Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Welcome to the Assessment Division of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 WikiProject. This department focuses on assessing the quality of articles under the scope of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 project. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011}} project banner. The banner automatically adds articles to categories based on quality and importance.

FAQ[edit]

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. 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 {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put this project's banner 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 project's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 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's quality?
Check the quality scale below 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 that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
6. How do I rate an article's importance?
Check the importance scale below and select the level that best matches the subject 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 for an article to be added to some of the higher importance levels, the project must be notified in advance on the project talk page.
7. What if I don't agree with a rating? Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, simply remove the current quality or importance rating already present on the article's talk page. If no rating is currently there, be patient; a member of this project will eventually get around to rating it. If you'd like, you can drop a note at the project talk page to bring the specific article to the attention of our volunteers.
9. What if I have a question not listed here?
For any other issues not covered in this FAQ, leave a message on the project's talk page, and someone will respond to your query directly.

Assessment instructions[edit]

By quality[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011}} project banner on its talk page: {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011|class=???}}

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 Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles)  FA
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles) Stub

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles) ???

Quality scale[edit]

The following grading scheme is generic, not customized to WP:WLM articles.

WikiProject article 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. 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

By importance[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles)  Low 
Related (adds articles to Category:Related-importance Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles)  Related 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles  ??? 

The importance parameter should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Importance scale[edit]

Label Criteria Examples
Top Cultural property
Hague Convention of 1954
Cultural heritage
National Heritage Site
List of World Heritage Sites in Europe
High
  • National Historic Landmarks
  • WLM list portals per country (see the lists on Commons)
  • Architectural styles reflected in 500 or more WLM properties
  • Architects of 100 or more buildings on WLM lists
  • Geography-organized National lists, and top WLM list for each country (World Heritage Sites or National Monuments)
  • A few exceptions to be discussed at wt:WLM
 Le Corbusier
Renaissance architecture
Bauhaus
Chartres Cathedral
Swiss Inventory of Cultural Property of National and Regional Significance
Mid
  • Listed individually on a WLM list, plus other national or local significance.
Click [show] for more information.

Most WLM-listed sites are of low importance. However, as a rule of thumb, 10%-15% of sites in a state or region should be rated at higher importance. These sites could include:

  • structures or locations associated with a particularly important local historical event
  • structures or locations associated with a particularly well-known person or organization
  • structures which are the best or most influential work by a well-known architect
  • structures that are particularly representative of a certain architectural style
  • structures or locations that possess some locally unique trait (for example, the oldest building in a large city)
  • historic districts which include a number of individually significant structures
  • structures or locations that are relatively well-known, whose articles are likely to be more widely read

Nearly all of these sites should be rated mid-importance. However, a very few exceptional sites may merit a high-importance rating. Please propose these exceptions at the project talk page.

  • Architectural styles reflected in 50 or more WLM lists
  • Architects with 50 or more buildings on a WLM list
  • County/parish/city list-articles; other top-level list-articles
 Canals of Amsterdam
Checkpoint Charlie Museum
Hans van Steenwinckel
Low
  • All other WLM sites or districts
  • Architects with 10 to 50 buildings on a WLM list
  • List-articles subordinate to other WLM articles
  • List-articles covering specific types of properties
  • Lists of WLM listings inside another district, park, or entity other than a city, county, parish, or state
 Pieter Post
List of cultural property of national significance in Switzerland: Schaffhausen
Related
  • Contributing properties
  • Delisted properties
  • Broad lists of properties, many of which are on a WLM list
  • Event articles that are significantly related to the history of WLM listings
 Delft Explosion
Reichstag fire
Collapse of Cologne archive
NA
  • Non-article pages
 Template:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 articles by importance
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Assessment&oldid=442169018"