Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yorkshire articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 2 1 15 58 76
FL 1 16 17
GA 3 8 36 173 220
B 9 63 132 336 540
C 3 142 287 1,436 1,868
Start 1 221 1,176 8,432 9,830
Stub 18 327 5,645 5,990
List 4 12 769 1 786
Category 1 3,808 3,809
Disambig 1 21 22
File 21 21
Portal 95 95
Project 219 219
Redirect 3 179 1,322 1,504
Template 1 8 431 157 597
Other 1 1 13 15
Assessed 18 458 1,998 17,478 5,657 25,609
Unassessed 1 1
Total 18 458 1,998 17,478 5,657 1 25,610
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 94,604 Ω = 5.11

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Yorkshire! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to Yorkshire. The article ratings are 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 {{WikiProject Yorkshire}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Yorkshire articles by quality and Category:Yorkshire articles by importance, which are themselves sub-categories of the master category for administration categories: Category:WikiProject Yorkshire.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

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 Yorkshire WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
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.
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[edit]

Quality assessments[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Yorkshire|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 Yorkshire articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Yorkshire articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Yorkshire articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Yorkshire articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Yorkshire articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Yorkshire articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Yorkshire articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Yorkshire articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Yorkshire 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 Yorkshire articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Yorkshire articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Yorkshire articles) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Yorkshire articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Yorkshire articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Yorkshire articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Yorkshire articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Yorkshire articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Yorkshire articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Yorkshire articles) ???

Quality scale[edit]

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.[under discussion] 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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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 assessment[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Yorkshire| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Importance scale[edit]

Label Criteria
Top Articles describing the major structural elements of Yorkshire, or subjects of UK or international importance
Examples: Leeds, Bradford, metropolitan boroughs, major urban areas, former county or municipal boroughs, Leeds Bradford Airport, Leeds University.
High Articles describing the major infrastructure of Yorkshire, or subjects of significant importance to Yorkshire
Examples: crown courts, large stations (both current and historical), towns that are not former boroughs, parliamentary constituencies, Grade I listed buildings.
Mid Articles describing the minor infrastructure of Yorkshire
Examples: medium sized stations, large libraries, magistrates courts, electoral wards, Grade II* listed buildings, nationally known schools, civil parishes, villages, notable localities.
Low Articles describing subjects of local interest
Examples: suburbs, small stations/metro stops, branch libraries, leisure centres, Grade II listed buildings, local parks.

Assessment requests[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.

