Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment page of the WikiProject Oregon, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Oregon-related articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 programme.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Oregon}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Oregon articles by quality and Category:Oregon articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Number of articles (blue) and total pages (orange) on WikiProject Oregon's radar, 2007-2009. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin and Admin2 for the data behind this chart.

FAQ

[edit]
See also the general assessment FAQ.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Oregon}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Oregon}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Oregon is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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.
8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
People at Wikipedia:Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page.
9. 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.
10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
11. What if I have a question not listed here?
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Oregon}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Oregon | class=??? | importance=??? }}

The following values for the class parameter may be used:

These classes no longer need to be explicitly specified to the template. They are deduced by the namespace of the page the template is placed upon.

The following values for the importance parameter may be used:

Articles for which a class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Oregon articles and articles for which an importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Oregon articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

If one of the values are mistyped or otherwise invalid, bright red text is displayed on the page and placed in category:Oregon articles needing attention.

Quality scale

[edit]

The quality "class" an article receives should follow Wikipedia's regular guidelines for quality found below.

Articles which have not been formally evaluated, or which have failed a good article review, should not be assigned a quality rating higher than B class. Above that an article needs to go through a formal review process.
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.
Exploding whale

As of 05-19-2007
 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 tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon

As of 03-13-2008
 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.
Oregon State Capitol

As of 08-06-2007
 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.
Oregon Supreme Court

As of 05-16-2007
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.
Oregon

As of 05-19-2007
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.
Wallace P. Carson, Jr.

As of 05-19-2007
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.
Oregon Spectator

As of 05-19-2007
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

Importance scale

[edit]
Status Meaning of Status
Top This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

Notes on importance to WikiProject Oregon

[edit]

This is only for assessment of articles that fall within the Oregon WikiProject.

For determining the Importance rating (Low, Mid, High, Top) please keep the following in mind:

  • Keep a historical perspective.
  • Keep a geographical perspective.
  • Every item in the Project is already important and notable, otherwise it would not be on Wikipedia.
  • Approximate breakdown of the percentage of articles in each category as a goal.
    • Low=80%
    • Mid=15%
    • High=5%
    • Top=1%
  • Actual breakdown excluding n/a items:
Date Top High Mid Low Total
Articles
May 2007 0.67% 3.55% 21.11% 74.67% 1942
Sept 2007 0.99% 3.62% 22.83% 72.56% 4337
Apr 2011 0.50% 2% 14.48% 83.02% 10,317
Dec 2012 0.43% 1.71% 12.84% 85.03% 12,169
April 2014 0.53% 2.20% 14.35% 82.92% 13,135
Oct 2015 0.49% 2.06% 13.67% 83.78% 14,391
Mar 2016 0.72% 2.61% 12.85% 83.82% 14,877

Rules as bullet lists

[edit]

In late October 2015, YBG converted the below rules into the table below. I'm not sure which form is better.

