Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neopaganism
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1
Good article GA 1 4 1 6
B 3 7 3 2 22 37
Start 3 8 34 26 94 165
Stub 5 24 41 79 149
Assessed 7 24 62 69 196 358
Unassessed 1 17 18
Total 7 24 62 70 213 376

Welcome to the assessment department of the Neopaganism WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Neopaganism related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself 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 {{WikiProject Neopaganism}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Neopaganism articles by quality and Category:Neopaganism articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

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 Neopaganism 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.

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Neopaganism}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Neopaganism| ... | class=??? | ...}}
Featured article FA
A
Good article GA
B
Start
Stub
???
Needed

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:


Template
Disambig
Category
NA

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed-Class Neopaganism articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Neopaganism articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria 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 assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Neopaganism}} banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Neopaganism| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

[edit] Importance scale

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about Neopaganism. A reader who is not involved in the field of Neopaganism will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. Neopaganism
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding Neopaganism.
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of Neopaganism. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand religion, such as specific aspects of Neopaganism. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in Neopaganism will be rated in this level.
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Neopaganism. Few readers outside the Neopaganism field may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of Neopaganism, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of Neopaganism.

Given the number and variety of articles with which this project shall be dealing, I believe that we should devote a good deal of attention in the short run to determining which of the articles we consider to be of greatest importance to the project. We now have a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism/Assessment/Top-importance articles where we can discuss which articles should receive top-importance ranking. Any and all input is more than welcome.

[edit] Requesting an 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.

  1. Gleb Botkin -- Rated B by the WikiProject Biography. --Bookworm857158367 16:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Church of Aphrodite -- needs a rating, could stand to be expanded by someone who knows more about the subject than I do. --Bookworm857158367 16:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism -- has undergone significant improvement since being rated "Start", including an extensive discussion and revision removing POV problems and original research. -- Whateley23 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Gardnerian Wicca -- I have added an image, re-ordered the content and extended the introduction to give the article some structure. Have added some citations and will add more in due course. This important article is rated as 'Start' now, but I would like to bring it up to B Class. It would be helpful if someone could independently assess what further changes are needed? Kim dent brown 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Craft name -- I have added some requested references and also the craft names of some well-known Wiccans from the past. Does this deserbe to be more than a stub now? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Magical tools in Wicca -- New page created to act as a central link to the several articles on different tools. I have self-rated this as 'Start' class and would appreciate it if another editor could peer review this and the article generally. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 13:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Philip Heselton -- I have made some additions here and would welcome a POV check as I am a close friend of his and may not have been as objective as I would wish. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Tamara Siuda -- Significant changes have been made in the past month or so, including layout, content, and the addition of a variety of references. Was rated "Start", I believe now to be "GA". IanCheesman (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Kemetic Orthodoxy -- Complete re-write took place over the past few months, including layout, content, and references. Article is now more than four times the original size, and layout is largely based on that of other religion pages. Was rated "Start", I believe now to be "GA". IanCheesman (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment log

Neopaganism articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


Archive 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.


[edit] June 11, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] June 8, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] June 4, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] June 1, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 28, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 25, 2008

[edit] May 21, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 18, 2008

[edit] May 14, 2008

[edit] May 11, 2008

[edit] May 4, 2008

  • Natib Qadish (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • Satyr reassessed from B-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Mid-Class)
  • Sally Morningstar (talk) Start-Class (Low-Class) added.

[edit] April 21, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] April 15, 2008

  • John J. Coughlin (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • Winter Magic (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) removed.

[edit] April 6, 2008

[edit] April 2, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] March 30, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] March 26, 2008

[edit] March 22, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] March 19, 2008

[edit] March 15, 2008

[edit] March 11, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] March 9, 2008

[edit] March 3, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] February 27, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] February 24, 2008

  • Central Fire (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • Sylph (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • Chthonic reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)

[edit] February 18, 2008

[edit] February 14, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] February 10, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] February 6, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] February 2, 2008

[edit] January 26, 2008

[edit] January 22, 2008