Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/Assessment

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

Article assessment is the process by which shark related articles are sorted into different qualities. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles.

Assessment scale[edit]

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

These criteria apply to general-content articles. Shark articles have additional criteria/guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for an article of each class; see the talk page for discussion of these.

Each shark related article has its assessment included inside the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk}} template, such as {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sharks/SharksTalk|class=B}}. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's discussion pagefor more information.

Specific requirements[edit]

An article about a species has the following requirements:

  • A taxobox - Following the guidelines set out by the Tree of Life WikiProject
  • A picture in the taxobox - Clearly identifiable image of the species
  • Introduction - A short summary-like paragraph
  • Naming - Why the species has that name, names in other languages, etc.
  • Distribution - Information about where they are found - oceanic, reef, etc.
  • Distribution map - Follow the guidelines on the template shark article to put a map at the bottom of the taxobox
  • Anatomy - Body shape, respiration, life histories, etc.
  • Diet - What they eat
  • Behaviour - description of the behaviour exhibited by the species
  • Reproduction - how the species mates and reproduces
  • References - A references section at the end, preferably with inline sourcing throughout the article

Assessment guidelines[edit]

The following are specific assessment guidelines specifically for shark related articles.

  • Stub class- No structure, only brief sentence or two - Use {{Stub-Class}}
  • Start class- Some structure, brief paragraph - Use {{Start-Class}}
  • B class- Decent structure, at least one paragraph for most required headers, inline sourcing, includes distribution map and at least one image - Use {{B-Class}}
  • GA class- All required headers with good amount of text, a few relevant images. Should have passed GA - Use {{GA-Class}}
  • A class- Everything is fully mentioned, sub-sections for larger headers, cite web formatting, should be nearly ready for FAC - Use {{A-Class}}
  • FA class- Passed FAC - Use {{FA-Class}}


Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid Subject fills in more minor details
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest.

Assessment process[edit]

To create a new assessment discussion here, add the article to be assessed in a level three (e.g. ===[[Article name]]===) sub-section of the Article assessments section below. Give the article's exact name in the title with a wikilink. Finally, add the "assessed=yes" parameter to the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk}} template near the top of the article's talk page.

After the header add your comments in a table like this:


Substituting CLASS for what you think the class is, IMPORTANCE for what you think the importance is and REMARKS for any comments you have on the article and then sign off with four tildes (~~~~) after the REMARKS.

When filling in the CLASS use the class templates to colour the table cell:

  • {{Stub-Class}}
  • {{Start-Class}}
  • {{B-Class}}
  • {{GA-Class}}
  • {{A-Class}}
  • {{FA-Class}}

And for IMPORTANCE use the importance templates:

  • {{Top-importance}}
  • {{High-importance}}
  • {{Mid-importance}}
  • {{Low-importance}}

Current practice is that Stub-Start-B assessments are done by individual editors when looking at an article. Before upgrading to A-class the article should be discussed here to make sure everyone agrees. Once the article is A-class you should probably get general peer review on it and then follow the normal process for making the article a FA article. Peer review (PR) and FA candidates (FAC) should be announced here to get more specific comments from the editors.

Article assessments[edit]

Automatically updated list of shark articles and their status.

Bahamas sawshark[edit]

Stub Low Have only taxobox and references Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Basking shark[edit]

B High Suggest submit for GA. Comments? Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
B Top Good inline references, good headers. I think this could be submitted for GA. chris_huh 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blacktip shark[edit]

Start Mid Yomanganitalk 15:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Blue shark[edit]

B High Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bull shark[edit]

B High Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuban dogfish[edit]

Start Low Yomanganitalk 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gray reef shark[edit]

Start High Only behaviour and intro section. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Great hammerhead[edit]

Start High Good start class, but a bit thin for B class. Stefan 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Great white shark[edit]

B Top Lacks inline references! Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


B High Resonable content. Lacks inline references. Stefan 09:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Proper inline references have been provided in the new revision of this article. The over-all content of this article has also been considerably improved. LeGenD 03:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This article have been submitted for GA class. LeGenD 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oceanic whitetip shark[edit]

Featured article FA High Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Scalloped hammerhead[edit]

Start High Good start class, but a bit thin for B class. Stefan 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


GA Top After collaboration of the week I nominated this for GA. Stefan 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Accepted. Stefan 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiger shark[edit]

B High Submitted for GA 5 Sep. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Failed GA due to occasionally has a non-encyclopedic tone and to few references. Stefan 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
COTF finished, what should we do now, reapply for GA or maybe get a peer-review, or just leave it for a bit? chris_huh 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we should reapply, think the text is much better now, maybe we need some more references, I will continue to work on that for a while, but I have very little time for wiki for the next week or so! Stefan 09:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I nominated it again, lets see what happens. Stefan 08:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Whale shark[edit]

B Top Submitted for GA 5 Sep. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)