People
  • Governors should automatically be in the High category. If they also served in the federal government as a top official (i.e. Hatfield, Goldschmidt) or some other major accomplishments/contributions (McCall) then they should move up to Top, and also up to Top if they did something else special.
  • U.S. Congress people (or other federal positions such as judge or head of a department) should be in the Mid category, unless they served in a leadership role (minority/majority leader, committee chair, etc.), then up to High; U.S. Senators also to High, and if served in a leadership position or other notable position, to Top.
  • State-level politicians (supreme court judges, members of the house/senate, mayors, secretary of state, etc.) should remain in the Low category unless they served in multiple places (Paulus in both legislature and sec. of state), or had a leadership role in their branch (Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, etc.) then up to Mid. If they did more, then they probably served in Congress or as governor and would fall under those guidelines. If they served in a leadership role, and won another statewide position, and had some other major accomplishment then High.
  • Local politicians: Should remain Low; mayors of cities with 100,000+ in population are Mid.
  • Pioneers should remain in the Low category unless they have a major statewide historical significance or received national attention (Meek, the Whitmans), then to Mid. If they helped to found a town still in existence and served in the state government (Lovejoy) then also to Mid. If more, then to High (Young as the impetus for the prov government, and Top if more significant (John McLoughlin who is designated as the Father of Oregon by the state).
  • Athletes also should remain as Low, unless they are a member of the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame or an Olympic medalist, then to Mid. If they are also a member of a national sports hall of fame and spent most of their career in Oregon then High. If they won a major award (MVP, Heisman Trophy), also High. Someone like Steve Prefontaine who attained national prominence and has an event named after him would justify a Top.
  • Artists/entertainers: Top 10 song on some recognized chart, a nomination to a major award (Oscar, GRAMMY, Golden Globe, MTV, Tony, etc.) are Mid; major award winner to High; number 1 single or multiple major award winner or induction into a hall of fame gets you to Top.
  • Writers: Winners of major awards (Pulitzer, Caldicott, and other national awards) bump to High. Statewide award winners get you Mid.
  • Other people: Local significance only then Low. Statewide impact then Mid. National prominence then High. All of these and long-term impact then Top. If a person is notable across multiple areas, multiple criteria can be used to move them into a higher rating. For example, if Clyde Drexler was elected as governor, he would be bumped to Top.
Buildings and structures
  • Base level is Low. Any structure (needs to have been built) over 250 feet (76 m) to Mid. Ten tallest structures are High, and tallest is Top.
  • National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) default is Low. If a National Historic Landmark, then Mid. Any other fame of note bumps up a level for either.
  • Bridges: All bridges over 1,000 feet (300 m) in total length or they carry an Interstate, they are Mid; if both, to High. Longest bridge is Top, as is any Interstate bridge over 1000 feet on the NRHP.
  • Shopping centers/malls: over 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) of retail space to Mid.
Geography
  • Non-incorporated communities should go into the Low. Incorporated cites/towns are Mid; CDPs with 10,000+ are Mid; county seats and any city with 50,000+ people are High; five most populous cities and state capitol are Top.
  • Physical geography articles should go into the Low category unless they cover multiple counties, then Mid (Northern Oregon Coast Range). If they affect a large number of counties, then High (Willamette River, Eastern Oregon). If they tend to be what people know about the state and affect many counties then Top (Oregon Coast, Cascade Mountains).
  • National wildlife refuges or other national protected areas are Mid (except wilderness areas as they are usually contained within another protected area), national monuments are High, and national parks are Top.
  • Roads: If a road is only in one county, or just barely in a second county, then Low; all interstate spurs (405/205) and all US signed routes (US 20) to High; top 10 busiest roads/freeways are High; mainline interstates are Top.
Entities
  • Articles on companies/organizations/governmental bodies should go into the Low category, unless they have an impact beyond the local level then Mid. Five largest employers (except government) are Top.
  • Businesses based in Oregon: companies with annual revenues of $100 million+ or listed on a major stock exchange (NASDAQ/NYSE) to Mid; Fortune 1000 companies or those with annual revenues of $1 billion+ to High (Lithia Motors); Fortune 500 companies into Top (Nike).
  • Organizations such as museums or libraries would move to Mid if they have a regional impact (Oregon Historical Society), and High if they are of a national stature (OMSI).
  • Government institutions with large operations throughout the state would be Mid (Oregon State Police), while the heads of the three branches of government would be High (Governor of Oregon).
  • School districts: those with more than 5,000 students are Mid, those with 10,000 and up are High, and the largest to Top.
  • Colleges and universities: Base level is Low.
  • Four year schools: All four-year colleges are Mid; all professional schools that have split-off articles (pharm, med, dental, law, business, journalism, etc.) are Mid; all four-year colleges with 2,500 students or more are High, with the three largest and oldest as Top.
  • Community colleges and any other two-year schools: Those with enrollments over 5,000 are Mid, those with over 10,000 are High.
Events & other items
  • Event articles should go into the Low category unless it had a long-term impact over a significant region (as in more than just one county) or a statewide impact over a short period, then Mid (Columbus Day Storm of 1962). If it had statewide and long term impact then High (Oregon Bottle Bill). If it has a statewide, long-term impact and receives national attention then Top (Oregon Constitutional Convention).
  • For everything else, the default should be Low. Then if there is some sort of significant reason to move it up to Mid do so if the item had more than just a local (city, county) plus a lasting effect of more than a year or so. If the effects are larger or longer term then High. If it helps to define what Oregon is to people, then Top.

Rules presented as a table

[edit]

Anything that meets WP:Notability and is related to Oregon merits at least a Low rating. These tables give criteria for Mid, High and Top ratings.

