Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems
Shortcut

Article rating and assessment scheme

edit
WP:WS article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Listing, Log & Stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot)
Current detailed listing of Writing system articles by quality
Daily log of status changes
Current Statistics Rated article Categories
Writing system articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 1 1 1 3
  GA 3 3 3 3 12
B 16 83 93 186 18 396
C 17 79 99 230 29 454
Start 4 134 354 1,013 66 1,571
Stub 2 22 487 49 560
List 2 12 14 411 1 8 448
Category 324 324
Disambig 12 12
File 27 27
Portal 1 1
Project 6 6
Redirect 10 26 59 179 274
Template 424 424
NA 4 92 96
Other 6 6
Assessed 42 324 616 2,390 1,072 170 4,614
Unassessed 1 2 3
Total 42 324 616 2,390 1,073 172 4,617
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 14,253 Ω = 4.75




Rating reassessment needed

An article rating and assessment scheme has been implemented for Writing systems-related articles, which is monitored and maintained by WikiProject Writing systems. In this scheme, all Writing systems-related articles ('article' here also includes lists) may be assigned:

  • a particular rating which indicates an assessment of their class (overall quality), and
  • a particular rating which indicates an assessment of their importance (priority or relative significance).

The primary purpose of this rating and assessment scheme is to provide editors with a sub-categorised survey of the current status of Writing system articles, which can then be used to prioritise the overall workload and highlight articles needing improvements at various stages.

For example, higher-priority articles (those most essential to any encyclopaedia) in need of most work (i.e. lower quality) can be readily identified for attention and collaboration.

There will be a number of secondary benefits from the scheme, such as being able to track which kinds and topics of articles are 'neglected'.

This assessment and rating scheme follows the precepts adopted by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects for details.

The class and importance ratings are recorded by setting appropriate values to the parameters of the main WP:WS Project banner, {{WP Writing systems}}, which are placed on the corresponding talk pages of in-scope Writing system articles. See the template instructions for details on these and other parameters which can be set.

See the Quality scale for guideline criteria for rating an article by class/quality. See the Importance scale for guideline criteria for rating an article by importance/priority.

The assessments of class and importance are assigned manually by WP:WS project members (or other interested parties)– see the Rating instructions for details. Assigning a rating will automatically place the article in an appropriate rating category.

Once assigned, behind the scenes a bot (Mathbot (talk · contribs)) runs periodically (scheduled daily, about 0300hrs UTC) which compiles a variety of statistics and log data, which can then later be analysed.

It is expected that this rating and assessment scheme will require periodic and iterative maintenance, as new articles are created or identified, and existing articles are progressively improved (or, hopefully much rarer, demoted), requiring the status to be reassessed (indicated by changing the parameter value).

Of course, anyone is free to edit any of the articles they choose without regard to priority, however it is hoped that this will provide some basis for a more methodical approach to the longer-term overall improvement of content and coverage in the Writing systems field.

Instructions

edit

An article's assessment is recorded via the use of certain parameters of the {{WikiProject Writing systems}} project banners, which are affixed to the talk pages of in-scope articles. Note that there are some other (optional) parameters to the project banners as well, see Template talk:WikiProject Writing systems for full description.

The two parameters used for this exercise are class (indicates an assessment of the article's current overall quality) and importance (indicates an assessment of the relative priority or significance of the particular article to general knowledge of Writing systems topics). Usage summary (note the parameters are in lowercase):

{{WikiProject Writing systems|class=??? |importance=??? }}

These parameters flag the article according to the values chosen (which then appear on the project banner), and also assign the article to a corresponding category. The possible values of these parameters and guidance criteria on which value to choose are detailed below: see Importance scale for the importance parameter and Quality scale for the class parameter.

The general workflow is as follows:

  1. Locate an in-scope Writing systems-related article (or list), add the {{WikiProject Writing systems}} project banner to its talk page if not already there. (Note this also applies to new articles you may create, i.e. you can add the banner and the rating as you go).
  2. If currently unassessed (or when adding the project banner anew), determine what its class and importance assessment rating should be, using your judgement and the criteria given here. Try to be as frank as possible in the assessment, the aim here is to appropriately identify articles needing later improvement and there's nothing to be gained by "over-ranking" them.
  3. Add the selected parameter values to the project banner template call, per the specified syntax. Once previewed/saved, you should see the values updated in the banner and the appropriate categories assigned.
  4. If in doubt as to the appropriate class or importance level, you can either leave the value unassigned for now (i.e. omit the parameters), and/or consult with another project member to decide.
  5. If the article already has a rating, but you disagree or the article has subsequently been edited by you or someone else so that its overall quality has changed (hopefully for the better!), then you can update the parameter yourself to reflect its new status.
  6. Since we may (naturally enough) not be the most objective assessors of one's own work, it might be an idea in these or other unclear cases to invite another party to give the assessment. This can be done by adding the parameter/value combination |reassess=yes to the project banner, which will automatically assign the article in question to Category:Writing system articles needing reassessment. You can also request reassessments/second opinions at the main discussion forum.
  7. On an ongoing basis, you can patrol the various x-class categories for improvement opportunities, and also the unassessed cats for new assessments.

Importance scale

edit

The following values may be used for the importance parameter (they should be entered exactly as given):

Importance parameter values (Category:Writing system articles by importance)
Value Meaning Examples Category
Top "Key" articles, considered indispensable to any survey of Writing systems, such as: top-level articles on regions, cultures and the largest/most-influential sites, and pan-regional articles on critical topics e.g. History. Top-importance Writing system articles
High High-priority topics and needed subtopics of "key" articles, often with a broad scope; needed to complement any general understanding of the field High-importance Writing system articles
Mid Mid-priority articles on more specialised (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarised in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding Mid-importance Writing system articles
Low While still notable, these are highly specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles) Low-importance Writing system articles

The importance parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA or "redirect", and may be omitted in those cases. If the importance parameter is not yet set, or contains an invalid value, the article will be assigned to Category:Unassigned-importance Writing system articles.

Quality scale

edit

Each article may also be assigned to a particular class, intended as a point-in-time assessment of its overall "quality" - relative to the criteria given in the quality scale which is detailed below.

This quality scale follows the definitions employed at the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system.

The following values may be used for the class parameter (they should be entered exactly as given):

Class parameter values (Category:Writing system articles by quality)
Value Meaning Category
FA Articles which are currently Featured status articles FA-Class Writing system articles
A A-class articles; A-Class Writing system articles
GA Articles with a current Good article status GA-Class Writing system articles
B B-class articles; B-Class Writing system articles
Start Start-class articles; Start-Class Writing system articles
Stub Stub-class articles; Stub-Class Writing system articles
List List-class articles; Stub-Class Writing system articles
Disambiguation Disambiguation-class articles; Disambiguation pages
NA Not applicable; i.e. for miscellaneous pages that do not fall into any categories above Non-article Writing system pages

Articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed by default in Category:Unassessed Writing system articles.

Detailed criteria by class

edit

These are the detailed criteria per class/quality division, following the assessment scheme used by the Wikipedia V1.0 Editorial team.

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
  FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
  FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
  A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 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. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
  GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. 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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 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. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 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. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. 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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 literary movements
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_systems/Assessment&oldid=913952570"