Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones

WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
| 49 | 50

Task forces

→ Western Pacific task force (talk)
→ Eastern Pacific task force (talk)
→ Atlantic task force (talk)
→ North Indian Ocean task force (talk)
→ Southern Hemisphere task force (talk)
→ Graphics task force (talk)
→ 2018 FT task force (talk)
→ Weather of YYYY task force (talk)
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
Project resources (talk)
Jargon (talk)
WikiProject statistics (talk)
Article requests (talk)
Cyclone Cup (talk)
Vital articles (talk)
Showcase (talk)
Style guidelines (talk)
Awards (talk)

Assessment

Main assessment page (talk)
→ Assessment tables (talk)
→ Assessment log (talk)
→ Assessment statistics (talk)

Tropical cyclones portal

Parent project

WikiProject Weather (talk)
Shortcut

Article assessment is the process by which tropical cyclone articles are sorted by quality into the different quality categories. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles.

Tropical cyclone articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 14 84 60 161
FL 1 4 32 43 80
FM 21 21
A 2 1 3
GA 10 64 400 650 1,124
B 11 32 61 62 1 167
C 10 103 257 281 2 653
Start 2 59 335 408 5 809
Stub 2 54 85 141
List 5 25 87 593 413 1,123
Category 956 956
Disambig 68 68
File 8 8
Portal 204 204
Project 97 97
Redirect 3 21 77 104 205
Template 469 469
NA 1 1
Other 5 5
Assessed 37 288 1,270 1,753 2,526 421 6,295
Unassessed 1 1
Total 37 288 1,270 1,753 2,526 422 6,296
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,255 Ω = 3.35

Assessment scale

[edit]

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

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

These criteria apply to general-content articles. Tropical cyclone articles have additional criteria/guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for an article of each class; see the talk page for discussion of these.

Each tropical cyclone article has its assessment included inside the {{hurricane}} template, such as {{hurricane|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

B-Class criteria

[edit]

In addition to the above, B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet the following six criteria:

B
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
    It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required.
  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 it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
    Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and 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. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Assessment guidelines

[edit]
Assessment guidelines for single tropical cyclone ("storm") articles:
Class Description Example
FA Exemplifies the quality of a professional encyclopedia and passes featured article candidacy by satisfying the featured article criteria. Typhoon Tip
(as of November 2020)
A Passes A-Class review. A-class storm articles are ready for submission as a featured article candidate, with only minor style issues, if any. A-class storm articles are comprehensive and clear in their prose and coverage, detailing all aspects of the storm with reliable sources, well-formatted CS1-templated references, relevant images, and non-breaking spaces where appropriate. WikiProject Tropical cyclone's A-class articles are considered higher quality than GA-class articles and are distinguished by their thoroughness in coverage, better style/prose, and consistency in references. A-class storm articles are essentially complete in their coverage of the storm. Hurricane Keith
(as of November 2020)
GA Nominated and passes Good article nominations. Touches and expounds upon all facets of the storm, including a meteorological history based upon the most reliable and final data (should use post-storm review data rather than operational data), unit system conversions for all measurements, and detailed storm preparations, impacts, and aftermath if available for all areas affected. All content is well-sourced with verifiable and reliable sources, and there should be no obvious omissions of pertinent content. Cyclone Onil
(as of November 2020)
B Passes all six B-Class criteria. B-class storm articles are fully-referenced, reasonably well-written, and cover the meteorological history of the storm and impacts for all areas affected. All sections, including the lede, should be well-structured and well-sourced. B-class articles should be free of any significant article-wide or section-wide citation and verifiability messages. However, there may be some minor omissions of certain facets of the storm and/or its impacts. Certain statements may also be dubious, ambiguous, unclear, or based on an original synthesis of ideas, even if those statements are well-sourced. Cyclone Winston
(as of November 2020)
C C-Class storm articles typically have most of the content and structure needed for a tropical cyclone storm article. Most new tropical cyclone storm articles that follow the project's style guidelines and are mostly well-referenced are preliminarily rated C-Class. However, C-Class articles often require extensive cleanup. They may place undue weight on certain facets of the storm, rely on outdated information (particularly in the meteorological history and casualty/damage figures), suggest subtle original research, cite broken links, feature some stretches of unencyclopedic prose, or contain unreferenced statements. C-Class articles touch upon all facets of a storm and all areas affected, but lack detail about these facets. Typhoon Haiyan
(as of July 2019)
Start Start-Class articles are generally incomplete in their coverage of the storm. While it may meet most of the project's style guidelines and follow the basic layout for a tropical cyclone article, there may be missing information of pertinent content relating to the storm. The main affected areas and aspects of the storm's evolution may not be covered in adequate detail, while other secondarily affected areas may be missing entirely. Storm articles whose prose and depth of content do not reflect (or "do justice to") the notability of a storm or the severity of its impacts are often rated Start-class. Extensive cleanup is needed to bring these articles to par, and there are likely several sentences that are not referenced by reliable and verifiable sources. References are often bare links, and the tone of the article may not comply with the manual of style. However, Start-Class articles offer a more inclusive overview of the storm and at the very least acknowledge the entirety of the storm's scope. Tropical Storm Norma (1970)
(as of January 2012)
Stub Stub-Class storm articles are largely devoid of most content, and may not follow the structure detailed in the project's style guidelines. Such articles provide some semblance of coverage and overview but are greatly lacking in detail. Entire sections of content may be unreferenced, or cited using questionable and non-verifiable sources. The principal aspects of the storm and basic sections specified in the project's guidelines, including the storm's basic meteorological history and main areas affected, may be wholly inadequate or entirely missing. Stub-Class storm articles are often jumbled collections of information that may not have much coherence establishing their relevance. Typhoon Sanba
(as of March 2013)

