Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageMembersShowcaseTaxonomy & resourcesToolsTo doAssessment


Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Birds! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Birds 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 {{BirdTalk}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Bird articles by quality and Category:Bird 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 {{BirdTalk}} 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 Birds 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 Status requester 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 {{BirdTalk}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{BirdTalk| ... | 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 bird articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below:

Quality grading scheme

[edit]

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

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

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

Importance scale

[edit]

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 ornithology.

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.

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. Bird orders belong here.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. Bird families belong here.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. Bird genera belong here.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge. In general, bird species belong here.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Importance standards

[edit]

To be filled later

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.

Guam Rail - i've formatted the page to reflect the wp format, and page has increased by 8212 bytes. Thank you :)

Assessment

[edit]
Re-rated as a start. MeegsC (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-rated it as a C. MeegsC (talk)
I'd agree. MeegsC (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reviewing. C Class implies missing content - any hints on what needs to be added? Marj (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was some rejigging of honeyeater taxonomy that I will check and get back to you. A nice expansion and not too far off a GA nom really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. The Info box gave a different binominal from C & B so I wasn't sure what the current taxonomy was. Marj (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to HANZAB 5, published 2001, it gives you a good idea of the relevant scientific literature published up to 2000 or so, as well as indicating what bits could be expanded or added. 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Maias, that's where I got the refs I used. Marj (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The HANZABs are a fantastic place to really punt aust. bird articles into or close to GA territory I have found. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and I have access to The Emu which is one of HANZAB's most often cited sources. 134.148.4.20 (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reassessed the article as now B-class (and of mid importance, as it now in a monotypic genus). It would be nice to take it further, but you might have to scratch around for more content - it is not one of the best known species. Maias (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Construct a lead and I reckon it creeps into B-class territory :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this article to a B-class because it has good information, but it seems a little choppy and is, at least to me, hard to understand at parts. Barn Owl 444 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about so many at once, I have been OCD'ing on entering entries and was unaware of the assessment process. speednat (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say B class, or very close, with great potential for being worked up further. Maias (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • American White Ibis Rated Start Class, I recently edited and updated the article. I included a lot of information based on published Journal Articles on the species. Benongyx (talk) 15:05, 24 Apr 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it was very complete and didn't leave anything to be wanted in my opinion. I suggest peer review before giving it GA status, just to get more opinions than mine. Chris (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks so much for the assessment and the advice. It was really helpful. I have about 15 more journal articles which details more behavior of the white ibis. I intend to add them in first before requesting for a peer review. Cheers. Benongyx (talk) 20:40, 24 Apr 2011 (UTC)
        • Chris, by giving this an A rating, you've actually ranked it higher than a GA article. Normally, that's reserved for articles that are better than a GA, but not quite an FA. It should probably be marked a B until it goes through its GA process. Benongyx, I'd suggest you greatly expand the lead before you take this to GA; it should be a summary of the entire article. It's also pretty US-centric at the moment. Be sure to expand any information that's appropriate for other countries too; you've got information about it being the mascot for a couple of US colleges, for example, but no info on folklore about it in Central/South America, where it's far more common. (Perhaps there's nothing available, but you should expect to be asked about that in GA.) And, in order to conform with WP:BIRD style, all references to the bird's name should be "White Ibis", not "white ibis". MeegsC | Talk 03:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for the clarification, MeegsC. I fixed the quality on the page to a B-class article. Sorry about the mistake. Chris (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • hi. thank you for all your advice. it was really helpful. i am still compiling and writing more information on the american white ibis. i have much more information with me that i have yet to update in yet. i will definitely expand the lead once i am done. right now, i am focusing on using published journal articles to write about the white ibis's behavior and scientific research done on it. with regards to the culture. it was written by someone else when it was just a start. i just adjusted the information and added a fact or two. Benongyx (talk) 06:45, 03 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turacoverdin Created this today and would appreciate a rating. It's not a big article, but I think it adequately covers the available literature on the topic. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • African Fish Eagle I did some work on improving the article and adding inline citations. I think this article is better as a B or a C rated article rather than a Start-class. Regards Drakenwolf (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red-headed Honeyeater I think I have exhausted available sources. Ready for re-assessment. Marj (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, I think that's a 'B' - will give it a copyedit etc. GAN soon I guess? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rated as B-class. Maias (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Casliber, Thank you for the prompt reassessment. I think we're getting close to a GA. I've been toiling at this (grunt work mainly), and not adding much text. It could use some bolstering, I think. It would be good to get a peer review, probably, as the history of this is something I can handle, but the taxonomy, for example, is beyond me. And the latter is the one last "cn" in the article. Someone with better scientific and environmental background might have a useful perspective, too. Because of the monumental size and unexpected precipitate nature of the extinction, I think the article is more important than its current rating. But that's just one writer's opinion, and I love my children. