Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:NRHPA

Welcome to the Assessment Division of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's National Register of Historic Places articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program,

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:National Register of Historic Places articles by quality.

Contents

[edit] FAQ

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do? 
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article? 
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article? 
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
8. 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!
9. What if I have a question not listed here? 
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, leave a message on the talk page.

[edit] Assessment instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places| ... | class=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used:

should only be used for articles that passed through the Featured Article peer review process and are currently listed as featured articles
should only be used for articles that have A-Class status
should only be used for articles that passed through the Good Article peer review process are currently listed as good articles

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed National Register of Historic Places articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

[edit] Quality scale for articles

The following grading scheme is generic, not customized to WP:NRHP articles.

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] Quality scale for List-Type-Articles of NRHP sites (Proposed)

List-Type-Articles in WP:NRHP are articles that are lists of NRHP and other sites, but which are beyond mere lists. Class=list should be used to indicate something that is merely a list, e.g. as in a mere category. List-type-articles, instead, can advance in quality rating from Stub to Start to B to FL.

Examples are:

The goal of this quality scale proposal is to objectively recognize progress towards goal of FL status. Per WP:WIAFL, a Featured List is "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed". It meets manual of style guidelines, and any guidelines of relevant wikiprojects. It includes some photos where relevant. (Note, a photo for each list item is not required. Some FL's have very few photos. List of Chicago Landmarks has about 28 photos for its 220 or so sites. List of mammals of Canada is a FL with ~116 photos and ~85 no-photo entries. FL List of Dartmouth College faculty has about 100 entries but just 1 photo.)

A proposed set of criteria for Stub, Start, and B articles that are primarily lists within WP:NRHP is as follows:

Stub class is for any list that include WP:NRHP in its talk page but fails to meet all of the "Start" class criteria. Some items listed may only be red-links. These may optionally be given either "class=stub" or "class=list".

Start class is for any list

  1. that is useful in the sense described at WP:WIAFL
  2. that is factually accurate as far as it goes. Support for description of items can be supported by an item's article, or can be footnoted separately (although support by the articles is preferred and required by this proposal to achieve B class rating).
  3. that is nearly comprehensive
  4. there should not be controversy about its scope, for example what items are to be listed
  5. displays photos of some of its items
  6. has an article of at least Stub class for every item on the list that is an NRHP
  7. reference(s) supporting near-completeness must be provided.

B class is for any list that

  1. meets Start criteria
  2. that is comprehensive, with no controversy about its completeness
  3. has an article of at least Start class quality for every item that is an NRHP
  4. has support for all statements. In descriptions of items, support is to be found in the corresponding articles for the items, not in separate footnotes. This is to improve readability and to direct reader attention to Wikipedia articles, not to outside sources.
  5. displays a separate photo for a substantial number of its items
  6. reference(s) supporting comprehensiveness must be provided

Good class does not exist. An article that is primarily a table or list of NRHP sites will be rejected by Good Article review processes, and directed to try for Featured List instead. There is no provision in Wikipedia for a "Good List".

A class for lists, likewise, cannot exist in Wikipedia.

Featured List must meet WP:WIAFL and get through the wikipedia defined review process, outside of WP:NRHP. In that Featured List review process, NRHP project members can seek to ensure that the listmeet B class criteria defined above. It may be useful for nominators of an article to include a checklist of support for how the B class rating is met, in the Talk page, to communicate to evaluators outside of WP:NRHP what it takes to get concurrence on Featured List rating in WP:NRHP.

That is the entire proposal. It was not officially adopted as policy by WP:NRHP, which in fact has no official process for making a decision to adopt any given proposal. It is just the only proposal that has been put forward which provides guidance for NRHP list-type-article evaluation, and it is one that articulates a graduated approach up towards FL status.

Comments/suggestions on this proposal were invited, and some discussion is available in Archive 5 of WP:NRHP's Talk page (which was paired with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4#Quality rating of NHL articles. It was commented that this proposal is perhaps too arbitrary, too detailed, too bureaucratic, and that it would not necessarily carry weight in the FL decision process. It may be that this proposal's criteria are too stringent, yielding lower ratings than some might prefer. However, these are just guidelines for lower level ratings. It was suggested that any list-type-article achieving the criteria for a given level justifies WP:NRHP support in its rating being at least that high. Further, the FL decision process criteria states that FL candidates should meet criteria of relevant wikiprojects, and it remains to be shown if WP:NRHP evaluation carries weight in any proposal there. The criteria have been applied in rating the state-wide lists of NHLs indexed in List of National Historic Landmarks by state, and it was found to be relatively easy to evaluate any one list quickly using these criteria. To reiterate, however, this is not an official policy, and anyone may choose to reset ratings of any wikipedia article below the level of Good Article, at any time. It is hoped that this guideline is helpful to evaluators and to list authors, so that all can see a coherent set of rating criteria here and understand what would generally be accepted as sufficient to justify a given rating.

[edit] Requests for assessment

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.

Add new requests here

  • I would appreciate it if someone would assess the following articles I have recently created: Capitol View/Stifft's Station, Lamar Porter Athletic Field, Thomas R. McGuire House, Dunaway House, Mount Holly Mausoleum, and Gazette Building. Thanks, Broooooooce (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I commented on most of these about their referencing of NRHP inventory/nomination documents, and I expanded on NRHP infoboxes for a couple of them. But I have not rated the articles. I am myself not too sure on distinction between Start vs. B-class ratings. doncram (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Request assessment of Oregon Caves Historic District article--Orygun (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Requesting assessment for U-Drop Inn. This article was originally created in February as an NPOV attack piece and was almost deleted until it was discovered that the building is a historic place. So the attacks were removed, and a rescue effort began in which I completely overhauled the article. I have reassessed it to Start, but I would like an outside opinion before taking it any higher. Feedback and suggestions for additional improvements would also appreciated as historic places articles are not my normal forte. Collectonian (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Requesting assessment for Belair Mansion made by Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The 147 articles covered in List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, which have mostly been developed from stubs, hopefully merit at least Start rating now. Re-ratings would be helpful towards nomination of the NHL list to FL list status.doncram (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Grand Hotel (Mackinac Island) has been substantially edited and should be moved from Start class to A or B. 67.149.103.119 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is an NHL, but lacks NRHP infobox and lacks NHL and NRHP references. I downrated it from B to Stub, and explained why on its Talk page. doncram 03:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Added the infobox, so on it's way back up the scale. :) -Ebyabe 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I did a big cleanup, reorganization, and expansion of Hanford site. What do you think? Is this ready to be moved up the assessment scale? I would like to take this to Good Article status eventually. Northwest-historian (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It is showing at B-rating for NRHP. I provided suggestions on its Talk page, and commented that technically, in my opinion, for this to be rated above STUB status within WP:NRHP, I personally think it needs to mention year of listing in the National Register of Historic Places and to describe what was found to be significant about the site, in the official recognition. Other comments there would be helpful I am sure. doncram (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huron Lightship

This is not s "STUB" anymore.7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Stan