Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lebanon/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] From scratch

I'm posting here to get everyone's opinion on what grading scheme for assessment we should follow. I think it's best to use the conventional grade scheme for article quality and the importance scale used by the Wikipedia Release Version team and WikiProject Canada respectively (both shown below). What do you think?

[edit] Proposed grading scheme

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] Proposed importance scale

We will of course have to make some modifications to this scale (e.g. replacing Canada with Lebanon).

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about Canada. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on {{Canada topics}} A reader who is not involved in Canada 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. Canada, Provinces and territories of Canada
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding specific topics about Canada or general topics about parts of Canada Most readers will have some knowledge of the subject Articles at this level cover particular issues related to Canada, specific terms are used to detail the topic British Columbia, Prime Minister of Canada
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in Canada. 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 Canada. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Jasper National Park, Flag of the Governor General of Canada
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Canada, but may cover topics related to Canada. Few readers outside of Canada 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 Canada, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Villages of Alberta, Canada's grand railway hotels

LestatdeLioncourt talk 14:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is great. I think it would be a great resource and help focus our efforts. --Xtcrider 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
nice work lioncourt, it will surely help us expand and improve lebanese related articles. Fedayee 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks even though I can't take credit for this work :). But it is essential for us to start assessing articles in order to determine which ones need more care and have a more well-defined scope of operation. I will be working on the main assessment page this week. I hope you can all join with the assessment efforts. And please call me Lestat. LestatdeLioncourt talk 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
These are great! I think they'll be really useful for helping us focus our attention on where it's needed most. — George Saliba [talk] 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Super!... Great Start, LeStat... I am still unfamiliar with things like classes, etc... When I have time, I will catch up. One thing I want to mention is that many articles about Lebanon specifically need Lebanese Editors who are a native speakers of Lebanese and have "accurate" familarity with Lebanon. I am not sure how to incorporate this yet... Lcnj 08:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick remark, I think that's a very good work Lestat, these categories and grading scheme are suitable. for the moment, i'm little bit 'overbooked' and far away from home, i'll 'study' in detail what you've proposed in a week. Captainm 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added assessment to template

I've added the assessment (rating and importance) to the WikiProject Lebanon Template. Please take a look. — George Saliba [talk] 10:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've filled in Lebanon's values (GA and top) on the Lebanon talk page as an example of what it looks like. — George Saliba [talk] 10:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the categories automatically generated by the template to the page. While these categories don't exist (as nobody has written any text on the pages yet), they are still functional and correctly list articles with that tag. The largest of the categories right now are obviously unassessed Lebanon articles and unknown-importance Lebanon articles. If someone wants to write some text on these category pages explaining what they are and how people can help I think that would be useful. — George Saliba [talk] 11:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hats off to you George! Spectacular work~ I'll see what help I can give you with these categories. Adding just a sentence or two to each would be sufficient I think, so it shouldn't be too much trouble. —LestatdeLioncourt 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)