Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment

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

Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | C-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject New Zealand! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's New Zealand articles.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject New Zealand}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:New Zealand articles by quality and Category:New Zealand articles by importance.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject New Zealand}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
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 New Zealand WikiProject 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.

Instructions[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject New Zealand}} project banner on its talk page, and it produces the adjacent table:

{{WPNZ|class=|importance=}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed New Zealand articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale above, which is explained in further detail in the table below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The importance parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and should be omitted in those cases. The importance 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 New Zealand.

Importance ratings reflect the perceived importance to WikiProject New Zealand, and often differ from the ratings in other WikiProjects. For example, Daniel Carter Beard is rated Top-importance in WikiProject Scouting, but not rated at all in WikiProject New Zealand (although Daniel Carter's beard potentially might be).

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Requesting an assessment[edit]

  • Please assess Kiwifruit, it is a top importance piece with a lot of viewership, it should be at least B may need a little help to become A, if you can indicate things to fix to make it A it would be good as well.144.188.128.3 (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi New Zealand! Is it okay to move Charles Eyton up to start class? Cheers, - ManicSpider (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Mark Donaldson (rugby player) please confirm importance to project and assess whether it should be promoted to Start or C-class. AusTerrapin (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Assessed as Start class. I left the importance at low, but if somebody else wants to elevate this, I wouldn't object. Schwede66 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will hand it over to the WP:RU/WP:NZ to carry forward from here. Rugby union is not my field of expertise - I mainly worked up the article from the French wikipedia in order to stop bots incorrectly linking the French page for the NZ rugby player to the English wikipedia page for the Australian VC Winner - it was starting to get very tedious. Hopefully the new page and some of the associated cross-wiki disambiguation I did will fix that problem once and for all. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Classic Hits FM - please assess against B-class requirements. dramatic (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    Replied on article talk page. Liveste (talkedits) 12:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Funtime Comics, assessed as C class, low importance. The article has good content and inline referencing, but as noted in the history, much of the referencing is to an open wiki edited by the people the article is about. This is not a reason to delete the article, but limits how highly it can be assessed. Low importance because it has only a few views per day.
  • New Plymouth - clearly higher than start class since expansion. Does it meet B? Needs attention to Neutrality, as quite a bit was added by a user identifying tith the New Plymouth District Council. dramatic (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Assessed as C class, with comments at Talk:New Plymouth/Comments. I don't see a major problem with neutrality in the sections added by NPDC.-gadfium 03:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Playcentre - expanded, new structure, fixed factual errors, added citation, new link Irishbreakfast NZ (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Still start class, only one inline reference, no picture or infobox, and at least one claim in it seems very dubious.
  • Richard Worth, sitting MP currently in the spot light with many news stories. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The article is well written and is probably C Class (currently Start Class). The importance is at least Mid, probably High, as he is a current important figure in NZ. Wallie (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Reassessed as C-Class. Liveste (talkedits) 03:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Reassessed as C-Class. Liveste (talkedits) 03:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed as Stub-class (mostly lists & tables, small amount of prose). Assessed as Low-importance (highly specific article). Liveste (talkedits) 03:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Pacific Islands Families Study
  • Destiny Church, New Zealand - Hopefully C class now. Probably needs more prose especially around church practices and beliefs rather than a list of controversies and possibly out-of-context quotes. Ropata (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 2009 Air New Zealand Cup - a lot of work gone into it, will be much appreciated if it is rated and see if improvements should be made. JaFa 01 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Long Range Desert Group has just achieved a GA rating, yet is listed as being of low importance. Consider, however, that this unit, which started as being manned entirely by New Zealanders and continued to have New Zealand manned Patrol units and some highly regarded COs, played an extremely important role during the desert campaign and, according to Rommel, did more damage to the role of the Axis in this theatre than any other unit of comparable size. The LRDG established ground-breaking desert navigation techniques, provided transport for the SAS, until the SAS got its own vehicles, etc, etc. The LRDG deserves more than a Low Importance rating. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Not really important to New Zealand's culture or history. I have kept as low-importance. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Princes Street, Dunedin - I've done a lot of work on this article in the last couple of weeks, and have assessed it as C/Mid... but I think it may be closer to a B/Mid now (it is pretty similar to the B/Mid Queen Street, Auckland). I'm too close to it to tell, having done most of the editing - can someone else give it the once-over, please? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 08:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Reassessed as B-class. If you expand the lead and add a few more refs it should be good to send to GAN. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll see what i can do. Grutness...wha? 09:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Much of the history section reads like an essay, I think a more encyclopedic tone would imptove the article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave it as start-class, as it is severely lacking in inline citations. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Assessed as C class, but not far off from B - see talk page for notes. dramatic (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
February 2011 Christchurch earthquake is B class these days, but if somebody is interested, it could be put to reassessment again. Schwede66 04:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Left it at Start class and replied on the talk page with suggestions for improvements. Schwede66 04:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Scrap that, it has been assess. Bit of a facepalm moment there.

Participants[edit]

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

  1. Adabow (talk · contribs)
  2. Andrensath (talk · contribs)
  3. Avenue (talk · contribs)
  4. Ballofstring (talk · contribs)
  5. Capitolhill51 (talk · contribs)
  6. Dramatic (talk · contribs)
  7. ImperialismGo (talk · contribs)
  8. J947 (talk · contribs)
  9. Liveste (talk · contribs)
  10. NealeFamily (talk · contribs)
  11. nengscoz416 (talk · contribs)
  12. Nzv8fan (talk · contribs)
  13. Schwede66 (talk · contribs)
  14. Sir Anon (talk · contribs)
  15. Te Karere (talk · contribs)
  16. UltraZit (talk · contribs)
  17. Wallie (talk · contribs)
  18. Wiki9871434 (talk · contribs)
  19. wdd123 (talk · contribs)
  20. XLerate (talk · contribs)
  21. Egghead06 (talk · contribs)

Example assessments[edit]

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

Quality

  • {{WPNZ|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{WPNZ|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{WPNZ|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{WPNZ|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{WPNZ|class=C}} - to rate an article at C-Class
  • {{WPNZ|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{WPNZ|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{WPNZ|class=List}} - to rate an article at List-Class
  • {{WPNZ|class=redir}} - to classify a redirect. (Importance rating not needed)
  • {{WPNZ|class=disambig}} - to classify a disambiguation page. (Importance rating not required)
  • {{WPNZ}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


Importance

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