Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainDiscussionMonitoringOutlineParticipantsProject organizationAssessmentResourcesShowcase


Welcome to the assessment department of the Archaeology WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Archaeology 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{ArchaeologyWikiProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Archaeology articles by quality and Category:Archaeology articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

This is a bot generated table of the assessment process of WikiProject Archaeology supported articles. It is updated automatically every 2-3 days.

Index · Statistics · Log

Archaeology articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 9 24 50 83
FL 3 15 18
GA 6 16 47 149 4 222
B 25 83 186 489 400 1,183
C 33 153 384 1,459 2 991 3,022
Start 29 169 579 4,541 2,887 8,205
Stub 3 164 2,665 1,339 4,171
List 4 15 44 432 68 563
Category 3,321 3,321
Disambig 16 16
File 68 68
Project 15 15
Template 221 221
NA 2 6 17 136 396 557
Other 34 34
Assessed 99 454 1,448 9,936 4,073 5,689 21,699
Unassessed 1 2 17 20
Total 99 454 1,449 9,938 4,073 5,706 21,719
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 82,128 Ω = 4.86


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 Archaeology WikiProject 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, 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]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Archaeology}} project banner on its talk page: 

{{WikiProject Archaeology
|class=
|importance=
|attention=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
|living=
|needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Archaeology articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

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 official review.
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. Water fluoridation
(as of August 2014)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
 A

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. Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article has attained good article status by passing an official review.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article 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 (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. 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. YouTube
(as of August 2014)
B The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the six B-Class 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. Apple Inc.
(as of August 2014)
C The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much 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; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.
 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. Bishop (chess)
(as of August 2014)
Start An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 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. Interval vector
(as of February 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article all together.
 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. Crescent Falls
(as of February 2013)
 FL The article has attained featured list status.
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 National Basketball Association season assists leaders
(as of April 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947
(as of January 2013)

Importance scale

[edit]
WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is of crucial importance to Wikipedia's coverage of archaeology. Would be mentioned in any basic encyclopaedia.
 High Subject is highly notable globally or within the field of archaeology as a whole. Would be mentioned in any introductory archaeology textbook.
 Mid Subject is highly notable within a specific region or subfield of archaeology. Would probably be mentioned in general texts in the relevant subfield.
 Low Subject is notable, but not particularly so. Is likely to primarily be mentioned in specialist literature.
 NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. -
 ??? Subject importance has not yet been assessed. -

Requesting an assessment

[edit]

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to edit this page and list it below.

NOTE: NO ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE HERE SINCE 2010

  1. Series of articles on Hadrian's Wall Milecastles Milecastle 0 to Milecastle 13 (so far). Sammy_r (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vinča-Belo Brdo —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Henge Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Assessed as C while working on WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America backlog; but it's probably at least a B, with potential to become a GA. Djembayz (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nordic Stone Age No references for nearly 4 years; eligible for sweeping text deletion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wade's Causeway been working on this for about 2 weeks, taking it from a basic stub article, want to get it ready for GA/FA eventually but it needs a preliminary rating from the project -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Romano-Celtic Temple - I've made this and been adding to it over this month. I'd appreciate a review to see if we are at 'Start' or 'C' class yet. Work in progress. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tel Kabri - new addition to the project. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Tevet 5774 20:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Balangoda_Man - This is rated 'Top-importance' on Wikiproject Sri Lanka but only 'Low-importance' on Wikiproject Archeology. After having made substantial changes to this article to take it up to GA-class, the existing peer-reviewed literature on the subject seems to indicate that the topic (surrounding the earliest prehistoric homo sapiens in Sri Lanka, and South Asia in general) is of much higher importance to Archeology in general. Therefore I would greatly appreciate it if someone could take a second look. Many thanks. Ldesilva (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset currently at FLC any help or advice appreciated.— Rod talk 18:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Xerxes Canal Review for B or C class would be great! Cotopaxi5897 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Thessaloniki Metro (Archaeology section). Would appreciate a review for classification. Thanks! --Michail (blah) 16:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bodzia Cemetery Would appreciate a review for classification, thank you! Alixthö (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Magnet fishing Requesting a complete review on this article, not even sure if it really pertains to archeology as most people seem to do this trying to find treasures in rivers and other bodies of water, not necessarily for documentation, research, or an archeological purpose. The scale lists it as High importance and even if it was to stay within the project I would significantly dissent on it being High, based on your scales this does not compare to other High importance articles. Cheers OfficerManatee (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cueva de las Manos Lots of content has been added. Requesting review for reclassification. Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Subneolithic - Been developing the article (and will continue to do so) over the past couple weeks, would appreciate a review regarding its quality scale. Thanks in advance! OK872 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Prehistoric Archaeology Requesting that this stub be reviewed to see if the classification can be upgraded to article or if further revisions need to be made. Thank you in advance! Neeks 3 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Lawrence H. Keeley — Requesting that this currently start-class article be reviewed for a higher quality classification and receive an importance class as well. Nmarshall25 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Hilly Flanks — Requesting that this currently stub-class article be reviewed if possible, would appreciate some input and feedback. Redherring22 (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.


November 21, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 20, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 19, 2024

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 18, 2024

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 17, 2024

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

November 16, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

November 15, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Archaeology/Assessment&oldid=1156119772"