Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Big Brother! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Big Brother 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 recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Big Brother project}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Big Brother articles by quality and Category:Big Brother articles by importance.

Statistics

[edit]
Big Brother articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FL 3 3
GA 2 3 1 1 7
B 5 22 8 1 1 37
C 5 73 47 16 4 145
Start 19 117 127 44 1 14 322
Stub 11 67 31 18 5 132
List 2 2 10 1 45 60
Category 82 82
Disambig 39 39
File 276 276
Project 30 30
Redirect 1 5 4 92 102
Template 30 30
Other 2 2
Assessed 40 284 226 94 553 70 1,267
Unassessed 19 19
Total 40 284 226 94 553 89 1,286
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 3,107 Ω = 4.83

The categories have been used to generate statistics on the number of articles in each class. The table is udated automatically by a bot, so please do not edit it.

See also

[edit]

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{Big Brother project}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated?
Please list it on the WikiProject talk page.
Who can assess articles?
Anyone 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.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
You can ask on the WikiProject talk page.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can ask any member of the project to rate the article again or ask on the WikiProject talk page.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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 WikiProject talk page.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Big Brother project}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Big Brother project | class=??? | importance=??? }}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

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.

Quality scale

[edit]
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Big Brother 2009 (UK)
Big Brother 11 (U.S.)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Big Brother 10 (U.S.)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Big Brother 3 (U.S.)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A 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
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Celebrity Big Brother Australia
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Bree Amer
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of Big Brother (UK) housemates
Future A topic about which details are subject to change often.
More detailed criteria
The article covers a future topic of which no broadcast version exists so far and all information is subject to change when new information arises from reliable sources. With multiple reliable sources, there might be information that contradicts other information in the same or other articles. Not all future categories will be rated with "Future" and may be rated like normal.
 Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event draws near. Material added might be speculation and should be carefully sourced. Big Brother 14 (U.S.)
(As of April 2012)
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:Software
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. Big Brother 2008
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Template:Pinoy Big Brother
NA Any non-article page that fits no other classification. The page contains no article content. Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified. Big Brother 10 USA logo

Importance scale

[edit]

Articles should be rated on the importance scale based on their notability as specified in the 'Notability' column. If this is unclear then the 'Examples' column also gives a general guide on what the importance of an article should be, but bear in mind that articles with exceptionally high or low notabiliy may be classified into a different class depending on this notability.

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, articles with greater popular notability may be rated higher than articles which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to people of a certain geographical area.

When interpreting the examples column, as a rule of thumb, articles should be classified into the class below whatever article could be considered their 'parent article'. If an article could be classified under two different classes (e.g. Bree Amer was both a contestant and Big Brother presenter) then the higher class should be used.

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 Notability Examples
Top {{Top-Class}} Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. The main article for Big Brother worldwide

Country-specific articles

High {{High-Class}} Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Articles relating to Big Brother worldwide

Articles relating to Big Brother in a certain country, e.g. presenters and spin-off shows

Series-specific articles

Mid {{Mid-Class}} Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Articles relating to a series of Big Brother

Big Brother housemates, unless they also come under High class.

Low {{Low-Class}} Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Any articles split from or relating to Mid-Class articles
??? None This article is of unknown notability. This article is of unknown importance to this project. It has not yet been rated.
If you want to lend a hand, feel free to browse the complete listing of unassessed articles.

Example assessments

[edit]

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

Quality

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

Importance

  • {{Big Brother project|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{Big Brother project|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{Big Brother project|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{Big Brother project|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother/Assessment&oldid=1153911386"