Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston/Assessment

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

Welcome to the assessment department of the Houston WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Houston. 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 {{WPHouston}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Houston 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 WikiProject Houston 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.

We are rating articles for quality using the Houston articles by quality scale (based on this) and for importance using the Release Version Criteria scale. Once articles are rated for either they will show up on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Houston articles by quality. To rate an article, add the following next to the {{WPHouston}} tag:

| class = [X]
| importance = [Y]


  • [X] = Stub, Start, B, A, GA, or FA (also NA, Disambig, Cat, or Template)
  • [Y] = Low, Mid, High, or Top

Please be sure to capitalize!

Note: You should not assign any article GA, A, or FA grades arbitrarily. These grades must pass through official Wikipedia channels.

Assessment requests[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.

1. Request for assessment of BMC Software — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj8744 (talkcontribs)

Done, Postoak 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Request for assessment of Houston Texans. Sigep 252 06:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, please see Talk:Houston Texans/Comments. Postoak 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Request for assessment of Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District. Andrewtchin 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, please see Talk:Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District/Comments. Postoak 05:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Request for assessment of The Regis School of the Sacred Heart. —Travis C/T\U 12:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, please see Talk:The Regis School of the Sacred Heart/Comments Postoak 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

5. Request for assessments of The Woodlands, Texas, Cy-Fair High School, and Rice Owls. --Korranus 03:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, please see the comments link in the WikiProject Houston talk page banner for each article. Postoak 18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

6. Request for reassessment of University of Houston. Brianreading 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent good article. Postoak (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Request for assessment of History of the Houston Police Department.--Hourick (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, Talk:History of the Houston Police Department/Comments

8. Request for reassessment of Lovett College. DoctorDocEOL 06:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, Talk:Lovett College/Comments

9. Request for assessment of Quanell X.Deatonjr (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. No change was made, I believe it is appropriately assessed as a B-class article.Brianreading (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

10. Request for reassessment of Williams Waterwall. --Gnat (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, this was reassessed as a start-class. Brianreading (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

11. Request for reassessment of University of Houston System. --Brianreading (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, Talk:University of Houston System/Comments Postoak (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

11. Request for reassessment of Galveston Bay Area. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: This article was assessed very recently but has been substantitally scrubbed since then.

12. Request for reassessment of Allen Ranch. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Expanded from a stub to a rough article. Please reassess quality and importance.

13. Request for reassessman of Jew Don Boney. --sschwart Article expanded, more links, clear citations from national publications. April 28, 2010.

14. Request for assessment of Thomas William House, Sr.. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 11:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

15. Request for reassessment of Rice Lofts. The text has been expanded, all cleanup requests have been addressed, and it has been edited, proofread, and edited some more for grammar, style, and fact-checking. There are three bugs listed on Wikidata that won't go away. Are they false positives? Thanks.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)oldsanfelipe

16. Request for assessment of Michel Branamour Menard. Do I need to make a similar request from WP Texas? Thanks. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)oldsanfelipe

Quality Scale[edit]

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light.
A-Class article A
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.
Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful.
This page is a list.    
The page is not an article and does not require a rating.    
The article does not exist and needs to be created.    
This page is a category related to WikiProject Houston.    
This page is a template related to WikiProject Houston.    
This page is a disambiguation page related to WikiProject Houston.    

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 25, 2016[edit]



  • J. J. Watt (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

October 23, 2016[edit]


October 22, 2016[edit]


October 20, 2016[edit]


October 19, 2016[edit]


October 18, 2016[edit]


  • Leary Lentz (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

October 15, 2016[edit]



October 13, 2016[edit]


October 11, 2016[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.