Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Assessment
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Elections and Referendums! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to elections and referendums. 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 Elections and Referendums}} project banner.
Frequently asked questions
[edit]- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- 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. Alternatively, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Elections and Referendums WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
If you have any other questions that are not listed here, feel free to ask them at the talk page.
How to assess articles
[edit]You can assess an article by placing the {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} banner on its talk page (not the article page) and using the two parameters, class (to assess the quality) and importance (to assess the priority) (if you are doubtful just leave one of these blank).
Quality assessments
[edit]An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} 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 Elections and Referendums articles) | FA | |
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Elections and Referendums articles) | A | |
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Elections and Referendums articles) | GA | |
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Elections and Referendums articles) | B | |
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Elections and Referendums articles) | C | |
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles) | Start | |
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Elections and Referendums articles) | Stub | |
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Elections and Referendums articles) | FL | |
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Elections and Referendums articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
Quality scale
[edit]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 |
Priority assessment
[edit]An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top |
High |
Mid |
Low |
??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top
- High
- Mid
- Low
- Unknown - Any article not rated for importance.
Priority scale
[edit]Label | Criteria | Examples |
---|---|---|
Top | Highly recognisable or of interest to the whole world or a significant section of it. | |
High | Articles with recognition throughout an entire region and other countries. | |
Mid | Articles with recognition in the whole region it happened in or specialist topics. | |
Low | Articles with very localised recognition. |
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.
Requested assessments
- 2022 AJK local government elections - Looking for B or higher. Its almost complete more than 95%. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Social media in the 2020 United States presidential election - Looking for a C , have significantly expanded since receiving 'Start' class. Giraffer (munch) 14:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Giraffer: Done Gazamp (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- 1992 Montenegrin independence referendum I've greatly expanded the article, currently assessed as Start class. --Aleksamil (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Aleksamil: Done Gazamp (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- 2021 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council election, hoping for an upgrade from stub --james_mc (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Jamesmc56: Done - A really well put together page, well done for your work on it. One suggestion just from a reader's POV: it might be useful to have a composition template similar to the one at 2021 Cornwall Council election#Council composition to show more clearly the difference the election made to the overall council composition. Gazamp (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign I have created the article last month and hoping it to be assessed as a B grade article from unassessed. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done - It was done within few hours by a user.Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- 2000 Taiwanese presidential election - I have added sources by and large (and will continue to do so) over the past few days -- mainly the article was unsourced. I'd like a second opinion. Not aiming for any particular rating, though. If you have any suggestions feel free to elaborate on them in your reply. Also, I would like an opinion on whether the citation maintenance tag is still needed. Thanks! --Duonaut (talk | contribs) 04:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Duonaut: Done - I've re-rated it at C class, but I feel like it's almost B. The referencing is largely great, but I've added citation needed templates to what doesn't seem to be attributed - I might have been a bit overzealous, but there are definitely some key parts which should have a source (it might be that chunks of text which I've tagged are referenced with one source at the end of the paragraph or something, in which case just ignore and remove the tag).
- I also took out a few clauses which didn't seem NPOV and were unreferenced. Final point, in the table of county and city vote tallies using bolding to show the winner, rather than red text, is best (per MOS:COLOUR). If you make these few tweaks, then I don't see why it shouldn't be a B class article (and probably higher, but I don't have much experience there). This a really great page now so well done and thank you for all your work on it! Let me know if anything wasn't clear or I've missed something, Gazamp (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- 2020 United States redistricting cycle - Much better than 'Start' but I don't know where exactly to place it Phoenix1494 (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Phoenix1494: Done - have re-rated at C class, but again IMO it's probably almost a B. The only criterion I don't think it quite meets is the citation one: there are a few paragraphs which don't have clear references, notably the first paragraph in the 'Reapportionment' section, the Ohio paragraph in the 'Congressional redistricting plans passed by commissions', the first paragraph of the 'Court run redistricting' section (the last three states mentioned don't seem to have any citations to the fact), and the Ohio paragraph in 'State court rulings'. I'll add citation needed tags where I mean so it's easy to find. Thanks for your work on the article, and let me know if there's anything that I've missed. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- 2022 Marikina local elections - I have made a lot of edits that went against tradition and I would like to know if they were actually beneficial to the development of the article. EdrianJustine (talk)
- @EdrianJustine: I've rated it at C class. Overall, I think the article looks in good shape. Some parts could do with more citations in my opinion - my rule of thumb is that anything that isn't obvious to someone who is completely new to the topic needs a reference. Also, because candidates won by large margins the vote share maps are all one shade, and at least one of these would have differentiation if the vote share boundaries were increased (i.e. instead of going 40% > 50% > 60% it could go 60% > 70% > 80%) - there might be a reason this hasn't been done, in which case ignore me! As well, the results per district map is hard to read - perhaps a better format would be something more like the map at 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom. Thanks for your work on the page, it's really paying off! Best, Gazamp (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Project statistics
[edit]Elections and Referendums pages by quality | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | |||||||
Total | |||||||
FA | 39 | ||||||
FL | 27 | ||||||
GA | 175 | ||||||
B | 1,401 | ||||||
C | 5,995 | ||||||
Start | 28,215 | ||||||
Stub | 31,434 | ||||||
List | 7,118 | ||||||
Category | 27,280 | ||||||
Disambig | 213 | ||||||
File | 393 | ||||||
Project | 13 | ||||||
Redirect | 5,875 | ||||||
Template | 10,968 | ||||||
NA | 95 | ||||||
Assessed | 119,241 | ||||||
Unassessed | 4,089 | ||||||
Total | 123,330 | ||||||
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 358,212 | Ω = 5.33 |