Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Trains WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's rail transport 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 {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Rail transport articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Rail transport
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 6 13 3 22
Featured list FL 2 2
A 1 1
Good article GA 12 35 19 1 67
B 8 148 353 696 251 1456
Start 3 224 1105 4584 2663 8579
Stub 54 422 4945 2386 7807
List 2 4 34 123 167 330
Assessed 13 449 1962 10372 5468 18264
Unassessed 1 15 16
Total 13 449 1962 10373 5483 18280
The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
IRC (freenode.net) #Wikipedia-Trains-en
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
New article notes talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Models talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
edit · changes

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 Trains 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 {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:

{{TrainsWikiProject| ... | class=??? | ...}}
Featured article FA
Featured list FL
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
Image
List
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 rail transport 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:Rail transport 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 {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:

{{TrainsWikiProject| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

All articles that lack an importance rating are categorized in Category:Unknown-importance rail transport articles.

[edit] Importance scale

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics of rail transport. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on {{Train topics}} A reader who is not involved in rail transport 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. Train
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding the history or technology of rail transport. Most readers will at least be familiar with the topic being discussed. These articles describe the basics beyond the core topics about how trains work and the more significant historical events in rail transport history worldwide. Articles about the most basic topics in rail transport like rolling stock types, the largest railroad companies and the most historically and culturally significant topics are included in this level. Some technical terms can be used within articles in this range, but where they are used, they should be explained or at least link to articles that discuss the terms in more detail. First Transcontinental Railroad
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history or technology of rail transport. 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 rail transport, such as main stations in secondary travel markets, former Class I railroads and more specialized types of equipment. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most railroad company executives will be rated in this level. Ulster and Delaware Railroad
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of rail transport technology or history. Few readers outside the rail transport industry or that are not within the local area of the article's topic 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 rail transport, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most metro and local railway stations, short line railroad companies and limited or one-off productions of equipment or facilities that otherwise had no significant impact on the rail industry. Jordanhill railway station