p: People
Mid High Top
p1: Federal officials
U.S. House member (or judge, cabinet member, other Federal official) U.S. Senator or U.S. House leader (minority/majority leader, committee chair, etc.) U.S. Senate leader (minority/majority leader, other notable official)
p2: State and local officials (supreme court judges, members of the house/senate, secretary of state, etc.)
served in multiple places (Paulus in legislature and sec. of state), or leadership role in their branch (Chief Justice, Speaker of House, etc.)
(If they did more, then they probably served in Congress or as governor and would fall under those guidelines.)
mayor of city with 100,000+ population 		served in a leadership role, and won another statewide position, and had some other major accomplishment.
Oregon governors 		Oregon governors who also served in the federal government as a top official (i.e. Hatfield, Goldschmidt) or some other major accomplishments/contributions (McCall) or if they did something else special.
p3: Pioneers
major statewide historical significance, or received national attention (Meek, Whitmans) or helped found town still in existence and served in state government (Lovejoy) greater role (Young, impetus for provisional government). greater significance (John McLoughlin, 'Father of Oregon' per state).
p4: Athletes
in Oregon Sports Hall of Fame or won Olympic medal spent most of career in Oregon and either in national hall of fame or won major award (MVP, Heisman) those like Steve Prefontaine who attained national prominence and has an event named after him
p5: Oregon artists, entertainers, writers
top 10 song on recognized chart, or nominated for national award, or won statewide award won a national award number 1 single or multiple major award winner or induction into a hall of fame
National awards include Oscar, GRAMMY, Golden Globe, MTV, Tony, Pulitzer, Caldicott, and similar major awards
p6: Other people
statewide impact or local impact in multiple areas national prominence or statewide impact in multiple areas national prominence in multiple areas or with a long-term impact
(e.g., Clyde Drexler, if he were elected governor.)
b:Buildings and structures
Mid High Top
b1: Buildings
Any structure (built) > 250 feet
Shopping centers/malls > 1M ft2 retail space 		Ten tallest structures Tallest structure
b2: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
NRHP that is either a National Historic Landmark, or has some other fame of note. NRHP that is both a National Historic Landmark, and has some other fame of note.
b3: Bridges
either > 1,000 feet total length or carry an Interstate both > 1,000 feet total length and carry an interstate > 1,000 feet and carry an interstate and on NRHP
Longest in state
g:Geography
Mid High Top
g1: Inhabited places
CDP with 10,000+ or incorporated City with 50,000+ or county seat Top 5 in population or state capitol
g2: Physical geography articles
cover multiple counties (Northern Oregon Coast Range). affect a large number of counties (Willamette River, Eastern Oregon) affect many counties and help identify Oregon (Oregon Coast, Cascade Mountains).
g3: Protected areas
National wildlife refuge or other national protected area (except wilderness area as they are usually contained within another protected area). National monument National park
g4: Roads
significant lengths in 2+ counties interstate spur (405/205) or US signed route (US 20) or top 10 busiest roads/freeways mainline interstates
o:Organizations and other entities
Mid High Top
o1: Companies, organizations and government bodies
impact beyond the local level Five largest private employers
o2: Oregon-based businesses
on major exchange (NASDAQ/NYSE) or revenue > $100M/year Fortune 1000 company or revenue > $100B/year (Lithia Motors) Fortune 500 company (Nike)
o3: Organizations such as museums and libraries
regional impact (Oregon Historical Society). national stature (OMSI).
o4: Government institutions
large statewide operations (Oregon State Police). heads of 3 branches (Governor of Oregon) summary article (Government of Oregon)
o5: School districts, colleges, universities
district with 5,000+ students
4-year college
2-year school, 5,000+ students
Professional school with split-off article (pharm, med, dental, law, business, journalism, etc.) 		district with 10,000+ students
4-year college with 2,500+ students
2-year school, 10,000+ students 		among largest in state
The 3 largest and oldest in state
x: Other stuff
Mid High Top
x1: Events
long-term impact over multiple counties or short-term statewide impact (Columbus Day Storm) long-term statewide impact (Oregon Bottle Bill) long-term statewide impact with national attention (Oregon Constitutional Convention)
x2: Other stuff
significant more-than-local effect lasting > 1 year larger or longer-term effects help to define what Oregon is to people

Statistics

[edit]

From Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Oregon articles by quality statistics

Oregon articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Total
FA 4 5 9 31 49
FL 1 8 9
FM 10 10
GA 10 23 47 221 301
B 29 56 189 553 827
C 36 117 342 1,491 1,986
Start 27 185 1,110 5,992 7,314
Stub 6 306 7,500 7,812
List 6 29 310 345
Category 5,172 5,172
Disambig 92 92
File 327 327
Portal 591 591
Project 108 108
Redirect 2 1,161 1,163
Template 543 543
NA 1 1
Other 29 29
Assessed 106 398 2,033 16,108 8,034 26,679
Unassessed 1 1
Total 106 398 2,033 16,109 8,034 26,680
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 94,469 Ω = 5.17


Requests for 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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

  • China Ditch - opinion on B-class
  • Bill Hansell - Request reassessment; originally Start-class; now expanded 5x so it should be B or C level

A Class assessment

[edit]

If you feel that an article meets the criteria listed above for A Class status, please list it below. A minimum of two uninvolved editors will review the article based on the A Class criteria (see chart above) and determine if the article passes or fails. In the event of a tie, the article will not be promoted to A Class. Reviewers will use the GA quick fail criteria as a screening process. Caution: this process may take several weeks.

  • Add A Class requests below
  • Reviewers: After selecting an article, remove it from the above list and place it on the A class assessment page at: Under Review.

WikiProject Oregon no longer uses the level classification for articles.

Assessment Log

[edit]

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Oregon/Assessment&oldid=1172608891"