Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Assessment

[edit] Purpose

What is the purpose of article assessments? 
The assessment system allows the Firearms WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles that fall under its purview, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
Are these ratings official? 
No. These ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project to better prioritze work on the articles, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.

[edit] Assessing articles

Who can assess articles? 
In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Drastic changes to an articles rating should typically be discussed on the articles talk before making the change.
How do I assess an article? 
Consult the quality scale below; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WPGUNS banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use |class=B in the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless they actually are currently designated as such.

[edit] Common concerns

Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject's scope. What should I do? 
Due to the large volume of articles falling under the project, occasionally a tag is added to an article that the project does not cover. Feel free to remove the tag if the article truly is not within the scope of the project. If there is any doubt, post a note on the articles talk page and discuss it.
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
Feel free to change it (within reason) if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the project as a whole can discuss the issue either on the project's talk page or on the talk page of the article in question and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments on the talk page? 
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.

[edit] Quality scale

Label Criteria Process for rating Example
Featured article FA Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Follow the instructions on the Featured article candidates page. Webley Revolver (as of June 2007)
A Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length that suitably covers the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. Sufficient external literature references should be provided from (preferably) reliable third-party sources. Any third-party sources should have a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Should be well illustrated when appropriate and have no copyright problems. Any article be considered for featured article candidacy should be an A-Class article before being submitted for FA status. Follow the instructions on the project's A-Class review page. None Available as of August 2007
Good article GA The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. Follow the instructions on the Good article candidates page. M1 Garand rifle (as of August 2007)
B The article has been reviewed by an editor an accepted to meet the following criteria:
  1. Proper referencing and citation throughout the article.
  2. Adequate and correct coverage of the article topic.
  3. Proper structure as per the Manual of Style and project guidelines.
  4. Proper grammar and spelling.
  5. Adequate supporting materials such as external links and See also items.
 Any editor can assign this rating after having reviewed the article as per the previously mentioned guidelines. The proper banner filed should be filled out when assigning this rating. Glock (as of November 2007)
Start The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack one or more key elements. For example, a Start-Class article may have much useful content but lack:
  • a useful or descriptive image
  • an infobox
  • proper headings or properly named headings
  • proper section order
 Any editor can assign this rating after having reviewed the article as per the previously mentioned guidelines. None Available as of August 2007
Stub The article is very short lacks and great deal of information, or the information is incoherent or severely disorganized. Any editor can assign this rating after having reviewed the article as per the previously mentioned guidelines. None Available as of August 2007
Deferred Quality ratings on this article are deferred to other projects covering the article. Any editor can assign this rating. This rating should be used sparingly and only be used when project coverage is completely redundant. Mikhail Kalashnikov as of September 2007
NA Is not an article, and fits no other classification. Any editor can assign this rating. Care should be taken to not assign this rating to articles, but only non-article pages such as project pages and templates. None Available as of August 2007