Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Home

Members

Article Assessment

Cartography

New Articles

Categories

Templates

To do list

If you are new to the assessment department, consider reading the FAQs first. The frequently asked questions appear here for convenience and to educate newcomers to the assessment process. However, you are free to use this page to collaborate with the editors working on this WikiProject. Remember to be bold and open up to the assessment/collaboration process on this project.

Contents 1 Requesting an assessment 2 Editorial debates 3 Instructions 3.1 Quality scale 3.2 Importance scale 4 Statistics in a Glance 5 The team 6 Example assessments

[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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead. Please archive requests that are complete.

Please place new requests (in the format, # [[article name]] -- ~~~~ ) at the bottom of the list.

1. Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)--Hassanpak30 11:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Mussarat Abbas -- Showman16 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
3. University of Engineering and Technology (Peshawar) -- LopezKahn (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Karlugh Turks -- LopezKahn (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Shihan Inamullah Khan -- Mrizwankhan (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Timeline of Pakistani history -- User:Sarfarosh2 --Sarfarosh2 (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Devta - please assess the notability of this article. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Badaber Uprising - is a startup article on a tricky subject. Please assess the notability and comment. --Fastboy (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Hyderabad, Sindh - needs formal assessment - Arun Reginald (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial debates

Editorial debates may include disputes over the content in articles. If such a dispute is filed for the editors' considerations, the relevant article's talk pages may be regarded as a staging ground for affairs that need to be resolved. After a consensus (that would still require some votes) debates surrounding issues like sectarianism and nationalism have paved the way for assessment of citations used in the articles on the basis of the Wikipedia's third opinion rules.

If there are citations that need to be judged and evaluated by third-party neutral peers, they need to be discussed here.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WP Pakistan}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WP Pakistan| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Pakistan articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Pakistan articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Pakistan articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Pakistan articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Pakistan articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Pakistan articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Pakistan pages)

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

• Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Pakistan articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Pakistan articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Pakistan articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Pakistan articles)

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
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)
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)
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 scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Pakistan.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Status	Template	Meaning of Status
Top	{{Top-Class}}	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High	{{High-Class}}	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid	{{Mid-Class}}	This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low	{{Low-Class}}	This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None	None	This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

[edit] Statistics in a Glance

As can be seen from the graph on the right generated using data depicted in the reports of the Wikipedia editorial teams's Pakistan statistics page. The amount of assessed and unassessed articles has risen dramatically while the amount of articles declared stubs has stayed at a stable percentage increase. What is interesting is the fact that most start articles and B-class articles remain unchanged over the course and no effort is put into improving these articles. It is also visible that we are loosing touch with some featured articles that relate to Pakistan as well.

[edit] The team

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

1. Arunreginald (talk · contribs)
2. Badkhan (talk · contribs)
3. FatehM (talk · contribs)
4. Husein Najmi (talk · contribs) Karachi, Religion, Tourism(Northern Areas)
5. Islescape (talk · contribs)
6. Sidhudajutt (talk · contribs) Shiekhupura, Religion, Politics, Employment Inflation# Smsarmad (talk · contribs)
7. Szhaider (talk · contribs)
8. Taimoors (talk · contribs)
9. UzEE (talk · contribs)
10. Yousaf465 (talk · contribs)
11. Zaindy87 (talk · contribs)
12. Zainubrazvi (talk · contribs)

[edit] Example assessments

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.

Quality

• {{WP Pakistan|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
• {{WP Pakistan|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
• {{WP Pakistan|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
• {{WP Pakistan|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
• {{WP Pakistan|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
• {{WP Pakistan|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
• {{WP Pakistan}} - to leave the article un-assessed.

Importance

• {{WP Pakistan|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
• {{WP Pakistan|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
• {{WP Pakistan|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
• {{WP Pakistan|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance