Wikipedia:WikiProject Walt Disney World/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Walt Disney World WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles on Walt Disney World. 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.

Walt Disney World
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
B 3 3 3 1 1 11
Start 2 10 49 10 1 72
Stub 3 9 9 2 23
Assessed 5 16 61 20 4 106
Unassessed 1 10 5 165 181
Total 5 17 71 25 169 287

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Walt Disney World}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Walt Disney World articles by quality and Category:Walt Disney World articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

See also General FAQ on Assessment
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 (except for Featured and Good articles).
How do I add an article to the Walt Disney World WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject Walt Disney World}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Walt Disney World WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article? 
People at Wikipedia:Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
What if I don't agree with a quality 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.
What if I don't agree with an importance rating? 
If you believe an item is mis-classed or it's class has since changed, please list it in the Requesting an assessment with your reasons. Please see the importance scale below and make sure your claims follow the criteria listed.
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!
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, you can go to the main project discussion page.

[edit] Instructions

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

{{WikiProject Walt Disney World| class=??? | importance=??? | ... }} (There are options on the template to add a link to a Peer Review, see the template for information on doing this)

While assessing articles, please rate the class and importance with a capital letter. This will insure uniformity on the template.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Walt Disney World 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
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 scale

There is a discussion going on about the importance ratings. Please contribute to the discussion. If you are assessing articles at this time you can leave the importance off of the tag and that can be assessed later.

[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. New articles do not need to be listed here unless they have gone unrated for more than 2 weeks. Please be sure to add new articles to the assessment table.

  1. Wonders of Life
  2. Universe of Energy
  3. Add articles here

[edit] Importance review section

If you believe an item is incorrectly classified in importance or its importance has changed, please feel free to list it below along with your justification.

  1. Add articles here

[edit] Worklist and log

Click here for the complete log.