Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Eurovision! This department focuses on assessing the quality and importance of Wikipedia's Eurovision articles. Ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories.
The assessment system used by WikiProject Eurovision to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.
The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list, so this assessment level is shared between the two scales.
A stub that undergoes some development will progress to the next stage of article evolution. An article at this stage provides some meaningful content, but is typically incomplete and lacks adequate references, structure, and supporting materials. At this stage, it becomes possible to distinguish between prose articles and lists; depending on its form, an article at this level will be assessed as a Start-Class prose article or a List-Class list.
As the article continues to develop, it will reach the C-Class level. At this stage, the article is reasonably structured and contains substantial content and supporting materials, but may still be incomplete or poorly referenced. As articles progress to this stage, the assessment process begins to take on a more structured form, and specific criteria are introduced against which articles are rated.
An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopaedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it may not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. Articles at this stage commonly undergo peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing a formal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors.
After reaching the B-Class level, an article may be submitted for assessment as a good article. Good articles must meet a set of criteria similar to those required for the B-Class assessment level, and must additionally undergo the formal good article review process. This assessment level is available only for prose articles; no comparable level exists for lists.
The featured article and featured list ratings represent the pinnacle of article evolution and the best that Wikipedia has to offer; an article at this level is professional, outstanding, and represents a definitive source for encyclopaedic information. Featured status is assigned only through a thorough independent review process; this process can be gruelling for the unprepared, and editors are highly advised to submit articles for peer review prior to nominating them for featured status.
Quality ratings are intended to assess the quality of an article by using the standard assessment scale. An article's quality rating is independent of its importance rating.
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.
It is:
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
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;
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
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
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.
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
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);
The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria:
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.
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.
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.
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.
The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or trivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly non-encyclopaedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.
Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
Comprehensiveness.
(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
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.
Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.
The individual review process is used for all assessment activities up to the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.
Article authors are free to assess their own articles under this process. However, by convention, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at the assessment request page.
The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.
By convention, Project Eurovision articles are typically listed in the history section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.
The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria.
Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.
The featured article candidacy and featured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets the featured article or list criteria.
Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.
Find an article related to this project, and tag it if necessary.
Read the article and analyse it.
Place your assessment in the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} banner on the articles talk page (according to the scales below).
Unless the reasoning for an assessment is self-evident, such as assessing a very short article as Stub-class and Low-importance, please consider placing a summary of your assessment on the article's talk page. This should include a rationale for your choice of ratings, and possibly suggestions for future contributors on how to improve the article's quality rating. If the assessment is likely to be controversial you may wish to leave a note about it on the main project talk page.
For events that have yet to take place, but still require content being added with information of the progress in the run-up to the event itself, add "future=y" to the banner to ensure relevant future articles are flagged.
All non-articles including categories, disambiguation pages, files, portals, project pages, redirects, and templates will automatically be categorized appropriately by simply adding {{WikiProject Eurovision}} to the talk page. For redirects, please include the importance parameter (detailed in the next section), as this assists in categorising redirects.
Importance ratings are intended to assess the importance of an article to the project, and this guide acts as a general standard by which to measure WikiProject Eurovision articles. An importance rating is independent of the quality rating and the importance of an article to WikiProject Eurovision may be different to that of other projects.
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritise work on these articles. It is also utilised 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.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Eurovision}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Eurovision}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Eurovision is free to add or change the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to?
For the most part, yes in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be made here). However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.
6. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
7. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
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.
9. Where can I get more comments about an article?
The peer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
10. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
11. 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!
12. 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, or contact the project coordinators directly.
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 assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Old and fulfilled requests are periodically removed from the list.
Please note:
Only a small group of editors watch this list, and as a result, response times to assessment requests can vary from instant to over a week.
If you aim for an article to be promoted to GA or FA class, please consider requesting a peer review as well, so the article can be exposed to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors.
Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:
The current status of Category:Unassessed Eurovision articles = 0 articles unassessed. After articles have been assessed, they are automatically removed from this category.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
