Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment
 _at_anchor_off_Bahrain_on_1_December_1986_(6475450).jpg) |
|---|
| Things you can do |
|
| Information and sources |
|
The assessment department of the Ships WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's ships 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 {{WikiProject Ships}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Ships articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
FAQ
[edit]- See also the general assessment FAQ.
- 1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
- The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
- 2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
- Just add {{WPSHIPS|class=|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 3. Someone put a WikiProject Ships template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
- Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
- 4. Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Ships WikiProject is free to add — or change — the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
- 5. How do I rate an article?
- Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
- 6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
- Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- 7. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
- Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
- 8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
- The review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for peer review there.
- 9. What if I don't agree with a rating?
- You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
- 10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are somewhat subjective, but it's the best system we've been able to devise. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
- 11. What if I have a question not listed here?
- If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.
Assessment instructions
[edit]- See the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WPSHIPS}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
| FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Ships articles) |  FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Ships articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Ships articles) |  GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Ships articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Ships articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Ships articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Ships articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Ships articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Ships articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
| Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Ships articles) | Category | |
| Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles) | Disambig | |
| File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Ships articles) | File | |
| Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Ships articles) | Portal | |
| Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Ships articles) | Project | |
| Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Ships articles) | Redirect | |
| Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Ships articles) | Template | |
| NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Ships articles) | NA | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Ships articles) | ??? |
Quality scale
[edit]The quality scale is used to asses the quality of an individual article.
While much of the quality rating system is comparable across projects, WP:SHIPS articles have additional criteria as to content. What is rated higher class article by general Wikipedia or other projects' standards will be undoubtedly be well written and encyclopedic, but may miss an item considered key to WP:SHIPS. If it is missing key content or style, give it a lower rating. If in doubt, leave it unrated.
| Class | Criteria | Formal process | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| FA
|
Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review. | Featured article candidates | HMS Royal Oak (08) |
| A
|
Reserved for articles that have received A-Class status after review by the project. Such articles are expected to largely meet the featured article criteria, and must be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written; however, they may require some further copyediting. | A-Class review | USS Hawaii (CB-3) |
| GA
|
Reserved for articles that meet the good article criteria and have received good article status. | Good article nominations | RMS Queen Mary 2 |
| B | The article meets the following five criteria:
|
|
Brig |
| C | The article meets criteria three, four and five of the five B-Class criteria. Criteria one and two are not required for a C-Class rating:
|
|
Altona (sternwheeler) |
| Start | The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
|
May be assigned by any reviewer | ARA Santa Fe (S-21) |
| Stub | 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 assigned by any reviewer | Abeille Bourbon |
| ??? | Unassessed | This article is of unknown class to this project. There are currently 13 articles that remain to be analyzed. |
|
Statistics
[edit]| Ships pages by quality | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | |||||||
| Total | |||||||
| FA
|
305 | ||||||
| FL
|
33 | ||||||
| A
|
98 | ||||||
| GA
|
1,914 | ||||||
| B | 5,077 | ||||||
| C | 11,056 | ||||||
| Start | 18,531 | ||||||
| Stub | 8,053 | ||||||
| List | 9,711 | ||||||
| Category | 12,772 | ||||||
| Disambig | 283 | ||||||
| File | 770 | ||||||
| Project | 168 | ||||||
| Redirect | 14,413 | ||||||
| Template | 3,915 | ||||||
| NA | 77 | ||||||
| Assessed | 87,176 | ||||||
| Unassessed | 13 | ||||||
| Total | 87,189 | ||||||
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 204,354 | Ω = 4.54 | |||||
Importance
[edit]Importance scale
[edit]| 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. |
Log
[edit]A full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.
Requests for assessment
[edit]If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please go to the talk page of the article and blank the current class rating within the project banner (|class=). Use an edit summary containing removing class rating for reassessment. If the article in question is a new article, add the template {{WikiProject Ships}} to the talk page. This will drop the article into Category:Unassessed Ships articles and it will be reassessed. The highest rating that can be assigned through this process is B-class. If you feel that the article is ready for good article status or A-class status please nominate the article in the respective area. If you are only interested in more extensive comments on an article, please list it for peer review instead.