Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Organized labour articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 7 3 13
FL 1 1 2
GA 1 10 22 68 1 102
B 26 73 274 215 26 614
C 34 109 315 541 162 1,161
Start 34 217 829 1,759 683 3,522
Stub 19 360 948 1,184 813 3,324
List 3 8 14 42 1 5 73
Category 2,479 2,479
Disambig 17 17
File 364 364
Portal 494 494
Project 60 60
Redirect 1 9 42 45 119 216
Template 105 105
NA 2 2 4
Other 9 9
Assessed 118 790 2,452 3,859 3,650 1,690 12,559
Unassessed 1 24 244 269
Total 118 790 2,453 3,883 3,650 1,934 12,828
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 44,253 Ω = 5.06

Welcome to the assessment department of the Organized Labour WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's trade union and organized labour 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 {{LabourProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Organized labour articles by quality and Category:Organized labour articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist (Index · Statistics · Log).

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 Organized Labour 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!

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 parameter in the {{WikiProject Organized Labour}} project banner on its talk page: 

{{WikiProject Organized Labour
| class=
| importance=
| AOTD=
| featurebox=
| inmedia=
| small=
}}

Importance scale

[edit]
Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Detail Examples
Top Reserved for the primary articles on organized labour. These are considered fundamental to the topic.
High Major international articles, activists, strikes and movements. National trade union organizations.
  • Articles about the pivotal current/historical components of organized labour.
  • Main articles about national/international trade union organizations.
Mid General labour articles, national articles, activists, strikes and movements, and main articles on trade unions.
  • General labour articles.
  • National articles, activists, strikes and movements.
  • Trade unions.
Low Minor labour articles, national articles, activists, strikes and movements. Articles on trade union locals.
NA Used when an importance rating is not applicable. For example, for templates, categories, and files.

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. History of Solidarity
 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. Member states of the International Labour Organization
 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. Haymarket affair, 1977 Atocha massacre, Apple worker organizations
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. 1958 Paraguayan general strike, Sindicatul IT Timișoara
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 strikes, List of trade unions in Uruguay
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:1918 labor disputes and strikes, ,
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. Which Chicago strike? There are several!
File Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. Usually images are stored in Commons but fair-use images can exceptionally be uploaded here, for example File:Bill haywood headshot.jpg
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/New Articles
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles. Labor union redirects to Trade union (one way to address MOS:ENGVAR)
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. {{Global union federations}} {{AFL-CIO}} {{Belgian general strikes}}
NA Any non-article page that fits no other classification. The page contains no article content. Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified.
??? Article quality has not yet been assessed. Articles for which a valid quality rating has not yet been provided are listed in this category. A quality parameter should be assigned according to the assessment department of the WikiProject.

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.

  • Graduate student unionization request that the project adopt this page. I just made some edits, but previously it was pretty biased against unions and remains somewhat so.
-Added labour tag--Bookandcoffee 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-definitely B --Bookandcoffee 06:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rated.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rated.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • UK miners' strike (1984–1985) currently only "Mid" importance, I think it should be High. Fundamental to an understanding of the decline of the UK labour movement and from an international POV it was key to the ascendance of the Thatcherism / neo-liberalism that became economic orthodoxy over the subsequent 20 years. Chaikney (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, good spot, moved to High.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • International Workers' Association Major update to the history section. Not sure if it's worth a B class yet as other parts like organization still need work, but would appreciate a steer (talk) 15.57, 6 Oct 2011
Agreed, done. -- Julius177 (talk)
Agreed, done. -- Julius177 (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, done. -- Julius177 (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bumped up to B-class. Belated thanks! -- Julius177 (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ami du peuple (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2019 (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.


November 9, 2024

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 8, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

November 7, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

November 5, 2024

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 4, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Assessment&oldid=1176055501"