Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Netherlands
articles		 Importance
None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 4 4
A 1 1
Good article GA 9 9
B 130 130
Start 917 917
Stub 2991 2991
Assessed 4052 4052
Unassessed 123 123
Total 4175 4175

Welcome to the assessment department of the Netherlands WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Netherlands 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 Netherlands}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Netherlands articles by quality and Category:Netherlands 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 Netherlands WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article. It is however considered ethical conduct not to assess articles in the writing of which you yourself has been an important editor
Can I rank an article as I like? 
No. Every editor can award stub, start and B class. However, the higher quality labels require more. Good Article and Featured Article status can only be awarded to articles that have gone through the official Wikipedia nomination procedures. A-class assessment are reserved for very good articles, and should have received and fairly addressed extensive peer review (from within or outside the project).
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; if it has indeed been improved; or the rating was unfair, a better quality will be assigned. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
I agreed with the low rating, but I have now improved the article, how can I get my rating up? 
Again, 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 Netherlands}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Netherlands| ... | 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:

  • Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Netherlands articles)
  • Dab or Disambig (for disambiguation pages; add pages to Category:Disambig-Class Netherlands articles)
  • Cat or Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Netherlands articles)
  • NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Netherlands pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Netherlands 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:Netherlands 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] 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.

  • I've rehauled the GreenLeft article adding references. I was wondering whether it could be reassessed? C mon (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I had a look and you did some good work. It is still B, among others because this is the highest level a single editor within a project can give. If you want it to become Good you have to go the larger community. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Request an assessment of new article Samuel Story.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done: Start class. Very nice article, add some support material (images etc.) and expand lead and it will make B.Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Request an assessment of new article Vlieter Incident.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done: Start class. Very nice article, add some support material (images etc.) and expand lead and it will make B.Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Batavian Republic has been completely rewritten. Could it please receive an assessment review? (the old rating is stub class).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done: This is a very strong article. The writing style needs some tightening. Once that is fixed I would give it a go-over and submit for GA soon. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • North Sea has recently been translated from a Feature Article in German wikipedia, as well as the article was nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and received a multitude of improvements. It is currently under peer review. Could it receive an assessment review? SriMesh | talk 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It is a reasonably good article but I think it is still at B class (not saying anything about GA or FA classes).
    • Weaknesses:
      • Introduction is too brief (one paragraph). Also in this brief context the reference to a name long ago out of use seems a bit irrelevant. The images in the introduction section are not fully complementary, an infobox is now becoming standard for many articles so perhaps something like that may work here as well
      • The order of the sections should be considered as I think the current structure does not facilitate a very good flow
      • Naming sections seems a bit at an awkward location and the list at the end of this section disrupts the reading flow
      • Geology - Tectonics image is in French not preferred here
      • Island section is only a table. Not a single line of introduction. Are there fifty, are these the top fifty isles. This is unclear.
      • Headings in the history section are awkward (History section if named thus should discuss Geological history and the landbridge in the Ice age) or be renamed. Same for other subheaders. The first section is about acces to Britain (which remained important in WWII), the next are about powers (Roman, Hanseatic, Dutch, English) the later about conflicts (WWI, II). This is inconsistent. A single approach has to be chosen and the section rewritten.
      • Marine traffic and Ships and shipwrecks sections are underdeveloped.
      • Culture and language section. Largely irrelevant, in any case to listy, overly detailed. (also missing image)
      • References several reference (5,6,7) are missing.Arnoutf 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


I have totally rewritten the Betuweroute-wiki this month, and then took a first look the talk-page, to learn that it was Start-class.

  • The article was rated in november. After rewriting and extending the piece, I feel that a new rating is overdue.
  • Is the talk-page start-class or the Betuweroute-wiki itself?
  • A map would be nice, but I spend most of my wiki-time on Dutch Wikipedia. Maybe someone is more experienced on the ins and outs of maps and the WikiProject Trains/Maps task force? Other sources are welcome too.
  • What else can I do to improve the article?
  • Oh, and something totally different: Being a Dutchman, I have no native knowledge of English. Although my English is quite passable for my eyes, there may be recurrent quirks or faults. Feel free to inform me about such things!

As I am not often on English Wikipedia these days, consider these ways to contact me:

  • Email to me at bertus@37.com
  • You could write a message on my talk-page [1] on Dutch Wikipedia

Messages are welcome in Dutch, English and German. Please mention your preferred language for an answer.

