Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject
Scotland
General information
Main project page talk
Members talk
Scottish Wikipedians' notice board talk
 → Article requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
 → New images talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Scotland Portal talk
Departments
Assessment talk
 → Disputes talk
 → How to prepare an FAC talk
Article alerts talk
Peer review talk
Popular pages talk
Deletion sorting talk
Scottish WikiProjects and task forces
WikiProject Clans of Scotland talk
WikiProject Medieval Scotland talk
WikiProject Scottish Castles talk
WikiProject Scottish Islands talk
WikiProject Transport in Scotland talk
WikiProject Edinburgh talk
Fife task force talk
Football in Scotland task force talk
Scottish Gaelic task force talk
Scottish television task force talk
view · edit · changes
Scotland articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 13 18 30 62
FL 1 6 6 13
A 2 1 3
GA 5 34 80 176 3 298
B 33 197 213 682 125 1,250
C 15 197 591 2,930 259 3,992
Start 52 1,097 13,380 499 15,028
Stub 1 291 12,162 6 414 12,874
List 3 22 185 1,820 53 2,083
Category 15,890 15,890
Disambig 65 65
File 135 135
Portal 3 3
Project 44 44
Template 1,336 1,336
NA 1 24 423 795 1,243
Other 44 44
Assessed 57 520 2,505 31,610 18,318 1,353 54,363
Unassessed 2 236 238
Total 57 520 2,505 31,612 18,318 1,589 54,601
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 172,666 Ω = 5.15


Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | C-Class| Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Scotland. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Scotland articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also 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 {{WP Scotland}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Scotland articles by quality and Category:Scotland articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WP Scotland}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
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 Scotland WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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.
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WP Scotland}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WP Scotland| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Scotland articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

[edit]
Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment § Quality_scale
Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Examples
FA
{{FA-Class}} 		Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Scotland in the High Middle Ages, Scottish National Antarctic Expedition
A
{{A-Class}} 		Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Glenrothes
GA
{{GA-Class}} 		The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. Scotland, Kirkcaldy
B
{{B-Class}} 		Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. Church of Scotland, Football in Scotland
C
{{C-Class}} 		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. The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or trivia. 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. Golf in Scotland, Walter Scott
Start
{{Start-Class}} 		The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
 Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. Battle of Stirling Bridge, Central Lowlands
Stub
{{Stub-Class}} 		The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Queensberry House, Strathspey, Scotland
Needed
{{Needed-Class}} 		The article does not exist and needs to be created.      

Importance scale

[edit]
Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information in a key area.
High {{High-Class}} This article is important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge, or it covers a specific topic which has wide significance.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a specific area of knowledge and is needed for completeness.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Article importance standards

[edit]
  • Cities - Classed as top to high importance.
  • Other places - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Companies - Generally classed as mid to low importance, unless key global players (which should be rated high, not top).
  • Schools - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
  • Biographies - May be classed as high, mid or low importance, depending on global impact for historical figures, and national prominence for contemporary figures. Please do not rate any biographies as top for this project, even if they are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies (all Scots on that list will be rated as high).

Requesting an 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 the peer review department instead.