Requested assessments

  • Parmo Currently rated as Start-class quality (could be 'B'?), and of Low importance which seems a little severe for a significant regional speciality of North Yorkshire. Scarabocchio (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have upgraded it to B-class, and raised it to Mid-importance. I did do a few tweaks to the formatting. The only textural change was to add "England" to give it some context. Keith D (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you! Scarabocchio (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have upgraded it to C-class. It is well on the way to B-class, a run through the refs to fill-in missing details and a copy edit should do the trick. Keith D (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • St Patrick's Church, Patrington – Could this article be upgraded to a higher importance level? This is a late 13th—early 14th century church of the highest quality and aesthetic appeal, highly praised by architectural historians, and a grade I listed building. Any input and opinions would be welcome.Brandt Nightingale (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have upgraded it to High-importance as it is grade I listed. Mid-importance is for grade II* listed. Keith D (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kiveton Park F.C. - I have added a lot of detail to this article over the last few months and would appreciate any input! Kivo (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have re-rated as C-class for now. Main problem seems to be the referencing for the information. The references seem to be lacking detail such as access dates for web links, page numbers for newspaper entries. Also the reference to British Newspaper Archive is not very specific and needs to be to specific pages for the information so that someone else easily find the detail. Keith D (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have since (painstakingly!) updated all the references to include access dates and page numbers. Kivo (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agbrigg - I updated this article from a stub to a full article but I'm not sure as to whether the assessment was when it was a stub or whether it was conducted after my alteration. Could someone take a look? Many thanks in advance! BNC85 (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The assessment was changed after your updates from Stub to Start-class. The reference format is unusual and could be looked at to standardise it to other articles. Keith D (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a Start-class with low importance at the moment. The lead needs to be worked on to expand and correct. Both City of Wakefield and West Yorkshire only came into existence in 1974 so cannot really be used as links for the timeframe specified for this article. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. B. Priestley.  Done
  • KC Stadium. I proofread/copyedited the entire article, removed unsourceable/irrelevant/unencyclopedic/trivial content, sourced everything I could, and placed a couple of citation-needed templates on items that seemed relevant but for which I couldn't immediately find a source. Cheers.  Doonhamer | Banter  19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Tidied up Wetherby. See Talk:Wetherby#Clean_up for rationale. thx. RichardEll 23:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Expanded Malham Tarn --JD554 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Hebden.  Done
  • Hebden. I've implemented the suggestions and added a Geography section. I think that it is probably as complete as is necessary for a small village, but am happy to be told otherwise.Langcliffe (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Roundhay Park I have added a lot of pictures and references. I think it is well beyond Start class.Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reassesed as C almost a B. References required in the History section and some fix-up of the layout to get the edit links in the right place and stop images overlapping text. Keith D (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessed as Start-class for the moment. The layout needs sorting out with the 2 images at the start moving down to stop the squash of text between the images & infobox. Also the references need filling out with at least titles, I would change them to use {{Cite web}} or one of the other Cite template as appropriate. Keith D (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hornsea Pottery Revamped and think it is more Start than Stub class now. I would welcome feedback.--Harkey (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burnt Yates is a new page but I think it is up to a higher standard than stub and maybe even higher than start. But feedback and a rating would be nice please--Tubs uk (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Done--Harkey (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few comments to the talk page and made minor (helpful - I hope) additions to the article.--Harkey (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done see comments page for some suggestions. Keith D (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Re-assessed to C-class the main things that need addressing are -
  1. the lead needs expanding as per WP:LEAD to better summarise the article
  2. references need attention, especially the Rolling stock section which is totally unreferenced
Keith D (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipton Building Society. I have included merger information with Scarborough Building Society, updated the article, added a controversies section that refers to current news items of national importance, added references and links to existing Wikipedia articles. Others have also contributed. Feedback and rating appreciated. --86.26.7.31 (talk) 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done Sorry for delay in responding, I did not realise there was a change to this page. I have reassessed it as a C-class article. I think that the references need to be filled out with information such as title, access date, published date, publisher etc. Probably best to use one of the templates such as {{cite web}} to keep things consistent. May be an image of one of the branches or headquarters would be a good addition to the article. Keith D (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have re-rated as a C-class article. I had difficulty working out the Yorkshire connection from the text may be this need clarifying in the lead. It would also be good to create a gallery of images on Commons that can be accessed from a {{Commons category}} template in the article. Keith D (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about why it was in the Yorkshire Project either, apart from the fact that it used to flow through Yorkshire until diverted in 1628, but the template said it was. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • River Ryton. Currently stub-class. Have added text, POI table, images, map and refs. At least this one starts in Yorkshire! Bob1960evens (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a Start-class for now though probably well on the way to a C-class. Keith D (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a C-class, looks like I spotted the changes and uprated it without spotting it was here. Could do with lead improving as per WP:LEAD. May be a restructure to be more in line with other articles where the history section is up near the top. Also suggest a link to further images on Commons using the {{Commons category}} template. Keith D (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acomb, North Yorkshire. Currently Start class. Have added several sections with references and compared to how it was when i started, i think it needs a re-assessment, please.Rimmer1993 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a C-class. Could do with the reference details filling in, such as publisher, date published, access dates etc. The lead could do with some work, the second paragraph is not really lead material and should be relocated later in article. See WP:LEAD for details on what the lead should cover and its length. A few more images would also help and a link to further images on Commons using the {{Commons category}} template. Would be worth checking the images there are relevant as the BOT uploading images from the Geograph project has not always got the locations correct. Keith D (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Keith, i will use your suggestions to improve this a bit more.Rimmer1993 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a Start-class for the moment. I have done a few minor formatting tweaks and fixed the two obvious errors 1 in co-ords & 1 accessdate. Suggest having a look at WP:UKCITIES for suggested layout/section headers to get it more in line with other articles. May be some of the shorter sections could be merged to make it flow better. May be you could think about a DYK submission - a possible hook would be about the bunker. Keith D (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a C-class for the moment, probably well on the way to a B-class or even GA. Reference detail and possibly extending the bridge table to include those north of Hull would be areas that could be looked at. Keith D (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have a book on the Beverley bridge arriving soon, and have ideas for a Traffic section. I am intrigued by the "Reference detail" point. What exactly does this mean? Bob1960evens (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answered my own question. All refs in bridge table now use cite web. