Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WP:LGBT/A
WP:LGBT/Assessment

One of the main tasks of the LGBT WikiProject is to assess the quality of Wikipedia's LGBT articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to help in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. They also play a role in the WP:1.0 program, which the WikiProject uses to help automate some of the assessing process.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{LGBTProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:LGBT articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. WP:1.0 also produces a statistics page, and a log of articles assessed.

LGBT
articles		 Importance
None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 37 37
A 8 8
Good article GA 59 59
B 857 857
Start 3490 3490
Stub 4275 4275
List 66 66
Assessed 8792 8792
Unassessed 16 16
Total 8808 8808
LGBT studies
WikiProject
Project navigation links
Main project page talk
Portal
Watchlist talk
Members
Coordinator
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Deletion discussions
Project category talk
LGBT categories
Info resources
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] How to Assess

An article's assessment is generated on its talkpage from the class parameter in {{LGBTProject}}, the WikiProject's banner. To add the banner, add the following to its talkpage:

{{LGBTProject|class=?}}

To add an assessment, simply fill in the class parameter with the appropriate letters. The following values may be used:

[edit] Where to find unassessed articles

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed LGBT articles. The criteria for the different classes is below.

Articles which are in LGBT categories (possibly inappropriately - watch out for vandalism!) but which don't yet have an LGBT template are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Cat Search 4 New Pages.

[edit] Quality scale

WikiProject LGBT Studies uses the same criteria for grading articles as set out by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you are not sure what class an article falls under, leave a note on the WikiProject's talkpage, and someone will help you out.

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criterion Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
Featured list FL
{{FL-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A
{{A-Class}}		 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 suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Durian (as of March 2007)
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}		 The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B
{{B-Class}}		 Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and references.
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
 Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage. Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}		 The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)


[edit] Importance

An importance parameter has not been added to the project tag for talk pages, though this has been proposed. Currently "core" articles are being identified at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Core topics.

[edit] Historical counts

Main article: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment/Historical counts
All figures given for the end of each month
2007 July August September October November December
Featured article FA 25 0.34 % 26 0.34 % 28 0.36 % 31 0.38 % 33 0.40 % 35 0.4 %
A 9 0.12 % 8 0.10 % 8 0.10 % 8 0.10 % 8 0.10 % 7 0.1 %
Good article GA 34 0.46 % 40 0.52 % 37 0.47 % 41 0.51 % 43 0.52 % 44 0.5 %
B 780 10.46 % 797 10.31 % 809 10.33 % 818 10.25 % 837 10.21 % 850 10.2 %
Start 2,849 38.22 % 2,995 38.75 % 3,045 38.87 % 3,094 38.77 % 3,176 38.76 % 3,249 38.9 %
Stub 3,755 50.38 % 3,862 49.97 % 3,906 49.86 % 3,988 49.97 % 4,037 49.26 % 4,107 49.2 %
Unassessed 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %
Total 7,454 7,728 7,833 7,981 8,195 8,345
2008 January February March
Featured article FA 35 0.4 % 37 0.4 % 37 0.4 %  %  %  %
A 7 0.1 % 7 0.1 % 7 0.1 %  %  %  %
Good article GA 52 0.6 % 54 0.6 % 55 0.6 %  %  %  %
B 858 10.1 % 852 9.9 % 856 9.9 %  %  %  %
Start 3,297 39.0 % 3,368 39.3 % 3,437 39.6 %  %  %  %
Stub 4,143 49.0 % 4,191 48.9 % 4,226 48.7 %  %  %  %
List 62 0.7 % 63 0.7 % 64 0.7 %  %  %  %
Unassessed 0 0.0 % 4 0.0 % 4 0.0 %  %  %  %
Total 8,454 8,576 8.686

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article.

If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Add new requests to the bottom of this list.
  1. Gold Dust Orphans has been reworked and needs a new assessment. Thank you Friend of theater (talk · contribs)
  2. Norbert Basil MacLean III needs a WikiProject LGBT assessment. Connorkeough (talk · contribs)
  3. Transfeminism has been reworked and needs new assessment. Please note that I am still in the process of placing all necessary information in the "sources cited" section to allow easy referencing for those interested in confirmation/further reading, though the article itself is ready for review, and sources will be done within 48hours. Currently May 1. Cripdyke (talk · contribs)
  4. LGBT rights in Pakistan. The article needs a format WP LGBT assessment. This is a very controversial issue for many in Pakistan and has been handled very carefully as to make the article sound as NPOV as possible. If possible, please leave comments on the talk page regarding all the assessments made. Even the simplest of comments matter to the writers and editors at WikiProject Pakistan. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Pierre Bergé Updated, would like it to be assessed. Elizabeth BY (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)