Requested

Completed

  • Please assess The Kirna. It is a new article. Alan, 17 August 2019
  • Please access Knox Academy, substantially rewritten with appropriate context/tone/sources/historical context. 4th August 2019.
  • Currently assessed as B Class which is a fair assessment, although would benefit from expansion on the Flanders section, which as their major foreign posting (with an attack on French fortifications) could be expanded and especially on actions at Glencoe, which are noteworthy Coldupnorth (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently assessed as C Class which is a fair assessment. Would benefit from expansion with more on his career, eg all 14 plants discovered and expansion where there is one sentence on his helping establish the new Russian botanical garden. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please assess Frightened Rabbit? It was just recently added to this Wikiproject; however, it needs to be rated.
  • Assessed as C Class but at the low end, in that there are substantial areas without citations and significant gaps, especially in recent history (eg lacking in 20th century developments and EU law influence on Scots law). Coldupnorth (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assessed currently as C Class. While the article is substantial in some areas, there are many unreferenced paragraphs and areas requiring citation so does not meet the criteria for B-class yet. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assessed currently as C Class. For B Class, the article would benefit from additional references, especially book/journal sources on the history of the site and collections. Further information on museum facilities as well as additional images would be needed Coldupnorth (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reassessment, @LordHarris:. I have noted your advice about restructuring. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have assessed this as C-class as it does contain a useful amount of information, with reliable referencing. It would be of use to a casual reader, but anyone wanting to do a more detailed study would have to look elsewhere. There is certainly scope to expand this article. Davidkinnen (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boclair Academy needs to be assessed. I just added it to the wikiproject. Thanks.
  • I've given it a C-class, but its possibly at the low end. There are parts of the article that are unreferenced and those that are are done using raw web links. {{cite web}} can be used, its not mandatory but it does ensure that the correct format is used. Pyrotec (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other issues that need to be addressed first, principally those flags at the top of the article. If notability is not established, it is likely to be deleated (regardedless of whether it has an assessment). It also needs a good clean up. There are web references that are semi-raw, if this statement is not understood I suggest that the template {{cite web}} is used as an aid. I also suggest that the Albums section appears at the end: the article at present looks like a list with a few paragraphs stuck on the end; that, I suggest, is not the impression that is intended to give, but it might seal its fate. Pyrotec (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. It's not my article but I plan to clean up a lot of the UK university a cappella articles, as many of them are of poor quality. I will request an assessment again once these changes have been made. Thanks for the help. MrMarkBGregory 21:53, 10 July 2011
  • Assessed as C-class, Mid. Possibly is not too far off being a B-class. Minor problems of consistency, most citations appear after the full stop (period for US editors) but not all. Claims are being made about living people (nothing appears to be controversal), but many of these statements are not supported by citations which make make them WP:verifiable. Fixing these would possible get it most of the way to B-class. I've not heard them (or heard of them) so I must do something to rectify that. Pyrotec (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C-class. Sorry this took so long. Ben MacDui 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forfar needs assessment. Luconst 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've reassessed it as C-class. Its quite well referenced, but each of the lists would be better if they were all sorted into alphabetic order (so are, some aren't). The references could do with formating. Books (and journals) usually have their title in italics, author(s), publisher, date (Or, the Havard system is used). Some titles seem to have "by" before the author; and almost none (perhaps none) of the book/journal references give page numbers. For these reasons, its not B-class. Pyrotec (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the references were all done like the two in the Demographics subsection, I'd be more inclined to give it a C-class. At the moment, its just raw web links bunged into the sentences. Using {{cite web}} to format those links would also help. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, drop me a note. Have you looked at the book: The Third Statistical Account of Scotland for Aberdeen? They probably have a referenced copy in one of the central libraries. You should be able to look up the particular parish, which would save some of the "It is rumoured that ..." statments in Origin. Pyrotec (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - an excellent start. Ben MacDui 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good quess. A case could be made for both C and B, but since some sections are unreferenced and others have {citations needed} flags, I'm being "mean" and adding C class/Mid. Pyrotec (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some detail to lead, but not sure if sufficient. Endrick Shellycoat 11:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not going to say whether it's GA class or not, that is what peer review is intended to support; but if you submit it to WP:GAN, I might review it. There are also other WP Scotland members who do GAN reviews. The WP:Lead is intended to both provide an introduction (which it does well) and a summary of the main points. The article has a bolted on" section on the National Flag, that for instance is not mentioned in the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologise - you've pointed me in the right direction which was all I was hoping for. Thanks & regards. Endrick Shellycoat 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Start/C-class. I am not too familiar with the new "C" yet, and I have given it C based on good npov text and many refs, but feel free to downgrade to Start. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deaconsbank I've gave this page a major overhaul since it was graded as a stub class article and I've mentioned a lot more of the history of the area, i know the page could be improved further so any pointers will be appreciated. Thanks Brydo16 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reclassified it as Start-class. You might like to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guideline for expanding the article. You don't actually have any references (in-line citations); what is listed in the references is actually External links, see e.g. WP:verify. With suitable references and in-line citations, you might get it up to C-class. Have a look at, for example Ralston; it is currently listed as C-class (but it does not have any references, so perhaps it should come down to start class).Pyrotec (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Pyrotec I will be making changes for the better to improve the article and sort out a better refrencing system Brydo16 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Ian Hamilton Finlay has a ways to go but is no longer a stub. Thanks. Susanlesch 05:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC) self-rated B[reply]
*Clan Graham - I rated this B class but don't know. -Susanlesch 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clan Fraser has yet to recieve any real assesment. I would love some outside view. I've self-rated it a B article, as it has not gained GA status, though I think it's better than B. Also rated it of High importance. It's of border-line importance, between high and mid, and I wasn't sure. Canæn 08:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack is currently rated in category "Low-importance Scotland articles"; please reassess this rating - Bevo 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Achfary has no rating as of yet on the importance scale; can I request for it to be rated? It's a very small village, but it had a huge impact on the area in the past, so I'd say it would be quite important to get this article completed. Hikari Tajiri (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assessed it as almost start-class, you have some references which is good, but it really needs a bit of expansion and at least one picture; could you add a History section? Can I suggest also that you add an info box - such as in Arisaig - you can do a copy and paste into Achfary; and then correct it. Pyrotec (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

[edit]

Active

[edit]

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. Ben MacDui (talk · contribs)
  2. Coldupnorth (talk · contribs)
  3. Franko2nd (talk · contribs)
  4. Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs)
  5. Lurker (talk · contribs)
  6. Mais oui! (talk · contribs)
  7. PeemJim86 (talk · contribs)
  8. SnowFlake91x (talk · contribs)

Inactive

[edit]

Example assessments

[edit]

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.

Quality

  • {{WP Scotland|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{WP Scotland|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{WP Scotland|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{WP Scotland|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{WP Scotland|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{WP Scotland|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{WP Scotland}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


Importance

  • {{WP Scotland|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{WP Scotland|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{WP Scotland|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{WP Scotland|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance

Log

[edit]

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

Statistics

[edit]

Updated manually.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scotland/Assessment&oldid=1148109449"