Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Assessment
Workgroups related to the WikiProject Vancouver:
Automatically updated daily: 3:00 AM (UTC).
Welcome to the Assessment Department of the Vancouver WikiProject. This department assesses the quality of Wikipedia's Vancouver and GVRD articles. Work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program. The article ratings are also used within the project 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 {{vancouverproject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Vancouver articles by quality and Category:Vancouver articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist (Index · Statistics · Log).
Frequently asked questions
[edit]Vancouver articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
FL | 3 | 1 | 4 | ||||
GA | 1 | 6 | 10 | 17 | |||
B | 6 | 22 | 32 | 29 | 89 | ||
C | 3 | 12 | 62 | 124 | 1 | 1 | 203 |
Start | 7 | 32 | 304 | 1,065 | 4 | 2 | 1,414 |
Stub | 6 | 85 | 833 | 13 | 4 | 941 | |
List | 2 | 15 | 61 | 1 | 1 | 80 | |
Category | 188 | 188 | |||||
Disambig | 4 | 4 | |||||
File | 9 | 9 | |||||
Project | 9 | 9 | |||||
Redirect | 76 | 76 | |||||
Template | 32 | 32 | |||||
NA | 89 | 89 | |||||
Other | 3 | 3 | |||||
Assessed | 17 | 75 | 508 | 2,124 | 429 | 8 | 3,161 |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
Total | 17 | 75 | 508 | 2,125 | 429 | 9 | 3,163 |
- 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 Vancouver 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 {{vancouverproject}} project banner on its talk page:
{{Vancouverproject | class = | importance = | city = }}
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Vancouver articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Vancouver articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Vancouver articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Vancouver articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Vancouver articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Vancouver articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Vancouver pages)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Vancouver articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
The following values may be used for the importance parameter:
- Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Vancouver articles)
- High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Vancouver articles)
- Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Vancouver articles)
- Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Vancouver articles)
Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Vancouver articles. The class should be assigned according to the importance scale below.
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 |
Importance scale
[edit]Label | Criteria | Detail | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
Top | Reserved for the primary articles on the GVRD. These are considered fundamental to the topic. |
Top-importance articles will mostly be articles about cities that collectively make-up the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Lower Mainland. |
|
High | Major articles, |
High-importance articles will primarily be composed of subsections to Top-importance articles. Other articles in this category should be 'timeless' to Vancouver by being its most notable features, history, or reputation. |
|
Mid | General articles, |
Mid-importance articles are mostly composed of neighbourhoods, important people to Vancouver, and the history of Vancouver. |
|
Low | Minor articles, |
Articles relating to businesses, local artists, non-historic buildings, and education (with the exception of universities). |
|
NA | Used when subject importance is not applicable. |
Categories, Templates, and Files. |
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:
The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada- Is currently listed as a stub and of high importance. This article has been significantly expanded. MrPF (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- C rank by Military WikiProject. Mkdwtalk 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mount Fromme -Not rated yet.NikolaiHo 01:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- * Assessed as Start class. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the article on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, and am hoping to bring it through to Featured Article status. Please assess for A-class. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Assessment log
[edit]- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record. |
April 24, 2020
[edit]Assessed
[edit]- Lawrence Sabatini (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
April 23, 2020
[edit]Renamed
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- Robert Thirsk (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
[edit]- St. Paul's Anglican Church, Vancouver (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- This Sounds Serious (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
April 22, 2020
[edit]Assessed
[edit]- Nathan Fong (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
April 21, 2020
[edit]Renamed
[edit]- Bankruptcy and data breach of NCIX renamed to NCIX (retailer).