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting addition on the aborted tunnel, wonder if there are any pictures available of this. I must have driven round the area many times while they got it sorted out, much quicker now with the link road in place. Keith D (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • River Foss. Redone mostly to Wiki River Project guide. Some sections not relevant. Still more to do, such as a map, but as this was showing as stub, needs assessment please.Rimmer1993 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a Start-class for the moment, probably well on the way to a C-class. I did some tidy up edits. Keith D (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a Start-class. Main problems are lack of references and the Setlist section is difficult to read with the various options and song titles in it, needs some thought as to how to improve section readability. Keith D (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a C-class. Need to look at points of interest to see if the box to display co-ordinates can go to right of list as looks rather funny in present position. May be a real map of the river would be a useful addition to give a feel for the geography of the river. Possibly Nilfanion could help as he has produced the recent ones for the {{Infobox UK place}}. See User:Nilfanion/Maps for details and requests. Keith D (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • River Wharfe. This a start article, but i have reworked along Wiki Project for Rivers guidelines. I note your comments above about a real map of the river and will try to find free source. Although i have done a gallery, it may be better to put some in the body of the article, your thoughts welcome as always.Rimmer1993 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a C-class. The long lists near the end could do with looking at - suggest using columns or inserting the images to the right of them to loose the white space. May be could use the {{Gbmappingsmall}} template to form links from the OS references in the article. The references could do with expanding with publisher, published date and for PDF entries the page number. Keith D (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • King Cross. Classed as a low importance stub, originally listed as a village. It was never a village so I have converted it to an Ecclesiastical Parish, added an infobox and expanded the article a tad, with references. Unfortunately there is no Ecclesiastical Parish template so I have had to use the civil parish one. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a Start-class for now. References could do with detail filling in like publisher, published date and access date. Keith D (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swarcliffe. I rated this as B-class, but the article page still lists it as Stub-class. Can you help?--andreasegde (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beeston, Leeds I've tidied this up quite a lot, and most of the initial comments have been addressed to a greater or lesser degree. Needs more work, but suggest it should probably be C-Class going by the quality scale. Also, on importance scales I suggest it should probably be Mid level as a 'notable locality'. LNWWatcher (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneThis article is certainly C and probably going on for B. I'll change it now. The lead could do with expanding a bit and it could do with copyediting to get rid of some redundant words and phrases. Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements? OpenStreetMap have a map that you can copy here. Just zoom in and get a screen clip to upload.--Harkey (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temple Newsam Preceptory Expanded and referenced from single sentence to a reasonably complete description. It's not quite an article, but I think it's more than a stub now, so I've removed the tag. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have reassessed as Start-class. Keith D (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Douk Cave I have rewritten this, and I would be grateful if someone could cast an eye over it. In view of its popularity with organised groups (English Nature have actually produced a pamphlet on it for the benefit of such groups), I suggest that it should have a Mid importance rating. --Langcliffe (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sorry I missed this one. I have uprated this to a C-class with Mid-importance. Need to look at the references that have pp when only a single page is quoted—may be this is misused as a page count. May be a wider problem is the infobox which really needs a link to an article on "Difficulty" that explains what this is. Keith D (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Yorkshire Police - I have been working on improving the article, and implemented in-line referencing. I have also added a list of building I know of in SYP. I would like it to be reassessed and also, if you think necessary, a checklist on where you think I need to improve next. Thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
 Done I have re-rated as C-class. The main areas for work are the lead which needs expanding as per WP:LEAD and the History section which seems to be slanted towards recent events and the early period covered in 2 very short paragraphs. Another area is referencing where there are several required for things such as the list of Chief Constables where there should be a reference per entry. Minor points on the references are – reference 1 & 9 need some detail adding and reference 5 should be de-capitalised. Keith D (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grand Lodge of All England This is a new article on a little known, but interesting Yorkshire oddity. I'm posting it here mainly because it needs assessment, and I think it belongs in this project. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have given it a Start rating at the moment. The lead could do with giving better context for the article with appropriate wikilinks, such as City of York. MOS changes need to be looked at, such as avoiding starting headings with word "the", dates not using ordinals etc. As it is a UK related article I would also change to using day first dates rather than the American month first dates. Keith D (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humberside Fire and Rescue Service I have done a major overhaul of the page to meet the current operational running of HFRS. I have added the location, staff numbers and appliances for each of the fire stations. WolfTM2012 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done think it is still a Start-class article. Things that need addressing are referencing, information in the tables is unreferenced. There are some bare URLs in the references that need data adding such as title, publisher, publication date, accessdate etc. The use of a gallery is discouraged as per image galleries, a better way of doing this would be to add a small image next to each table entry, as an example see table in Grade I listed churches in Cumbria. The history section could do with some bulking up. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Octagon Centre I have removed some of the more spammy bits, added a history, architecture, events sections to the article. SheffGruff (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have re-rated it as a Start-class article. Keith D (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have re-rated it as a Start-class article. 18:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Wade's Causeway I have reworked and extended this article over the past week or so, and intend to take it all the way to FA eventually. Presently it is rated as stub, which I don't believe is applicable anymore, please could it be re-assessed --PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have re-rated it as a C-class article. I would start by standardising on the date format used, probably day first format is appropriate for this article. Second area of concern would be the references, there are several short type references which do not give a page indication of where to find the information in the book. It would be worth considering switching to use of Harvard style referencing with linkage between the short reference and the entry in the biographical section as this would make things easier to find in the long biographical section. Otherwise may be you could cut-down on the biography section by moving them into the references section if they are only used once. Keith D (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have re-rated it as a C-class article. The article needs co-ordinates adding. The lead section needs to be expanded to summarise the article and the references need formatting. Keith D (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have rated it as a C-class article. Probably the lead section is the thing to focus on, it should summarise the rest of article and as such does not need referencing. I would try and relocate the references from the lead into the body of the article, may need information adding there to cover this. Keith D (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assessment and advice - I've made changes to the references EdwardUK (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ridings Centre Just wondering if this article could be assigned a mid importance level? The recently added text highlights its impact on retail at the national scale. Also this is my first time writing a page from scratch so any input is gratefully appreciated!! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbulb15789 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sorry for the delay. I must have been away when the request was made and missed it. I have made some minor tweeks to the article. Keith D (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Log[edit]

For a log of the recent assessment changes, please see here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yorkshire/Assessment&oldid=1176156079"