[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. FS Class E636 -- Added many sections and greatly expanded (quite finished, I think); I've put a lot of work there, and would like someone to rate it and point me possible errors, if possible. Thanks. -PanozzoFetuso (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. First Great WesternPlease could you reasses this as it does not have an importance rating and i've put quite a lot of work into it.Please could reasses it once again as further improvements have been made, could I also request some comments on strengths and weakneses of the article. --FGWQPR (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. FS class E656 I've recently wrote these articles, i would like an opinion about them (hope i did nothing wrong, i'm new here) --- PanozzoFetuso (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. List of Rail Accidents - Top importance? Seriously?!?!? I know it's in the train topics list right now, but it's barely even an article. An article explaining the common types of rail accidents, their causes, and methods of prevention might be appropriate, but a *list of accidents* as one of the "core topics of rail transport"? I don't think so! 69.202.76.231 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    I think it is one of the core topics. --Hirohisat 初夏 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Rail transport in the People's Republic of China - need some input on where this article stands, what can be improved, better formatting and structure. Cheers, Poeloq 11:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (significant edits have been made per the last assessment to hopefully improve the article beyond B status; it would be appreciated if the assessor could leave a few comments on any weaknessess of the article and future directions) (The article has since been promoted to GA glass; it would still be helpful to get some feedback from the project on further improvements) I have now requested a peer review of this artice. I would appreciate it if the Trains wikiproject could give feedback on this article (I listed it here for assessment and comments about a year ago). Biomedeng (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. SR West Country Class - Several improvements in flow, references to books and audio-visual material plus a more structured approach to layout.Since been made GA-further feedback helpful.--Bulleid Pacific 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    FAC discussion. Slambo (Speak) 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Canadian comfort cab - Rewritten to article from, pix addedKG6YKN 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Not sure what you want done mate, its a start class article Pickle 15:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Michigan Central Railroad Depot - New assessment request for this list. I also encourage expansion by other editors. ---- DanTD 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    I've put it down as a "dab" as currently it is just a list of stations (ie a dab page) - hope that helps. Pickle 05:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    Fine with me. I suppose I could probably do this myself to St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railroad Depot and Missouri Pacific Railroad Depot, but they both really need more stations added to them. ---- DanTD 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please do, there is by no means any need to pass it by this page first (be bold!) Pickle 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Woodside (LIRR station) -- Reassessment requested, since I have a feeling there's no need for the expansion request tag anymore, and the person who first posted it loved my expansion. ---- DanTD 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Y Done --Hirohisat Kiwi 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    It's still a stub. --Hirohisat Kiwi 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    I would venture its a start, IMHO a stub is really short. Once an article has a few paragrpahs, a reff or two, photo and good infobox its a start. Here is a real stub Rye railway station. Pickle 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Norwood Junction railway station -- Reassesment required, since i have added many pictures which was a downside before (for not having them), so much that I need a Gallery section! Plus I've added many new sections including History, Transport Connections and Future. Pafcool2 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    I would say move to an A possibly GA, but would like other editors help with this. Bluegoblin7 18:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    Since it is already a B, you would need to nominate it for GA status through the GA procedure. I'm sure if you posted notices up on TWP, UK trains, and London transport notice boards you would get some help in fulfilling the GA requirements. Pickle 03:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    I suggest that it should be referenced first. There's barely any references... --Hirohisat Kiwi 06:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Grand Trunk Railway Station - Major conversion from a redirect to Durand Union Station to a list of Grand Trunk Railroad Stations. Contains a US rail stub, but no Canadian RR stub, and should be expanded. ---- DanTD 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    Not sure what you want done here. Its a dab page, all it needs to do is list the varios stations, it dosen't require any rating (does it?) Pickle 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I was also seeking better stub and talk page tags, not to mention a call for expansion. Since this list covers both stations in the US & Canada, I wanted to make sure nothing from north of the border is overlooked, since WikiProject Trains has often been accused of only focusing on US-related railroad articles. Besides the WikiProject Trains tag on the back, I also added the National Register of Historic Places tag on the back, but I don't know of the Canadian equivelant of that, or whether there's a project for it. ---- DanTD 02:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Silver City Comet - New article, assessment needed. Article covers the diesel train and the service it provided until its demise. - Cheers, Vicer Userpage | Talk 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've put it at a start class as it could be expanded. Not sure on importance though. Simply south 11:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Waterloo International railway station - stubbed off from Waterloo station into a main article of its own, and then significantly expanded and referenced. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've put it as a start class as it is still quite short at the moment and maybe there should be a few more sections and pictures. Also look at the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Eurostar. Good start though. Simply south 11:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Mineola (LIRR station) - Reassessment requested, due to major expansion this fall. No image there, as in Bayside (LIRR station)(see above), but I'd consider this a start class article to say the least. ----DanTD (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    UPDATE -- I've just added an image a few days ago, but it could use others. Plus, I see that it was already reassessed, and hasn't been crossed off this list yet. ----DanTD (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Réseau des Bains de Mer New article that I created, covers the part of the RBM that closed in 1947/51. The other part of the RBM now forms the Chemin de Fer de la Baie de Somme which I expanded and has been rated, but also needs reassessment now. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Isle of Mull Railway - I have expanded this article. Needs reassessment, currently stub class but I think it should now qualify as start class. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Babylon (LIRR station) - Reassessment requested due to expansion within the past six months, as well as recently installed image(although others might be worth considering if somebody else wants to post them). ----DanTD (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Valley Stream (LIRR station) - Reassessment requested after recent major expansion with historic content. ----DanTD (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Fairbourne Railway - Article importance not assessed as yet - requires more work to improve quality Willsmith3 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Chemins de fer de Corse Greatly expanded, needs reassessment for quality.
  22. Western Avenue (Metra Milwaukee District/North Line) - Reassessment requested. Currently assessed as a dab page, which is more appropriate for Western Avenue (Metra) than this one. ----DanTD (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Well no, i have not made significant changes recently but otherwise this has gone through a large change and it is ages since an assessment was done so i request one on the London Underground. Simply south (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. Arriva Trains Wales was last assessed in July 2006. It has changed a lot since then, and I'd appreciate an assessment of its quality. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. Lynbrook (LIRR station) - Reassessment requested after recent major expansion with historic content, just like Valley Stream (LIRR station). ----DanTD (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Looks like it was already reassessed by Simply south on April 20, 2008. Thanks a lot. ----DanTD (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  26. Cedarhurst (LIRR station) - Reassessment requested due to the addition of historic content, although it's not as extensive as the historic content of Valley Stream (LIRR station) or Lynbrook (LIRR station). ----DanTD (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Hold On - I need to make some corrections for this one. ----DanTD (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  27. SStB - Gutenberg Needs first assessment. Gaia Octavia Agrippa T | C 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Rosedale (LIRR station) - Reassessment due to expansion with historic content. Just out of curiostiy, does anybody plan to cross out some of the other requests that have already been fulfilled? ----DanTD (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. ICE 1 -- replaced the article with a translation of the German article that recently recieved Goog Article status. --Qualle (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. Hempstead (LIRR station) - Reassessment requested. The article has been expanded with historic content, chapters, and a total of five images, four of which were submitted by me within the past week. ----DanTD (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  31. Basingstoke railway station - has seen recent changes including adding more information, images and references. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment log

Rail transport 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 8, 2008

[edit] June 4, 2008

[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 5, 2008

[edit] April 22, 2008

[edit] April 15, 2008

[edit] April 6, 2008

[edit] April 2, 2008

[edit] March 30, 2008

Log truncated as it is too huge!