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. So done. Maias (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok C-class - nice skeleton, needs to be fleshed out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a list, I have assessed it as such. Looks fine to me. I didn't realise we had so many images of the different species. Maias (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you want to take the list on to FL, see here. Maias (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Rail. Request a second opinion of my assessment of this article for Good Article status. This assessment discussion is here. I believe that FunkMonk's work on the article meets the GA criteria after a couple of minor tweaks. I'm looking for an opinion on format, specifically whether the {{quote}} template might make the article more readable than the current {{quotation}} template that surrounds the quotation with an outline and adds a pale background color. Thanks in advance to those who take a look and concur and/or add constructive comments. DocTree (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samara. I have reassessed the article as Start only, because it is somewhat unbalanced and needs more info regarding description, distribution, habitat, feeding and conservation status. What you have done so far is great and, with a bit more all round information, it could advance to C and towards B quite quickly. Maias (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rated B. Good luck with your GAN. Maias (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
B class as of now. Other notes would be on talk page. Better still, nominate for Peer Review Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upland Moa This article was recently expanded and needs a re-assessment of quality. Thanks!
Rated as C class, as probably not a huge amount known about it....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tinamou I am still working on it; I should have it finished by tonight or tomorrow. If someone wants to go behind me and neaten up the writing, I am decidedly not the cleanest writer in the world. regardless, I am adding a lot of information to this article. This has always been one I felt needed some good loving care as it was such a small article for 47 species. speednat (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am done. That was a lot of information. Now I need to go through all 47? or so species and expand each of those. I have been taking my break between classes and utilizing my school library and their vast expanse of journals to get all this info. Please give me pointers as well. I think I am eventually shooting for an FA, but I know it will need neatening up. speednat (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it is into B class territory, and is within striking distance of GA. A couple of things - the prose should be combined into more solid paragraphs, and I am concerned about an overreliance on a tertiary source (Encyclopedia of Animals). I am thinking there'd be some other journal articles or even a monograph to use maybe...a few of us with university access can check out some fulltext. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do have university access. Go Southern Utah University :) and will start pulling journals. If someone else wouldn't mind helping on any re-organization or even on the journal task, I won't say my toes are being stepped on.speednat (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one lacks a lead, and is a bit more fragmented-looking, but is sustantive Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one, I know is weaker, as I wast trying, whilst taking my notes, of pulling off sub-family specific data for these 2 Nothurinae as well. Thanks on both speednat (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berlepsch's Tinamou This one is harder to work with, as there is very little information out there. Take notice all Ornithology/biology majors looking for a masters thesis to do. I did some pretty comprehensive searching on 360 premier a database of scientific journals through my university. I could find zero articles on this bird alone. Now does that mean there is not any info I missed, probably not, so if you have any specific info on this bird please please, post up. The final piece was the range map, and please critique it as I have not done one before and the instructions were rather vague. Thanks for your time speednat (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a C I would say, borderline B but it does need expansion without ruining the overall structure and langauge. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rate it now as start class. The sources, structure and style are good. It needs more info, especially about habitat, ecology and behaviour, to bring it up to C. Maias (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rate it as start class now; it needs a fair amount of work to advance further. Maias (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good C, close to B. Maias (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kyou9292 Nice work - I made it a 'B' as it is well referenced. Will make further comments on the talk page as comments tend to get lost here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • White-rumped falcon. Was a stub, I expanded it and submitted for DYK. Had removed the stub template, but neglected to get it reassessed from stub-class on its talk page (sorry). Not sure whether I should pre-emptively change to start-class until somebody experienced should check it out? Pelagic (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Start for the time being - need to add to distribution, habitat, behaviour....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gulumeemee: - true, I rerated it as C class. Needs some work though as taxonomy needs to be updated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gulumeemee: I rerated this as B class. RileyBugz (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated it for DYK. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dwergenpaartje nice work! GA and FA are the closest things we have to stable versions. It covers all aspects, but with some extra detail in taxonomy, description, and possibly other areas (will take another look), would be within striking distance of GA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Casliber for all your edits, which in my opinion greatly improved it. I also think it is now classed correctly. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some work on Red-billed quelea, which is currently C-class and Low-importance. As this is the most numerous terrestrial bird on earth, as well as an important agricultural pest, and the common sparrow is classed as high-importance, perhaps particularly the importance classification may be reviewed. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I made it high importance. B-class is when it is pretty well all-referenced, but more importantly I think this article is coming together well and will be the easiest one (I think) to get to GA-status. I will try to reorganise and get more info. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it has been reassessed as C-class. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferahgo the Assassin: it's a whopping article at 95kb prose size. But I get that all the specimens are notable. Needs more of a lead. B class but worth a shot at GA soon I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it needs a ton of cleanup but I think it's headed in the right direction. It's on my to-do list. Thanks for the response! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NottTheBrave: thanks for having a go. It all helps! Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look KyleA94. Just a note about the "importance". With very few exceptions, species are considered low importance, genera are mid importance and families/orders are high importance. It's not to do with the importance of the species itself; it's the importance of the article, and those encompassing higher taxonomic rank have more "importance". MeegsC (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I see, I was improving the article as part of my university assignment to get the article classified into something higher than a stub, and wasn't quite sure what the low importance rating meant.KyleA94 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Salad88: nice work. Have rerated as C class for the time being. Will jot some notes on the talk page.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

