Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats/Assessment
Main page | Participants | Assessment | Recognized content | Templates | Collaboration |
Cats articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 7 | 7 | |||||
FL | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
FM | 11 | 11 | |||||
GA | 14 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 30 | ||
B | 10 | 27 | 12 | 25 | 74 | ||
C | 18 | 36 | 43 | 129 | 1 | 227 | |
Start | 8 | 38 | 58 | 234 | 3 | 341 | |
Stub | 3 | 25 | 7 | 54 | 1 | 90 | |
List | 1 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 14 | ||
Category | 236 | 236 | |||||
Disambig | 20 | 20 | |||||
File | 8 | 8 | |||||
Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
Project | 31 | 31 | |||||
Redirect | 4 | 3 | 182 | 189 | |||
Template | 79 | 79 | |||||
NA | 1 | 1 | |||||
Other | 13 | 13 | |||||
Assessed | 60 | 129 | 127 | 468 | 584 | 6 | 1,374 |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | |||||
Total | 60 | 129 | 127 | 468 | 584 | 7 | 1,375 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 3,435 | Ω = 4.47 |
Welcome to the assessment department! assesses the quality and importance of cat-related articles. The article ratings recognize excellent contributions and identifying topics that would benefit from further work. The ratings are recorded through the parameters in the {{WikiProject Cats}} project banner, which also lists the articles in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Cats articles by quality and Category:Cats 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 Cats 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!
Instructions
[edit]An article's assessment is generated from the class= and importance= parameters in the {{WikiProject Cats}} project banner on the article's Talk page, as shown below as if in Edit mode:
{{WikiProject Cats
|class=
|importance=
|attention=
|needs-image=
}}
Quality assessments
[edit]One of the following values must be used for the class= parameter:
- FA (adds the Featured Article to Category:FA-Class Cats articles)
- FL (adds the Featured List to Category:FL-Class Cats articles)
- FM (adds the Featured Image to Category:FM-Class Cats articles)
- GA (adds the article to Category:GA-Class Cats articles)
- B (adds the article to Category:B-Class Cats articles)
- C (adds the article to Category:C-Class Cats articles)
- Start (adds the article to Category:Start-Class Cats articles)
- Stub (adds the article to Category:Stub-Class Cats articles)
- List (adds the article to Category:List-Class Cats articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary.)
Articles that have been quality assessed, reassessed or removed can be found listed under Cats articles by quality log
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Cats articles. A class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
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]One of the following values must be used for the importance= parameter:
Value | Meaning | Examples | Category |
---|---|---|---|
Top | "Key" articles, considered indispensable | The family Felidae down to species level e.g. Tiger, Lynx, Cat. | Top-importance Cats articles |
High | High-priority topics and needed subtopics of "key" articles, often with a broad scope; needed to complement any general understanding of the field | All of the subspecies belonging to the species above. Key cat articles e.g. Cat anatomy, Felid hybrid, Working cat. Prehistoric taxa from below subfamily down to species. | High-importance Cats articles |
Mid | Mid-priority articles on more specialised (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarised in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding | Individual cat breeds and landraces. Prehistoric species. Key subtopics e.g. Cat senses. | Mid-importance Cats articles |
Low | While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles) | Individual cats and groups of cats; populations of species or subspecies. Any veterinary-related topics. Cat registries and cat-show-related articles. Cat care equipment and paraphernalia. | Low-importance Cats articles |
NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc | not applicable | not applicable |
?? | Subject importance has not yet been assessed | not applicable | not applicable |
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.
To improve an assessment above B class, the evaluation needs to be done through set channels. Information on the Good Article (GA class) is here, and Featured Articles (FA class) is here.
- Please place your requests here