.

October 8, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 7, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 6, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

October 5, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 4, 2018[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 3, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 2, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 1, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • Lakehouse (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Low-Class (rev · t).

September 30, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 29, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 28, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 27, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 26, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • Baqoura (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

September 25, 2018[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • Naharayim (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • ONEOK (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

September 24, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 23, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 22, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 21, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 20, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 19, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Worklist[edit]

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_Energy/Assessment&oldid=817594742"