Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject
Fishes
Main project page + talk
Requested articles and todo talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
Article assessment (Log) talk
 → Featured articles (22) talk
 → Good articles (156) talk
Portal talk
Project organization
Participants + talk
Userboxes talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
edit · changes

Welcome to the article assessment department of WikiProject Fishes. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Fishes articles.

Ratings are performed using the {{Fishproject}} project banner with additional parameters according to the quality of the article. When a parameter is used, the articles is placed into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Fishes articles by quality and Category:Fishes articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist

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 recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
Fishes articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 4 9 7 20
GA 2 4 31 117 154
B 2 37 87 196 7 329
C 4 57 253 917 24 1,255
Start 21 559 4,310 40 4,930
Stub 3 378 17,853 2,176 20,410
List 5 24 153 18 18 218
Category 3,603 3,603
Disambig 346 346
File 145 145
Portal 52 52
Project 41 41
Redirect 11 334 914 1,259
Template 8,188 8,188
NA 1 8 9
Other 1 13 14
Assessed 8 131 1,352 23,889 13,328 2,265 40,973
Unassessed 4 4
Total 8 131 1,352 23,889 13,328 2,269 40,977
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 153,425 Ω = 5.66
How do I add an article to WikiProject Fishes?
Just add {{Fishproject}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated?
There is currently a backlog of over 7,000 unassessed Fishes articles. Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any editor is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

How to assess articles

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Fishproject}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{Fishproject| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in unassessed Fishes 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 content quality grading scheme
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.

  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. 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:
  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; 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:
  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 (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
  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. 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:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 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 students of Fishes.

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.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analysed.

Requesting an assessment

[edit]

WikiProject Fishes's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Fishes-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Fishes-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Instructions

  1. Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
  2. Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
  3. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
  4. Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.

Example 

===={{la|article}}====
Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~


Please place new requests at the top of each section.

This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section.

Current requests for assessment

[edit]

Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.

[edit]
[edit]
[edit]
[edit]

---

[edit]

No sure if the article is low or mid importance. More has been writte about Sommen charrs than other charr populations. Also, I doubt the article is start class. As I made the article it would be better if someoe else reviewed it. Sommakoa (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I know this requests page is mostly inactive, but just in case somebody happens to be watching this, I believe that Brotula barbata meets the C-class criteria based on WP:WikiProject Fishes/Assessment. It would be appreciated if someone else could reassess it as such, if they agree. Improvement suggestions would be much appreciated as well.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyGazer 512: Promoted to C-class. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'd like to have the quality of this article changed: It's no longer a stub in the sense that it contains a synopsis of most non-subscription data made publicly available, although it can't be more than a Start-class, because so little has really been published about it. Thanks DitchT 08:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DitchT: Yeah, it's definitely no longer a stub - I've upgraded it to start class. :)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 12:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think this article could probably be upgraded to C-class. I know I can do it myself, but I don't really want to because A - I'm the creator of the page and the only editor who changed more than 15 bytes, and B - it would be nice to have a second opinion. If you think that it's not ready for C-class, improvement suggestions are welcome. I did look all over the Internet and add everything I found to the article (with citing the source, of course).--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed as b-class - I'm not sure what the procedure is for marking things as done here (removing them? <s></s>? {{done}}?) LittlePuppers (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, LittlePuppers, I don't know. I don't think there necessarily is a standard procedure for now - as you can see, there are still entries from 2009. I've tried to look at other WikiProjects, but it seems that none of them actually have a page like this. I'd say just leave it as it is for now, particularly because this is a newer request - though we may should archive or remove some of the older requests. I personally would not support striking requests out, though, when they're finished.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyGazer 512: Looking back at the history for this page a couple people removed some old ones that were done, but I don't think 2 or 3 edits exactly makes consensus - and looking at other WikiProjects, the assessment requests pages are dead for most of them, too. Maybe that's something I should look into cleaning up - from a very small sample, most have well under half a dozen requests, so it's not an unfeasible project for me to take up. I'd say maybe reply to the request that it's done, and then remove it somewhere from a few days to a month later? Looking into this more, WikiProject Biography has a backlog of 71 requests ranging back nearly a year, although it's clean before that. Looking in the history of that it looks like people just removed topics once they were assessed. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed 3 ancient topics, which I think should be sufficient for now.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'd like to have the quality of this article changed. Also its importance, since research on this fish has been widely cited regarding climate change and ocean acidification. Thanks DitchT 14:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DitchT, oh yeah, looks like you have been making some great improvements and additions to that article, so thank you for this. I've upgraded that to start class. It may be able to even be C class, but it could use some cleanup and follow the Manual of Style better. As for the importance, I'm not going to pretend I'm knowledgeable on that. Plantdrew, I've noticed that you seem to assess a lot of articles both for their quality and importance - do you think this could be upgraded to C class or to mid-importance? Personally, I don't think it's quite ready for B class yet (it's really hard to have an article get to B class), and I don't think it's important enough to be high-importance.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 23:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyGazer 512: I'd rate Ostorhinchus cyanosoma as C-class (lower C-class, but C-class nonetheless); it has referenced sections covering most of the basic information for a fish species. I'd keep it as low-importance; it doesn't appear to be very common an an aquarium fish, and the climate change research seems to be coming from a single groups of scientists; it is not a widely studied model organism. Plantdrew (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for responding. I'll do that - it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :)--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 00:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated DitchT 11:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Participants

[edit]

Active

[edit]

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. SkyGazer 512 (talk · contribs) - I've been assessing and reassessing articles related to fish already, so I'm in.

Inactive

[edit]
  1. Tkinias (talk · contribs) - Initiated WikiProject Fishes
  2. Dzhastin (talk · contribs) - I loves the fishes!
  3. Esoxid (talk · contribs) - Works in marine biology/ecology, benthic ecology.
  4. SCMurphy (talk · contribs) - Fisheries biologist (22 years), MS in Fisheries Management.

Example assessments

[edit]

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.

Quality

  • {{Fishproject|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=C}} - to rate an article at C-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{Fishproject}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


Importance

  • {{Fishproject|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{Fishproject|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{Fishproject|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{Fishproject|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance

Log

[edit]

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes/Assessment&oldid=1088948305"