Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/Assessment

Polynesia articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA			5	6			11
FL			1	2			3
FM					6		6
A				2			2
GA	1	5	12	54			72
B	11	27	25	79		1	143
C	23	75	114	461		2	675
Start	8	56	309	2,406		20	2,799
Stub		1	79	4,641		43	4,764
List	3	7	24	330			364
Category					6,054		6,054
Disambig					15		15
File					49		49
Portal					2		2
Project					54		54
Redirect					367		367
Template					413		413
NA				2	4		6
Draft					6		6
Assessed	46	171	569	7,983	6,970	66	15,805
Unassessed						2	2
Total	46	171	569	7,983	6,970	68	15,807
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 45,854			Ω = 5.42

Welcome to the assessment department of the Polynesia WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about the Polynesia, its governments, people, geography, and history. 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

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

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 Polynesia WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

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.

Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Polynesia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Polynesia
|class= 
|importance= 
|attention= 
|needs-infobox= 
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review= 
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Polynesia articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Polynesia articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Polynesia articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Polynesia articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Polynesia articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Polynesia articles)
• NA (for pages, such as user or redirect pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Polynesia articles)

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

Quality scale

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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and 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. 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. 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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of the Polynesia.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

WikiProject article importance scheme

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.	Kindergarten
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Factory Acts
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	0.999...
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.	G cell
NA	Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.	Category:Palms
???	Subject importance has not yet been assessed.

Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Polynesia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Polynesia| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

Top

High

Mid

Low

???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - The article is about one of the core topics of the Polynesia. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Polynesia articles
• High - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of the Polynesia. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Polynesia articles
• Mid - The article is about a topic within the field that may or may not be commonly known outside the Polynesia community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Polynesia articles
• Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the field of Polynesia studies and is not generally common knowledge outside that community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Polynesia articles
• Other - Any articles not placed in any of the above categories will be automatically placed in the Category:Unknown-importance Polynesia articles.

Requesting an assessment

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.

1. Namoa
2. Uoleva
3. Teraina (The article is definitely not a 'stub' although not precisely 'Polynesian': Geophysically Polynesian but not geopolitically. It is fascinating as an 'island' topic.)

Assessment log

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

December 2, 2024

Assessed

• Tonga Australian Football Association (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Tonga national Australian rules football team (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

December 1, 2024

Renamed

• Restoring Citizenship Removed by Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill renamed to Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Act 2024.
• Tokelauan people renamed to Tokelauans.

Reassessed

• Category:India-Tonga relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:India-Tuvalu relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Lionel Elika Fatupaito (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Moana 2 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Act 2024 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Tokelauans (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as High-Class. (rev · t)
• Trude Ledoux-Sunia (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

November 30, 2024

Reassessed

• 1996–97 South Pacific cyclone season (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• John Peel (Leicester MP) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Sarah Jolliffe (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Solosolo Samuelu Sao (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Category:Alcohol in French Polynesia (talk) removed.

November 29, 2024

Reassessed

• Category:Gender in Tahiti (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

November 28, 2024

Renamed

• Tongan ground dove renamed to Shy ground dove.

Reassessed

• 2011 EAP Cricket Trophy Twenty20 Division Two (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 2024 Men's T20 World Cup East Asia-Pacific Sub-regional Qualifier A (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Shy ground dove (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Tauiliili Lauifi (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

November 26, 2024

Reassessed

• 2014 Nanumea by-election (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Afaese Manoa (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Australia-Cook Islands relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Australia-Samoa relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Australia-Tonga relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Australia-Tuvalu relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Belgium-Samoa relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Belgium-Tonga relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Canada-Samoa relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Canada-Tonga relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Canada-Tuvalu relations (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Kitiseni Lopati (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Lagitupu Tuilimu (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Maggie Aiono (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Scott Harding (footballer) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Tuvalu Philatelic Bureau (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Maleselo Fukofuka (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

November 25, 2024

Renamed

• Template:CookIslands-yachtracing-bio-stub renamed to Template:CookIslands-sailing-bio-stub.

Reassessed

• Maggie Aiono (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Mele Hufanga (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Template:CookIslands-sailing-bio-stub (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Soccer in American Samoa (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Statute of Wallis and Futuna (1961) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Trevor (duck) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Category:Football in American Samoa (talk) removed.

Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.