Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome to the assessment department of the Pink Floyd WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Pink Floyd 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 {{WPFloyd}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Pink Floyd articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Pink Floyd articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 2 5
FL 1 1
GA 6 10 3 4 23
B 4 1 5 10
C 1 11 9 28 1 50
Start 28 42 180 1 251
Stub 5 35 40
List 1 1 4 2 1 9
Category 165 165
Disambig 2 2
File 228 228
Project 22 22
Redirect 863 863
Template 23 23
NA 52 52
Other 2 2
Assessed 15 52 65 254 1,357 3 1,746
Unassessed 2 2
Total 15 52 65 254 1,357 5 1,748
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,771 Ω = 4.67
Syd Barrett pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 2
FL 1
GA 7
B 1
C 3
Start 33
Stub 4
List 1
Category 8
File 25
Redirect 91
Template 3
Assessed 179
Total 179
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 218 Ω = 4.36
David Gilmour pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 1
GA 1
B 1
C 4
Start 14
Stub 3
List 1
Category 7
File 29
Redirect 70
Template 2
NA 2
Assessed 135
Total 135
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 109 Ω = 4.54
Roger Waters pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 1
B 3
C 6
Start 19
Stub 5
List 1
Category 11
Disambig 1
File 73
Redirect 133
Template 1
NA 1
Assessed 255
Total 255
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 158 Ω = 4.65
Richard Wright pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 1
GA 3
C 1
Start 4
Category 7
File 4
Redirect 38
Template 1
NA 2
Assessed 61
Total 61
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 30 Ω = 3.33
Nick Mason pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 1
GA 1
C 4
Start 6
Category 6
File 4
Redirect 2
Template 1
Assessed 25
Total 25
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 48 Ω = 4.00

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 Pink Floyd WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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 and importance parameters in the {{WPFloyd}} project banner on its talk page: 

{{WPFloyd
|class=
|importance=
|barrett=
|gilmour=
|waters=
|wright=
|mason=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Pink Floyd 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. The Dark Side of the Moon
(as of September 2009)
 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. n/a
 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. n/a
 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. Meddle
(as of September 2009)
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. The Dark Side of the Moon Live
(as of October 2006)
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. Pink Floyd bootleg recordings
(as of September 2010)
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. Why Pink Floyd...?
(as of May 2012)
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. Blackhill Enterprises
(as of May 2012)
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 Syd Barrett songs
(as of July 2012)

Importance

[edit]

Importance must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-importance" in one context may be only "Mid-importance" in another. 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).

Consider a hierarchy such as History -> History of Europe -> History of Poland -> Polish kings and queens. An article labeled as "Top-importance" for the subject of history would probably warrant inclusion in V0.5, V1.0 and other releases. A "Top-importance" article for the history of Poland would be a reasonable candidate for inclusion, but most "Top-importance" articles on Polish kings & queens would probably not be included in early releases. Nevertheless such ranking within a subject area is very helpful in deciding which articles are included first as the scope of the Wikipedia 1.0 project expands. Quality articles which are not considered to be on topics important enough for inclusion on V0.5 will be held in a held nominations page, ready for inclusion as the scope expands.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia. High probability that non-Floyd fans would look this up. Main article, The Dark Side of the Moon, Live performances, The Wall, Group members,
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the encyclopaedia. Subject is notable or significant within the fan community, but not necessarily outside it Majority of the studio albums, Another Brick in the Wall, various DSotM articles
Mid Subject fills in more minor details, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Publius Enigma
Low Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial. Sigma 6

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.

  1. Add articles here!

Assessment log

[edit]
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Articles by quality log - Pink Floyd

[edit]

December 18, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 17, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Articles by quality log - Syd Barrett

[edit]

There were no logs for this project from December 10, 2024 - December 17, 2024.

Articles by quality log - David Gilmour

[edit]

December 18, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Articles by quality log - Roger Waters

[edit]

December 17, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Articles by quality log - Richard Wright

[edit]

December 18, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Articles by quality log - Nick Mason

[edit]

There were no logs for this project from December 11, 2024 - December 18, 2024.

Worklist

[edit]
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pink_Floyd/Assessment&oldid=1156119971"