Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd/Assessment

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


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

Contents

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 Pink Floyd 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 {{WPFloyd}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPFloyd
|class=
|importance=
|barrett=
|gilmour=
|waters=
|wright=
|mason=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Pink Floyd articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may 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[edit]

Importance must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another. 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).

Consider a hierarchy such as History -> History of Europe -> History of Poland -> Polish kings and queens. An article labeled as "Top-Class" for the subject of history would probably warrant inclusion in V0.5, V1.0 and other releases. A "Top-Class" article for the history of Poland would be a reasonable candidate for inclusion, but most "Top-Class" articles on Polish kings & queens would probably not be included in early releases. Nevertheless such ranking within a subject area is very helpful in deciding which articles are included first as the scope of the Wikipedia 1.0 project expands. Quality articles which are not considered to be on topics important enough for inclusion on V0.5 will be held in a held nominations page, ready for inclusion as the scope expands.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia. High probability that non-Floyd fans would look this up. Main article, The Dark Side of the Moon, Live performances, The Wall, Group members,
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the encyclopaedia. Subject is notable or significant within the fan community, but not necessarily outside it Majority of the studio albums, Another Brick in the Wall, various DSotM articles
Mid Subject fills in more minor details, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Publius Enigma
Low Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial. Sigma 6

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.

  1. Add articles here!

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.

Articles by quality log - Pink Floyd[edit]

Articles by quality log - Syd Barrett[edit]

Articles by quality log - David Gilmour[edit]

Articles by quality log - Roger Waters[edit]

Articles by quality log - Richard Wright[edit]