[edit]

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

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs)
  2. Joelr31 (talk · contribs)
  3. Magalhães (talk · contribs)
  4. Maias (talk · contribs)
  5. MeegsC (talk · contribs)
  6. Mukkakukaku (talk · contribs)
  7. Qwerty number1 (talk · contribs)
  8. Rainbow Shifter (talk · contribs)
  9. Rawlife (talk · contribs)
  10. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk · contribs)
  11. Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs)
  12. RileyBugz (talk · contribs)
  13. Hjemt (talk · contribs)

Example assessments

[edit]

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

Quality

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

Importance

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

Statistics

[edit]
Bird articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 2 19 61 155 237
FL 1 6 24 31
FM 622 622
GA 6 11 34 159 1 211
B 10 38 70 240 2 360
C 12 104 266 1,108 3 1,493
Start 5 112 828 6,514 9 7,468
Stub 16 1,281 7,670 10 8,977
List 12 76 773 104 4 969
Category 1 4,151 4,152
Disambig 201 201
File 1 302 303
Portal 57 57
Project 58 58
Redirect 1 14 104 247 2,092 2,458
Template 3,913 3,913
NA 3 3
Other 1 1
Assessed 37 326 2,726 16,892 11,504 29 31,514
Unassessed 1 1 16 18
Total 37 326 2,727 16,893 11,504 45 31,532
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 98,676 Ω = 5.26
  • Popular pages: A bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles.
  • Quality operations: A bot-generated detail log for Birds articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Assessment&oldid=1244433889"