B222 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I reassessed the article, and think it class should remain at start for now. By request an assessment report is given below; I have listed main issues, as I think the article is not at the status we can truly bother about details.
  • Introduction. Please conform to WP:LEAD; make sure it comprehensively covers the whole of the article. Also the second line "Several parts of this article are based on a German weblog" should not be in the Lead section. An image o map, preferably inside an infobox placed in the top-right corner would benefit the intro.
  • History. Please make the timeline fully chronological. Is this really all there is?
  • Controversy. The style is very listy and the flow of reading could benefit from more prose like storytelling. Also, refer to the relevance of these controversies, what influence did it have on planning, cost and specifications.
  • Specification. This is a bulleted list. Some introductory lines to contextualise the specification issues is needed.
  • Infrastructure. Same as above, provide some more context and improve flow of reading
  • Route. This needs a map, also very listy, is there no alternative for that long list? The reference to the previous route needs to be explained furhter
  • I would combinen Specification, Infrastructure and Route in one section (as subsections) called e.g. Design (or planning or whatever); splitting them apart seems to intoduce redundancies
  • Important information I am missing:
    • Why/How was this route designed. Where did the money come from, Who owns it, Who pais for it, Who wants it.
    • More elaboration on amount of traffic; and operators, operational costs, operational turnover, etc.
Taken together I think this article needs a considerable amount of work before it can be awarded B-class. I hope this helps. (copy on article talk) Arnoutf (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment log

Netherlands 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

[edit] June 8, 2008

[edit] June 4, 2008

  • Benjamin van den Broek (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • Dolf Kerklaan (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • List of windmills in Noord Brabant (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • List of windmills in Noord Holland (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • List of windmills in Overijssel (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • List of windmills in Utrecht (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • List of windmills in Zeeland (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • List of windmills in Zuid Holland (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) removed.
  • Treaty of Butre (1656) reassessed from Start-Class (No-Class) to GA-Class (No-Class)
  • Peter Post (talk) B-Class (No-Class) added.
  • De Adriaan, Haarlem reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Deurne, Netherlands reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Dutch Australian reassessed from Stub-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Katwijk reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Maassluis reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Marco Piqué (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) added.
  • Middelharnis reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Purmerend reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Velsen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Vught reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Zandvoort reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Zeist reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Zoetermeer reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Zundert reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
  • Cube house (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) added.
  • Dalfsen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • De Ronde Venen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • De Stolpen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Dinkelland reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Dirksland reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Dongen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Drechterland reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Drimmelen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Geertruidenberg reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Geldrop-Mierlo reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Gemert-Bakel reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Giessenlanden reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Gilze en Rijen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Goirle reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Graafstroom reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Graft-De Rijp reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Henri Jan Wienese (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) added.
  • Kampen (Overijssel) reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Koggenland reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Korendijk reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Koudekerk aan den Rijn reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Krimpen aan den IJssel reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Kwadijk reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Maarssen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Maasdonk reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Margriet Matthijsse (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) added.
  • Medemblik reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Middelie reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Mill en Sint Hubert reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Moerdijk reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Montfoort reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Moordrecht reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Muiden reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Naarden reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Nederlek reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Netherlands Antilles-United States relations reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Niedorp reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Nieuw-Lekkerland reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Nieuwerkerk aan den IJssel reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Nieuwkoop reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Nistelrode reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Noordwijkerhout reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Nootdorp reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Nuenen, Gerwen en Nederwetten reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Papendrecht reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Petten reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Pijnacker reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Pijnacker-Nootdorp reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Putte (Netherlands) reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Tanchelm reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Uitgeest reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Uithoorn reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Utrechtse Heuvelrug reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Valkenswaard reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Veenendaal reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Veldhoven reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Vierlingsbeek reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Vorstenbosch reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Vriezenveen reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Vroomshoop reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Zaanstad reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Zederik reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Zeevang reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Zevenhuizen-Moerkapelle reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Zijpe reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Zoeterwoude reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Zwartewaterland reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)
  • Heineken Pilsener (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.
  • Thijs Wöltgens (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.
  • Youp van 't Hek (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] June 1, 2008

[edit] May 28, 2008

[edit] May 25, 2008

[edit] May 21, 2008

[edit] May 18, 2008

[edit] May 14, 2008

[edit] May 11, 2008

[edit] May 4, 2008

[edit] April 21, 2008

[edit] April 15, 2008

[edit] April 6, 2008

[edit] April 2, 2008

[edit] March 30, 2008

[edit] March 26, 2008

[edit] March 22, 2008

[edit] March 19, 2008

[edit] March 15, 2008

[edit] March 11, 2008

[edit] March 9, 2008

[edit] March 3, 2008

[edit] February 29, 2008

[edit] February 28, 2008

[edit] February 27, 2008

[edit] February 24, 2008

[edit] February 18, 2008

[edit] February 14, 2008

[edit] February 10, 2008

[edit] February 6, 2008

[edit] February 2, 2008