Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Volcanism of Canada task force/Assessment
Welcome to the assessment department of the Volcanism of Canada task force! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Canadian volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Volcanoes|Canada=yes}} task force banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Volcanism of Canada task force articles by quality and Category:Volcanism of Canada task force articles by importance.
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 Volcanism of Canada task force is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- 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 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!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ
Instructions
[edit]An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Volcanoes|Canada=yes}} task force banner on its talk page:
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Volcanoes}} 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 Volcanism of Canada task force articles) |  FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Volcanism of Canada task force articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Volcanism of Canada task force articles) |  GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Volcanoes}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Volcanoes|importance=???|Canada-importance=yes}}
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):
| Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | Top | |
| High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | High | |
| Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | Mid | |
| Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | Low | |
| NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | NA | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Volcanism of Canada task force articles) | ??? |
Quality scale
[edit]This table is transcluded here, and is identical to the one at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA |
The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
|
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
|
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; 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:
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019) |
| B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
|
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. | A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
| C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
|
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
| Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
|
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. | Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
| List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. | Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | List of literary movements |
Importance 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 volcanologists and others working within the field.
This table has been written specifically for the Volcanism of Canada task force, please read it carefully prior to making assessments of importance. It is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION, please revise it as needed.
| Importance | Criteria | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Top | The article is about one of the core topics in Canadian volcanology, or an extremely important and famed Canadian volcano. Includes Canadian volcanoes of great historical importance, or eruptions with the most devastating consequences. | Volcanology of Canada, Volcanology of Western Canada, Mount Meager, Mount Garibaldi, Mount Edziza volcanic complex |
| High | The article is about a very important topic in Canadian volcanology, or a very important and noted Canadian volcano. Any Canadian volcano with eruptions that have killed numerous people or produced large-scale environmental consequences (i.e. most VEI 5+ eruptions) should be no lower than this level. Canadian volcanoes or volcanic features noted for significant volcanic hazards should be placed no lower than this this category. Articles about people or places notable for their association with a Canadian volcano or eruption should be placed no higher than this category. Biographies of the most important Canadian volcanologists, those who made crucial advances to the field, should probably be rated here. | Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan, The Barrier, Jack Souther, Lax Ksiluux |
| Mid | The article is about a fairly important topic in Canadian volcanology, or a moderately important and notable Canadian volcano. Any Canadian volcanoes which are potentially active (or among the most active in their region) should also be rated no lower than this. Less important Canadian volcanoes should go here. Articles about most volcanic protected areas (such as provincial parks) should go here. Many of the high, but obscure, 2000+ m Canadian volcanoes should probably be here instead of "low", simply because their elevation puts them among the highest volcanoes in Canada. | Nisga'a Memorial Lava Beds Provincial Park, Franklin Glacier Volcano, Atlin Volcanic Field |
| Low | The article is about a highly specific or minor topic in Canadian volcanology. Many of the Canadian volcanoes in this category would be generally unfamiliar even to those with a broad knowledge of Canadian volcanology. | Volcano Vent, Deadhorse Creek diatreme complex, Newfoundland Seamounts |
| NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. | Category:Volcanism of Canada |
| ??? | Subject importance has not yet been assessed. | Any articles in this category |
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.
Assessment log
[edit]- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Volcanism of Canada task force articles by quality log
Articles in need of expansion and cleanup
[edit]A number of articles
Worklist
[edit]- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
November 8, 2024
[edit]Removed
[edit]- Mount Callaghan (talk) removed.