Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago Cubs/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the Assessment Department of WikiProject Chicago Cubs. The department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Chicago Cubs 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 {{WikiProject Baseball|class=|importance=|cubs=|cubs-importance=}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Chicago Cubs articles by quality and Category:Chicago Cubs articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist (Index · Statistics · Log).

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:

Add request above this line, use scratch html, indent your comment(s), and sign it. Please read below for more details.

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 WikiProject Chicago Cubs 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.

Assessment instructions

[edit]

Quality assessments

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Baseball}} 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 Chicago Cubs articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Chicago Cubs articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Chicago Cubs articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Chicago Cubs articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Chicago Cubs articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Chicago Cubs articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Chicago Cubs articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Chicago Cubs articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Chicago Cubs 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 Chicago Cubs articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Chicago Cubs articles) Disambig
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class Chicago Cubs articles)  FM
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Chicago Cubs articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Chicago Cubs articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Chicago Cubs articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Chicago Cubs articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Chicago Cubs articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Chicago Cubs articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Chicago Cubs articles) ???

Importance assessments

[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Baseball|importance=???|cubs-importance=???}}

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

Grading scheme

[edit]

Quality scale

[edit]

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 students of Chicago Cubs.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Assessment statistics

[edit]


Log

[edit]

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; due to its size (ca 100 kB), it cannot be transcluded directly.

  1. ^ For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. However, where quite a number of pictures exist, for instance, the moon landing, FPC attempts to select the best of the ones produced.
  2. ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
  3. ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.