The following are assessment guidelines for season articles:

  • Stub class — Lacking the inclusion of each named (or nameable) storm
  • Start class — Every storm is mentioned
  • B class — Every storm has at least one paragraph for storm history and one for impact (if impact exists)
  • GA class — Covers everything well; before nominating, should include metric units, inline sourcing, and multiple paragraphs outside of the storm section (either in lede or a season summary section); nominated at WP:GAC and passed
  • A class — Season summary as well as an appropriately-long lead (two or more paragraphs, minimum), every section complete, any records about the season mentioned, non-breaking spacing (&nbsp;) between numbers and their units
  • FA class — Passes FAC

Assessment process

[edit]

Current practice is that Stub-Start-C-B assessments are done by individual editors when looking at an article. While usually it only takes a short time for assessors to identify new articles in Category:Unassessed Tropical cyclone articles, editors can request a review here if it is taking too long to assess an article.

Before upgrading articles to {{A-Class}}, the article should be discussed here to make sure everyone agrees that it meets the criteria listed above. This process is called an "A-Class review". To create a new A-Class review discussion, add the article to be assessed in a sub-section of the #A-Class review section below. Give the article's exact name in the title with a wikilink. Finally, add the "assessed=yes" parameter to the {{hurricane}} template near the talk of the article's talk page. Don't bundle more than one article per section, as that causes "assessed=yes" to point to a dead link.

Once the article is A-Class, you should probably get general peer review on it and then follow the normal process for promoting the article to featured status. Peer review (PR) and FA candidates (FAC) should be announced here to get more tropical-cyclone-specific comments from WPTC editors.

Finally, to prevent the page from becoming too long, archive an assessment discussion using the following form (replacing PAGENAME with the name of the article to archive):


Article assessments

[edit]

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

If you want an editor to quickly assess a newly-created article, list it here below. Reviewers: If you review an article in here, go ahead and remove it from the list.

A-Class Review

[edit]

If you don't find a storm, and its talk page marks it as assessed, look for it in the archives. Please add new assessments to the TOP of this list.

Assessment

[edit]
Archived discussion. Current status: {{GA-Class}}

Hi! Nominating Tropical Storm Kai-tak for A-Class, since the article looks good. All help and assistance will be appreciated!

A-Class Removal Candidate

[edit]

Assessment log

[edit]

A bot-maintained log of all assessment changes of WP:WPTC articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment Log.

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Assessment&oldid=1244469030"