Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Assessment
The WikiProject Women's History assessment system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively.
In addition to assessing article quality, for which there are generally accepted article assessment criteria, we can also assess articles for their importance in Women's History. Importance is always somewhat subjective and will vary from project to project, so that an article may be of top importance to one project but of low importance to another, regardless of its quality.
To assess an article, consult the standards below; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use
|class=B in the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless they are currently designated as such.
|Women's History articles by quality and importance|
All the articles which have been assessed by this project can be found here.
Articles needing assessment
The following articles need assessment! Please take a look and assess them according to the criteria below.
- Category:Unassessed Women's History articles
- Niguma - AD64 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mandarava - AD64 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Lady Constance Malleson is in need of reassessment. Thank you! --Dnllnd (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Salon (gathering) & Salon (France) & Historiography of the salon have identical content, a merge seems appropriate. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Women's History recommends the following guidelines for assessing an article's importance to the project once it has met the criteria for inclusion under the project's banner. To ask questions or suggest changes, please join the discussion at the project's talk page.
|Top||Core topic for the understanding or study of women's history. Of global significance. No encyclopedia would be complete without the article.||Women's suffrage, Women in Islam|
|High||Of fundamental importance within a particular culture, country, or time period. For biographies, a person who had an international or pervasive impact on history. Encyclopedic coverage of women's history would be incomplete without the article. Of potential use for most readers interested in women's history.||History of women in the United States, Elizabeth I|
|Mid||Complements or expands coverage of core or major topics. Material contained in the article may be useful for an understanding of women's history at an intermediate level.||Women in the military in Europe, Empress Dowager Cixi|
|Low||Provides detailed or peripheral coverage of a narrowly defined topic with limited or localized impact. Omission of the article would not detract substantially from an understanding of women's history as a whole, but the article is of specialized or advanced interest.||Ranavalona I, Bryn Mawr College, Flapper, Ahalya|
WikiProject Women's History uses the same criteria for grading articles as those set out by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, as described below. (The examples given are general, and not specific to the project.)
|Class||Criteria||Reader's experience||Editing suggestions||Example|
|FA||The article has attained featured article status by passing an official review.
|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.||
(as of August 2014)
|A||The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
|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. Peer review may help.||
(as of June 2014)
|GA||The article has attained good article status by passing an official review.
|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.||
(as of August 2014)
|B||The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|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.||
(as of October 2017)
|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.
|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.||
(as of August 2014)
|Start||An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.
|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.||
(as of February 2014)
|Stub||A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.
|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.||
(as of February 2013)
|FL||The article has attained featured list status.
|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.||
(as of April 2014)
|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.||
(as of January 2013)