User:Spitzmauskc/sandbox4
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Ice Hockey. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's ice hockey 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 program,
The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Ice hockey}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Ice Hockey articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Quality[edit]
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Ice hockey}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):
- {{Ice hockey | class=??? }}
The following values may be used:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- List (adds list articles to Category:List-Class Ice Hockey articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Ice Hockey articles)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Ice Hockey articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Quality scale[edit]
| 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.
|
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:
|
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. | 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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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[edit]
 | This idea is in the brainstorming stage. Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas on the talk page. |
What are importance levels for?[edit]
The first point to make is that the whole importance rating scheme is for editors, not for readers: this is why it is placed on the talk page, and none of its content appears in the article (the only exception being the Good Article mark or the Featured Article star, but this is because the overlapping GA/FA scheme is for readers as well as editors). The primary purpose of these ratings is to help editors improve articles and to help the project track its progress. The ratings are also used to decide which articles to include in fixed versions of Wikipedia such as Wikipedia 0.5, 0.7, and the planned 1.0 release.
The importance level or priority of an article is intended to indicate how important it is that Wikipedia should have a high quality article on the subject.
In the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scheme, of which this is a part, it is emphasized that importance/priority is a relative term, i.e., an article which is Top-Importance in one context, may only be Mid-Importance in a wider context (see below). In other words, importance levels are not assessed across Wikipedia as a whole, but in context. In order to understand this, it may be helpful to think of Wikipedia not as one monolithic encyclopedia, but as a family of nested, overlapping encyclopedia.
Three different ways of expressing the priority of articles are currently used.
- The importance, significance and depth of the topic within its particular field or subject.
- The extent of the topic's impact, this is done using the achievement parameters
- The bottom line: how important is it for an encyclopedia to have an article on the given topic?
These are often different ways of saying the same thing, but the current WP 1.0 summary table mixes the three approaches: Top importance is described using method 3, High and Mid importance using method 1, and Low importance using method 2.
Importance scale[edit]
By significance[edit]
The following table of possible importance levels lists these distinct approaches in separate columns, and provides more detail on the meaning of the individual levels, as well as examples.
| Priority | Importance within field | Impact | Need for encyclopedia | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | Article/subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its field | Widespread and very significant | An absolute "must-have" for any reasonable ice hockey encyclopedia |
|
| High | Article/subject contributes a substantial depth of knowledge | Significant impact in other fields | Very much needed, even vital |
|
| Mid | Article/subject adds important further details within its field | Some impact beyond field | Adds further depth, but not vital to encyclopedia |
|
| Low | Article/subject contributes more specific or less significant details | Mainly of specialist interest | Not at all essential, or can be covered adequately by other articles |
|
| (None) | Article/subject may be peripheral | May be too highly specialized | May not be relevant or may be too trivial in content to be needed | Comment: such articles are not relevant enough to the ice hockey project to need an importance rating. |
The last row is not an importance level per se, but is intended to provide guidance on adding (and perhaps sometimes even removing) importance ratings. In addition there is a Category:Unknown-importance Ice Hockey articles for articles which have a ice hockey rating, but no importance level: editors should feel free either to assign an importance level (Low-Importance or higher) or remove the importance rating from these articles.
Some editors may wish to add the ice hockey project template to pages which are not articles, but disambiguation pages, categories, templates or images, simply to indicate that these pages are within the scope of the Ice Hockey WikiProject. Such pages do not need an importance rating, and the tag "importance=NA" (for non-article or not applicable) should be used in the importance rating template.
By achievement (impact)[edit]
The ice hockey project has determined that some categories of articles will be slotted within the importance categories. Other articles (mostly players) will be slotted using an achievement-based rating system to reduce the subjective nature of assessment. Participants with more awards, all-star selections and longer careers or who move into management roles in the sport tend to be more important in the sport and this has been used as a factor for determining importance for the encyclopedia.
| TOP |
|
| HIGH |
|
| MID |
|
| LOW |
|
Players that become head coaches or general managers would move up a rating.
Wikipedia 1.0 definitions[edit]
- This section is based closely on the discussion of importance at Wikipedia 1.0.
Need: The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality
| Top | Subject is a must-have for a good encyclopedia |
| High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge |
| Mid | Subject fills in more minor details |
| Low | Subject is mainly of specialist interest. |
Importance must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Importance" in one context may be only "Mid-Importance" in another.
By "priority" or "importance" of topics for a static version of the encyclopedia, we generally mean to indicate the level of expectation or desire that the topic would be covered in a traditional encyclopedia.
A more detailed cross-Wikipedia importance scheme has been proposed at Template:Importance Scheme, but is not widely accepted.