Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Yorkshire articles |
Importance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
| Quality | |||||||
| 3 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 16 | |||
| 8 | 8 | ||||||
| 1 | 5 | 13 | 27 | 46 | |||
| B | 6 | 29 | 99 | 57 | 191 | ||
| C | 11 | 87 | 148 | 246 | |||
| Start | 5 | 39 | 623 | 1549 | 2216 | ||
| Stub | 10 | 363 | 3320 | 3693 | |||
| List | 2 | 8 | 122 | 132 | |||
| Assessed | 15 | 97 | 1200 | 5236 | 6548 | ||
| Unassessed | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Total | 15 | 97 | 1200 | 5236 | 1 | 6549 | |
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Yorkshire! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to Yorkshire. The article ratings are used within the project itself to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Yorkshire}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Yorkshire articles by quality and Category:Yorkshire articles by importance, which are themselves sub-categories of the master category for administration categories: Category:WikiProject Yorkshire.
Contents |
[edit] Frequently asked questions
- 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 Yorkshire WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- 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.
- 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.
[edit] Instructions
[edit] Quality assessments
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Yorkshire}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Yorkshire| ... | class=??? | ...}}
| B |
| C |
| Start |
| Stub |
| Needed |
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Yorkshire articles)
- FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Yorkshire articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Yorkshire articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Yorkshire articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Yorkshire articles)
- C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Yorkshire articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Yorkshire articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Yorkshire articles)
- Needed (for articles that do not yet exist but have been identified as subjects that should be covered; adds articles to Category:Needed-Class Yorkshire articles)
| Template |
| Disambig |
| Category |
| List |
| Portal |
| NA |
| ??? |
For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:
- Template (for templates; adds to Category:Template-Class Yorkshire articles)
- Dab or Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds to Category:Disambig-Class Yorkshire articles)
- Cat or Category (for categories; adds to Category:Category-Class Yorkshire articles)
- List (for lists; adds to Category:List-Class Yorkshire articles)
- Portal (for Portal related pages; adds to Category:Portal-Class Yorkshire articles)
- NA (for pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds to Category:NA-Class Yorkshire articles)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Yorkshire articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
[edit] Quality scale
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The article has attained featured article status.
|
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. | Tourette Syndrome (as of March 2009) |
|||
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a 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 matter would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. | Batman (1989 film) (as of October 2008) |
|||
The article has attained good article status.
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although 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. | Usain Bolt (as of May 2009) |
|||
| B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style and related style guidelines. | Jammu and Kashmir (as of September 2007) |
||
| C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues 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 address cleanup issues. | Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008) |
||
| Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Real analysis (as of November 2006) |
||
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic.
|
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. | Cuthwine (as of August 2008) |
||
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. | Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (as of February 2009) |
|||
| 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. | List of aikidoka (as of June 2007) |
[edit] Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Yorkshire}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Yorkshire| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance Yorkshire articles
- High - adds articles to Category:High-importance Yorkshire articles
- Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Yorkshire articles
- Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance Yorkshire articles
- Unknown - Any article not rated for importance is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance Yorkshire articles.
[edit] Importance scale
| Label | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Top | Articles describing the major structural elements of Yorkshire, or subjects of UK or international importance Examples: Leeds, Bradford, metropolitan boroughs, major urban areas, former county or municipal boroughs, Leeds Bradford Airport, Leeds University. |
| High | Articles describing the major infrastructure of Yorkshire, or subjects of significant importance to Yorkshire Examples: crown courts, large stations (both current and historical), towns that are not former boroughs, parliamentary constituencies, Grade I listed buildings. |
| Mid | Articles describing the minor infrastructure of Yorkshire Examples: medium sized stations, large libraries, magistrates courts, electoral wards, Grade II* listed buildings, nationally known schools, civil parishes, villages, notable localities. |
| Low | Articles describing subjects of local interest Examples: suburbs, small stations/metro stops, branch libraries, leisure centres, Grade II listed buildings, local parks. |
[edit] Assessment Requests
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.
Requested assessments
- J. B. Priestley.
Done - KC Stadium. I proofread/copyedited the entire article, removed unsourceable/irrelevant/unencyclopedic/trivial content, sourced everything I could, and placed a couple of citation-needed templates on items that seemed relevant but for which I couldn't immediately find a source. Cheers. Doonhamer | Banter 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Done - Tidied up Wetherby. See Talk:Wetherby#Clean_up for rationale. thx. RichardEll 23:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Done - Expanded Malham Tarn --JD554 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Done - Hebden.
Done - Hebden. I've implemented the suggestions and added a Geography section. I think that it is probably as complete as is necessary for a small village, but am happy to be told otherwise.Langcliffe (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Done - Roundhay Park I have added a lot of pictures and references. I think it is well beyond Start class.Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reassesed as C almost a B. References required in the History section and some fix-up of the layout to get the edit links in the right place and stop images overlapping text. Keith D (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- St James's University Hospital, Leeds I have added pictures and references and searched out history. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Done - Lawnswood, I think is up to around start class quality now. Can anyone assess it please? The citations are in the pipeline but the article is certainly developing.--Tubs uk (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reassessed as Start-class for the moment. The layout needs sorting out with the 2 images at the start moving down to stop the squash of text between the images & infobox. Also the references need filling out with at least titles, I would change them to use {{Cite web}} or one of the other Cite template as appropriate. Keith D (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hornsea Pottery Revamped and think it is more Start than Stub class now. I would welcome feedback.--Harkey (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Burnt Yates is a new page but I think it is up to a higher standard than stub and maybe even higher than start. But feedback and a rating would be nice please--Tubs uk (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Done--Harkey (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I added a few comments to the talk page and made minor (helpful - I hope) additions to the article.--Harkey (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Log
For a log of all the project's articles, please see here, and for the recent assessment changes, please see here.

